Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How many statues have to be removed before slavery never happened?The torch march by blob supporting Nazi wasn’t a protest? What was it? Just blob supporters being blob supporters?
So people who are trying to protect history and preserve public displays are Nazi's, but the people who want to tear history and relics down are not.
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
George Orwell, 1984
Lost Cause statues are not "history". They're propaganda transmitters. The technology of the time.
NO statue is a "history". History is kept in what we call "books". The purpose of statues is not "history" --- it is "glorification".
No, it is history, just history the commies can't stand. If we allow them to remove history in statues, what's stopping them from removing history in books?
They're already rewriting the books.
.
I've had the thought that political parties need to go away. What was the whole point of a political party anyway? Sounds to me like the very idea has division built in by its inherent nature.My response was to him saying we need to get rid of dems "permanently". Yeah, if someone wants to attack you, by all means , defend yourself, but what I'm saying is the answer isnt to be trying to "take them out". That's just another talking point the left doesnt need to be able use against the right.
Dear ChrisL and ThisIsMe
I agree that it isn't going to work to try to exclude, oppress or change all Liberals/Leftist/Democrats.
That's like trying to solve problems of Christianity by banning all religions.
I see people propose this, thinking that will solve the problem. But people FORM groups around
their beliefs, both religious and political, so they will always use bigger groups to leverage their interests.
Instead of the Left and Right competing to vote each other out of office or overrule the other side,
what we could do is start recognizing political beliefs, parties and religions the same way
we respect other religious organizations, where they are expected to fund their own policies.
NOT compete to get "majority rule" or judges on the bench to IMPOSE such beliefs on others!
When we get to the point we both recognize political beliefs as equal,
and see the advantages of defending these interests equally without compromise or conflict with the other,
then we might finally realize true pluralism, inclusion of diversity, and equal freedom, justice
and protections of the laws for all people. If we are going to achieve equal justice under law,
that isn't "equal" if one group amasses more power to censor or remove the other group.
Longterm solutions would likely involve mutual input and participation by all groups affected.
I believe the language, structure and process in our Constitution serve as a key framework in that process.
It would be great if peoples ideology was never even known. Not every dem and repub agree party line, but most will vote party line because of the letter after their name.
What would it be like if instead of people voting for a letter, we declare that political affiliation is never shown, instead, we all have to look at each candidate, and vote based on what we think of their platform.
I know some do this, but a lot just vote for their party, and even if they dont like what the candidate has to say, they say "well, I'll vote dem because I sure dont want a repub in office".
Also the media, I think the media is instrumental in creating division. Maybe if more people watched cspan, instead of cnn or fox, that would probably help a little.
The only purpose of a political party is to consolidate power into a collective. Has nothing to do with ideologies, which will change with the winds. I think a political party should be chartered, like a corporation, for a period of 20 years, nonrenewable. After that time it's gone whether it's accomplished what it set out to do 20 years before or not. Because if you didn't, you haven't been effective, and if you did, 20 years is about the span of time a collective's interests start drifting away and whatever the original ideals were get supplanted by the one that all parties devolve to, which is perpetuating its own power for the sake of power.
Of course the other major factor that creates this division is the frickin' Electoral College, more specifically the WTA system, without which the bullshit concepts of "red" states and "blue" states would not exist.
Well, ar least the electoral college is constitutional. I dont remember the constitution saying anything about political parties.
Again, just like political parties, there should be no red states or blue states, because there are people of all ideology living in every state. The whole idea basically pits one group of people against another.
As for the electoral college, I think it would work much better if we werent voting for Republicans and democrats. The reason why there is so much turmoil right now is exactly because of this division of people, brought on by an "us against them" mentality.
Exactly. The Duopoly sets that up, effectively shutting out any challenge to it, the WTA/EC being one of its major tools. Vast numbers of voters, probably the vast majority, vote not so much for one candidate as to block the other. And dominating both sides of the election each half of the Duopoly knows it has no incentive to present a quality candidate. All it has to do is present one that beats the other side of the Duopoly.
If the WTA/EC doesn't exist, that doesn't happen. A third or fourth party or no-party candidate then has an actual chance at scoring electoral votes. Without the WTA/EC, there are no "red" or "blue" states. The WTA system certainly isn't part of the Constitution but it remains informative that James Madison, a chief architect of the EC, wanted a Constitutional Amendment that would ban the practice of WTA. He could see where it was heading even in his time.
Take away political parties and walla, the electoral college seems more reasonable now, because you are not voting on a person, but an idea.
