SPLC calls Army bases confederate monuments that must be taken down

[Montrovant]

1) Alex Jones is a lying asshole milking his listeners for money.

2) While the quote exists on the SPLC website, I don't see where it seeks to remove 3 Army bases: Send a letter: It's time to take down Confederate monuments

3) IMHO, this who meme of attacking Confederate monuments is stupid and, in a year or so, most Americans will give backlash to the stupidity of tearing down every memorial which had a racist founder in it.

Lol the title is literally time to take down the confederate monuments and they linked a list which included the army bases.

Again for the Morons ---- and we did this days ago the first time this was posted ---- the link says, quote, "Please send a Letter to the Editor to your local newspaper to take down or rename

Your own link title proves that you are a lying whore: Send a letter: It's time to take down Confederate monuments

Where do you see the word "rename," in that title you stupid bitch?

Are you such a wallowing fucktard that you believe headlines, Spunky?

I quoted directly from the SPLC page, VERBATIM.

No I'm quoting verbatim from the SPLC page:

Send a letter: It's time to take down Confederate monuments

More than 1,500 Confederate symbols stand in communities like Charlottesville with the potential to unleash more turmoil and bloodshed.

It's time to take the monuments down.

Now where do you see the word "names," there you fucking liar?

I hope this doesn't shock you too greatly, but you can often scroll down to see more information in a web page. Really, it's true! For example, if you go back to the SPLC link and scroll down just a bit from the quote in your post, there is a map. Under that map, you'll find this quote, "Please send a Letter to the Editor to your local newspaper to take down or rename the Confederate symbols in your community."

I'm not sure how you've navigated the internet up to now if you were unaware that web pages are not limited to what's on the screen when you open them, but now you can open up entire new vistas of web page browsing! That little wheel in between the buttons of your mouse is actually useful!

Was the sarcasm too thick?

 

[Spare_change]

Why would anyone object if forts named after John Bell Hood, John Gordon and Braxton Bragg were instead named after superior generals like Eisenhower, Patton and MacArthur?

No one would object ... but, obviously, some object to your attempts at revisionist history and demeaning of the efforts of post-Civil War reconciliation.

 

[Spare_change]

Those were prime years for the KKK

Yyyyep, the Klan got rekindled two years earlier, "Birth of a Nation" also two years earlier, "The Clansman", the novel and then play that begat the film, twelve years earlier, and the whole Lost Cause movement was feverishly writing other books, plays, minstrel show music --- and all those statues and monuments and plaques and markers that are now under review were feverishly being put up, hundreds of them, primarily by the Daughters of the Confederacy.. All in the same era, and all related. A year after that the "Red Summer brought the most intense period of race riots this country has ever had, and in two more years the Tulsa Race Riot wiped the "Black Wall Street" community of Greenwood Oklahoma completely off the map.

Now that's an effective propaganda campaign. And they didn't even have television.

Ludicrious ... but then, just like stupid opinions, everyone is allowed their own perversion of history.

Lacking any substantive response, you choose to resort to a sophomoric little gainsay word "ludicrous"?

How childish.

Well now you just point out to the class anything I posted up there that is inaccurate, Spunkles.

Aaaaand GO.

You're the one who is trying to pervert history - not to mention historical context.

Frankly, we can get better from the local junior high.

You're right ---- "ludicrious" DOES seem to be exactly the right word.

So you have no refutation at all. You concede my facts, yet want to cry the blues because you didn't have them.

What a surprise that is.

Apparently, you have failed to realize that you have no facts - you have simply put forth your opinions (and we all know about opinions, don't we?).

The closest you came was your pathetic attempt to somehow correlate the rise of the KKK with the names of different army forts - a damn poor attempt, by the way.

 

[jillian]

Why would anyone object if forts named after John Bell Hood, John Gordon and Braxton Bragg were instead named after superior generals like Eisenhower, Patton and MacArthur?

No one would object ... but, obviously, some object to your attempts at revisionist history and demeaning of the efforts of post-Civil War reconciliation.

what revisionist history? seems that what your monumennts are trying to do.

the revisionist history is in calling the treason committed by the south for the right to own other people anything but what it was

 

[Pogo]

SPLC calls Army bases ‘confederate monuments’ that must be ‘taken down’

The Southern Poverty Law Center has included three of the largest U.S. Army bases on their list of “Confederate monuments” with the “potential to unleash more turmoil and bloodshed” if liberal activists don’t “take them down.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing like spreading stupidity among the already weak minds of America.
and the pathetic sheep that go right along with it. I can't wait until these ANTI AMERICAN PIGS begin to eat themselves alive with thier own bs and regret.
Then again some are to far gone to regret a thing.

no psycho.... that is what INFOWARS says. you have no idea what SPLC says.

it's so weird how psychotic illness can make you think the SPLC is bad and infowar is good.

kind of sad.

True dat. To return to the root, this entire thread is based on a bullshit premise, just because we have posters who know how to create threads yet don't have the slightest clue how to vet the lies in their own links.

The consequences of taking Alex "John Brinkley" Jones of all creatures, seriously.

 

[Markle]

3) The SLPC does fantastic work identifying hate groups.

Lie!

They themselves are a hate group. This is on their "Hate Page" Hatewatch is a blog that monitors and exposes the activities of the American radical right.

So they do NOT identify Hate Groups, they only identify groups THEY HATE.

Hatewatch

 

[rightwinger]

Why would anyone object if forts named after John Bell Hood, John Gordon and Braxton Bragg were instead named after superior generals like Eisenhower, Patton and MacArthur?