Actually you're still voting for a person. Take away the WTA system and Bob's your uncle.
Walla by the way is half of a city in Washington. I think maybe you mean voilà.
How many statues have to be removed before slavery never happened?So people who are trying to protect history and preserve public displays are Nazi's, but the people who want to tear history and relics down are not.
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
George Orwell, 1984
Lost Cause statues are not "history". They're propaganda transmitters. The technology of the time.
NO statue is a "history". History is kept in what we call "books". The purpose of statues is not "history" --- it is "glorification".
No, it is history, just history the commies can't stand. If we allow them to remove history in statues, what's stopping them from removing history in books?
They're already rewriting the books.
.
Bingo. You could literally remove literally every statue of everything, and slavery will still have happened to the same degree, because that record is kept in books, not in monuments.
OMG! Typos using his phone! IMPEACH!How many statues have to be removed before slavery never happened?Lost Cause statues are not "history". They're propaganda transmitters. The technology of the time.
NO statue is a "history". History is kept in what we call "books". The purpose of statues is not "history" --- it is "glorification".
No, it is history, just history the commies can't stand. If we allow them to remove history in statues, what's stopping them from removing history in books?
They're already rewriting the books.
.
Bingo. You could literally remove literally every statue of everything, and slavery will still have happened to the same degree, because that record is kept in books, not in monuments.
Really, you'd have to ask the blob supporters about the absurdity of the position that every statue that is erected supposedly has the right to occupy that space for the rest of the time until the Sun absorbs the Earth....
Then again, look at the absurd lengths these dopes go to to prop up their blob...
View attachment 300297
When asked about it...White House Press Secretary said....
Reporter: "Do you think people should be concerned that the president posted a somewhat incoherent tweet last night, and then it stayed up for hours?" the reporter asked.
"Uh, no," Spicer replied.
"Why did it stay up so long after? Is no one watching this?" the reporter wondered.
"No, I think the president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant," Spicer said.
Absurdity is their brand.
How many statues have to be removed before slavery never happened?Lost Cause statues are not "history". They're propaganda transmitters. The technology of the time.
NO statue is a "history". History is kept in what we call "books". The purpose of statues is not "history" --- it is "glorification".
No, it is history, just history the commies can't stand. If we allow them to remove history in statues, what's stopping them from removing history in books?
They're already rewriting the books.
.
Bingo. You could literally remove literally every statue of everything, and slavery will still have happened to the same degree, because that record is kept in books, not in monuments.
Really, you'd have to ask the blob supporters about the absurdity of the position that every statue that is erected supposedly has the right to occupy that space for the rest of the time until the Sun absorbs the Earth....
Then again, look at the absurd lengths these dopes go to to prop up their blob...
View attachment 300297
When asked about it...White House Press Secretary said....
Reporter: "Do you think people should be concerned that the president posted a somewhat incoherent tweet last night, and then it stayed up for hours?" the reporter asked.
"Uh, no," Spicer replied.
"Why did it stay up so long after? Is no one watching this?" the reporter wondered.
"No, I think the president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant," Spicer said.
Absurdity is their brand.
OMG! Typos using his phone! IMPEACH!How many statues have to be removed before slavery never happened?No, it is history, just history the commies can't stand. If we allow them to remove history in statues, what's stopping them from removing history in books?
They're already rewriting the books.
.
Bingo. You could literally remove literally every statue of everything, and slavery will still have happened to the same degree, because that record is kept in books, not in monuments.
Really, you'd have to ask the blob supporters about the absurdity of the position that every statue that is erected supposedly has the right to occupy that space for the rest of the time until the Sun absorbs the Earth....
Then again, look at the absurd lengths these dopes go to to prop up their blob...
View attachment 300297
When asked about it...White House Press Secretary said....
Reporter: "Do you think people should be concerned that the president posted a somewhat incoherent tweet last night, and then it stayed up for hours?" the reporter asked.
"Uh, no," Spicer replied.
"Why did it stay up so long after? Is no one watching this?" the reporter wondered.
"No, I think the president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant," Spicer said.
Absurdity is their brand.
ONLY 5 MORE YEARS TO GO!!!!OMG! Typos using his phone! IMPEACH!How many statues have to be removed before slavery never happened?They're already rewriting the books.
.
Bingo. You could literally remove literally every statue of everything, and slavery will still have happened to the same degree, because that record is kept in books, not in monuments.
Really, you'd have to ask the blob supporters about the absurdity of the position that every statue that is erected supposedly has the right to occupy that space for the rest of the time until the Sun absorbs the Earth....
Then again, look at the absurd lengths these dopes go to to prop up their blob...
View attachment 300297
When asked about it...White House Press Secretary said....
Reporter: "Do you think people should be concerned that the president posted a somewhat incoherent tweet last night, and then it stayed up for hours?" the reporter asked.
"Uh, no," Spicer replied.
"Why did it stay up so long after? Is no one watching this?" the reporter wondered.
"No, I think the president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant," Spicer said.
Absurdity is their brand.
Yeah, you're either incredibly dense or you're being purposefully obtuse. I'm guessing your density could stop radiation and EMPs.
OMG! Typos using his phone! IMPEACH!How many statues have to be removed before slavery never happened?They're already rewriting the books.
.
Bingo. You could literally remove literally every statue of everything, and slavery will still have happened to the same degree, because that record is kept in books, not in monuments.
Really, you'd have to ask the blob supporters about the absurdity of the position that every statue that is erected supposedly has the right to occupy that space for the rest of the time until the Sun absorbs the Earth....
Then again, look at the absurd lengths these dopes go to to prop up their blob...
View attachment 300297
When asked about it...White House Press Secretary said....
Reporter: "Do you think people should be concerned that the president posted a somewhat incoherent tweet last night, and then it stayed up for hours?" the reporter asked.
"Uh, no," Spicer replied.
"Why did it stay up so long after? Is no one watching this?" the reporter wondered.
"No, I think the president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant," Spicer said.
Absurdity is their brand.
Yeah, you're either incredibly dense or you're being purposefully obtuse. I'm guessing your density could stop radiation and EMPs.
Moving something from a public sphere to a museum is “destroying” it?
Try quoting the entire context. I'm telling the poster up there that history is recorded in books, not in statues. That's beyond dispute. And yes the history in those books IS well known to anyone who seeks out them there books.
This statement from the safety of the internet.I love it when you pretend to be tough.
Dear candycorn
The DIFFERENCE between ME defending my beliefs in inclusion and equal protection of ALL OTHER BELIEFS
is that
A. I seek to PROTECT AND DEFEND - not EXCLUDE OR CENSOR - the beliefs and expressions of others
B. People who believe in voting out, removing, excluding, overruling, bullying, badmouthing, coercing or punishing
people of other beliefs are NOT acting or working toward being "MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE"
Do you understand the difference?
If two groups are arguing to
A. only use the POSITIVE numbers on the number line
B. only use the NEGATIVE numbers on the number line
C. vs. ME "imposing my viewpoint/belief" that we need BOTH the positive numbers,
negative numbers, rational and irrational, whole and natural, real and complex, etc etc.
to express ALL the relationships and values out there "in different contexts"
WHICH of these viewpoints A B or C is going to accommodate all the other views equally?
candycorn
MAJOR NOTE:
I STILL believe if there is going to be any change in people's beliefs or approach
it should be by INFORMED CONSENT, free choice and will of that person,
NOT by coercion, NOT by insulting or attacking, NOT by forcing change through
govt against the beliefs or consent of that person.
If you don't believe in any opponents "forcing their beliefs on you through govt"
I AGREE WITH YOU. That's what I'm against.
So that's ANOTHER difference candycorn
I don't believe in "imposing" my beliefs THROUGH GOVT.
All I do is DEFEND and EXPLAIN why it's better to be inclusive, to respect
and protect ALL people's views and beliefs from such "imposition through govt."
I hope you understand BOTH areas where my beliefs and approach are DIFFERENT.
Is this more clear? Thank you!
you sort of missed the point.
Dear candycorn cc: Pogo
Then it appears to be mutual
If your point is you are saying I'm imposing my beliefs as much as I am arguing Pogo or others are
1. first of all I don't believe in imposing my beliefs through govt and forcing that on others.
2. secondly, I don't believe in removing or excluding the statues or beliefs of others about them.
People who want to negate the beliefs of others by exclusion
then complain about being excluded or discriminated against themselves.
Nobody wants that done to them!
That's why I defend my beliefs in defending everyone's beliefs and rights to those equally.
When it comes to Statues, removing them would endorse one side's beliefs and prevent the others.
Endorsing such beliefs ABOVE or SUPERIOR to beliefs in preserving history
also THREATENS those beliefs and people's equal rights to them.
However, agreeing to preserve statues in a park or moving them to a museum area, for example,
would allow for BOTH and prohibit NEITHER.
I'm saying we don't have to "impose" one belief or another.
If we seek a common solution where everyone can have their own beliefs kept intact,
then it doesn't matter how much we believe or don't believe in this or that.
We don't threaten each other, and don't worry the other belief is a threat to ours.
That's what I support and advocate.
But I don't believe in "forcing this through govt" but creating an environment
where people naturally choose to respect and include beliefs of others
because we equally want our beliefs to be included without fear of imposition.
ohhhh Kay.
My thing is this. If you’re going to have statues to X and X falls out of favor one day, removing the statue doesn’t erase X from the history of the nation. It means that the current society doesn’t want to highlight X.
I still don’t see how torch carrying Nazis had any role to play in the removal of a statue. Me thinks most are using that as cover to explain what the true motives were...hate and intimidation
Dear candycorn
That's fine if all sides agree to remove or move the statue someplace else where it can still be preserved.
But I don't agree with
a. removing it just because one side outbullies and forces the other when they didn't both agree
b. destroying the statue as with Freed Slave history and Civil Right landmarks destroyed where I live
where these are not something that can be replaced or recreated
From consulting with historic preservationists, including African American cultural and political history,
even moving a historic house two inches off its original foundation destroys its historic significance and value.
Moving historic houses to a part for convenience destroys the integrity and value
rather than leaving them where they were originally built.
Unknowingly candycorn this is already "imposing" the "white cultural thinking" that you
can just "relocate" Native Americans or Freed Slave sites and culture "to another location"
and the "history can still be taught and preserved."
That's NOT the same as preserving the culture on the original site.
Because of cultural differences in beliefs on WHEN it is better to relocate rather
than destroy something altogether, THAT is why I would insist on a CONSENSUS
between the people who want to preserve a cultural site or landmark and those
who want to move or remove it. Because if it's destroying something, I'd rather
work out a solution that protects the people on both sides of the conflict.
Moving something from a public sphere to a museum is “destroying” it?
No...it’s merely no longer celebrating whatever the statue was meant to commemorate.
As for “all sides” agreeing...that is simplistic. There can be a dozen sides to any issue. A statue of MLK for example may have those in favor or opposed to the man, those who may have admired the cause but not the man, disparaged the cause but liked the oratory, didn’t like his message but admired his civil disobedience... Demanding a consensus is problematic. Also, it would work against any further commemoration if “all sides” have to agree. We saw th is in the 9/11 memorial at Ground Zero...there were passionate disagreements about what to include and what to leave out.
Also, it would work against any further commemoration if “all sides” have to agree.
How many statues have to be removed before slavery never happened?The torch march by blob supporting Nazi wasn’t a protest? What was it? Just blob supporters being blob supporters?
So people who are trying to protect history and preserve public displays are Nazi's, but the people who want to tear history and relics down are not.
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
George Orwell, 1984
Lost Cause statues are not "history". They're propaganda transmitters. The technology of the time.
NO statue is a "history". History is kept in what we call "books". The purpose of statues is not "history" --- it is "glorification".
No, it is history, just history the commies can't stand. If we allow them to remove history in statues, what's stopping them from removing history in books?
They're already rewriting the books.
.
Irrelevant pick of metaphorical cherries.
Bullshit, you try to blame machines and not the people using them.
Oh do I now.
Why don't you quote me. Oh wait that's right, you can't quote that which does not exist. All you can do is make it up.
Hint machines do nothing by themselves. Are you saying Windsor would be just as violent as Detroit if they had guns?
Not at all. The point there is sailing right over your noggin.
Thanks, you just proved my point, it boils down to the people involved, not the machines they have. BTW are you aware that 1 in 4 Canadians own firearms.
26. How many people in Canada legally own firearms?
How vaguely interesting. Snore.
Yes, it is down to people and the culture they practice. As in Gun Culture. That culture exists whether you have one or not.
So now you're back to blaming machines, I guess you're indoctrination won't allow you to admit the truth. In your own words, define "gun culture".
.
LMAO!!This statement from the safety of the internet.I love it when you pretend to be tough.
I love it when you pretend to be tough.
The mall is a gun free zone! The rumpy butt should have been arrested for that.
As for tezass you may prefer a .40 but I love me some 22 inch biceps.
you sort of missed the point.
Dear candycorn cc: Pogo
Then it appears to be mutual
If your point is you are saying I'm imposing my beliefs as much as I am arguing Pogo or others are
1. first of all I don't believe in imposing my beliefs through govt and forcing that on others.
2. secondly, I don't believe in removing or excluding the statues or beliefs of others about them.
People who want to negate the beliefs of others by exclusion
then complain about being excluded or discriminated against themselves.
Nobody wants that done to them!
That's why I defend my beliefs in defending everyone's beliefs and rights to those equally.
When it comes to Statues, removing them would endorse one side's beliefs and prevent the others.
Endorsing such beliefs ABOVE or SUPERIOR to beliefs in preserving history
also THREATENS those beliefs and people's equal rights to them.
However, agreeing to preserve statues in a park or moving them to a museum area, for example,
would allow for BOTH and prohibit NEITHER.
I'm saying we don't have to "impose" one belief or another.
If we seek a common solution where everyone can have their own beliefs kept intact,
then it doesn't matter how much we believe or don't believe in this or that.
We don't threaten each other, and don't worry the other belief is a threat to ours.
That's what I support and advocate.
But I don't believe in "forcing this through govt" but creating an environment
where people naturally choose to respect and include beliefs of others
because we equally want our beliefs to be included without fear of imposition.
ohhhh Kay.
My thing is this. If you’re going to have statues to X and X falls out of favor one day, removing the statue doesn’t erase X from the history of the nation. It means that the current society doesn’t want to highlight X.
I still don’t see how torch carrying Nazis had any role to play in the removal of a statue. Me thinks most are using that as cover to explain what the true motives were...hate and intimidation
Dear candycorn
That's fine if all sides agree to remove or move the statue someplace else where it can still be preserved.
But I don't agree with
a. removing it just because one side outbullies and forces the other when they didn't both agree
b. destroying the statue as with Freed Slave history and Civil Right landmarks destroyed where I live
where these are not something that can be replaced or recreated
From consulting with historic preservationists, including African American cultural and political history,
even moving a historic house two inches off its original foundation destroys its historic significance and value.
Moving historic houses to a part for convenience destroys the integrity and value
rather than leaving them where they were originally built.
Unknowingly candycorn this is already "imposing" the "white cultural thinking" that you
can just "relocate" Native Americans or Freed Slave sites and culture "to another location"
and the "history can still be taught and preserved."
That's NOT the same as preserving the culture on the original site.
Because of cultural differences in beliefs on WHEN it is better to relocate rather
than destroy something altogether, THAT is why I would insist on a CONSENSUS
between the people who want to preserve a cultural site or landmark and those
who want to move or remove it. Because if it's destroying something, I'd rather
work out a solution that protects the people on both sides of the conflict.
Moving something from a public sphere to a museum is “destroying” it?
No...it’s merely no longer celebrating whatever the statue was meant to commemorate.
As for “all sides” agreeing...that is simplistic. There can be a dozen sides to any issue. A statue of MLK for example may have those in favor or opposed to the man, those who may have admired the cause but not the man, disparaged the cause but liked the oratory, didn’t like his message but admired his civil disobedience... Demanding a consensus is problematic. Also, it would work against any further commemoration if “all sides” have to agree. We saw th is in the 9/11 memorial at Ground Zero...there were passionate disagreements about what to include and what to leave out.
Also, it would work against any further commemoration if “all sides” have to agree.
You just voided your whole argument there and told the TRUTH about Charlottesville.. There ARE good people on both sides of this issue... And we SHOULDN'T have to ALL agree...
Because I love maximum freedom I'm willing to tolerate and defend stuff that people do that I personally hate..
Without THAT -- we don't have a "free country"....
Lol, you feeling tough too sweetie?I love it when you pretend to be tough.
Please go knock somebody's hat off.
Then tell us how it went.
Try quoting the entire context. I'm telling the poster up there that history is recorded in books, not in statues. That's beyond dispute. And yes the history in those books IS well known to anyone who seeks out them there books.
Books? WTF are books? In a country where our history/civics sucks so badly that less then half of HS graduates KNOW who we fought for independence -- your plans fails at the get-go...
I live in the midst of about 4 important Civil War battlefields. About a million visitors a year.. What you gonna do -- go tell them to read a fucking book??? The visitor centers are now afraid to display ANYTHING with a Confed flag on it....
And if you culture smashers get your way -- kids will never see an accurate depiction of a "Rebel soldier" or a Civil war battle...
That history needs to be front and center.. Only way to MAKE SURE that the public knows their past and wont repeat the same mistakes...