No one would object ... but, obviously, some object to your attempts at revisionist history and demeaning of the efforts of post-Civil War reconciliation.

What era do you consider post civil war reconciliation?

These posts were named over 50 years after the end of the war. What was to reconcile?

The very naming of these posts, the erection of Confederate monuments and resurrection of the Confederate flag were all part of revisionist history

In an era where the KKK was emerging again, Jim Crow was taking hold and blacks were being attacked by terrorists....these Confederate monuments were a direct message to blacks about their rightful place in society

 

[Spare_change]

SPLC calls Army bases ‘confederate monuments’ that must be ‘taken down’

The Southern Poverty Law Center has included three of the largest U.S. Army bases on their list of “Confederate monuments” with the “potential to unleash more turmoil and bloodshed” if liberal activists don’t “take them down.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing like spreading stupidity among the already weak minds of America.
and the pathetic sheep that go right along with it. I can't wait until these ANTI AMERICAN PIGS begin to eat themselves alive with thier own bs and regret.
Then again some are to far gone to regret a thing.

no psycho.... that is what INFOWARS says. you have no idea what SPLC says.

it's so weird how psychotic illness can make you think the SPLC is bad and infowar is good.

kind of sad.

I strongly suggest you do your homework, and look into the SPLC ... you will come away better educated, and furious.

 

[Spare_change]

Why would anyone object if forts named after John Bell Hood, John Gordon and Braxton Bragg were instead named after superior generals like Eisenhower, Patton and MacArthur?

No one would object ... but, obviously, some object to your attempts at revisionist history and demeaning of the efforts of post-Civil War reconciliation.

What era do you consider post civil war reconciliation?

These posts were named over 50 years after the end of the war. What was to reconcile?

The very naming of these posts, the erection of Confederate monuments and resurrection of the Confederate flag were all part of revisionist history

In an era where the KKK was emerging again, Jim Crow was taking hold and blacks were being attacked by terrorists....these Confederate monuments were a direct message to blacks about their rightful place in society

You know --- it's hard to argue with the factually illiterate.

Go back and study the Reconstruction Period ... then come back ... if you dare.

 

[Pogo]

Yyyyep, the Klan got rekindled two years earlier, "Birth of a Nation" also two years earlier, "The Clansman", the novel and then play that begat the film, twelve years earlier, and the whole Lost Cause movement was feverishly writing other books, plays, minstrel show music --- and all those statues and monuments and plaques and markers that are now under review were feverishly being put up, hundreds of them, primarily by the Daughters of the Confederacy.. All in the same era, and all related. A year after that the "Red Summer brought the most intense period of race riots this country has ever had, and in two more years the Tulsa Race Riot wiped the "Black Wall Street" community of Greenwood Oklahoma completely off the map.

Now that's an effective propaganda campaign. And they didn't even have television.

Ludicrious ... but then, just like stupid opinions, everyone is allowed their own perversion of history.

Lacking any substantive response, you choose to resort to a sophomoric little gainsay word "ludicrous"?

How childish.

Well now you just point out to the class anything I posted up there that is inaccurate, Spunkles.

Aaaaand GO.

You're the one who is trying to pervert history - not to mention historical context.

Frankly, we can get better from the local junior high.

You're right ---- "ludicrious" DOES seem to be exactly the right word.

So you have no refutation at all. You concede my facts, yet want to cry the blues because you didn't have them.

What a surprise that is.

Apparently, you have failed to realize that you have no facts - you have simply put forth your opinions (and we all know about opinions, don't we?).

The closest you came was your pathetic attempt to somehow correlate the rise of the KKK with the names of different army forts - a damn poor attempt, by the way.

ALL of this happened at the same time ---- the Lost Cause movement....... the spike in lynchings..... the orgy of Jim Crow laws..... "The Clansman" novel.... "The Clansman" play"..... "The Clansman" movie (renamed "Birth of a Nation")... the re-founding of the Ku Klux Klan which had been dead over 40 years..... mass segregation of public facilities including schools, restaurants, even bathrooms and water fountains..... . the erection of hundreds of statues, monuments and plaques by the UDC including one commemorating the original founding of the Klan, the very same statues and monuments deliberately erected in public places and adjacent to government buildings for their propaganda value, which is exactly why they're under review right now .... blackface minstrel shows begetting "Amos 'n' Andy" and "Steppinfetchit" ..... a spike in devastating race riots..... souvenir postcards and body parts bought and sold from these ongoing lynchings.... Klan-elected state and local officials ..... the banning of blacks from baseball...... segregation of the government and military ...... and the naming of these military bases I listed, which includes Fort Gordon, named after the reputed head of the Georgia Klan in its postwar iteration.

THERE is your revisionist history. It's already been here and gone, and left its lingering effects. Your job now is to recognize and acknowlege it.

Or, you can just post "ludicrous" and walk away in a huff going That's up to you. All depends whether you can handle it.

 

[Pogo]

Yyyyep, the Klan got rekindled two years earlier, "Birth of a Nation" also two years earlier, "The Clansman", the novel and then play that begat the film, twelve years earlier, and the whole Lost Cause movement was feverishly writing other books, plays, minstrel show music --- and all those statues and monuments and plaques and markers that are now under review were feverishly being put up, hundreds of them, primarily by the Daughters of the Confederacy.. All in the same era, and all related. A year after that the "Red Summer brought the most intense period of race riots this country has ever had, and in two more years the Tulsa Race Riot wiped the "Black Wall Street" community of Greenwood Oklahoma completely off the map.

Now that's an effective propaganda campaign. And they didn't even have television.

Ludicrious ... but then, just like stupid opinions, everyone is allowed their own perversion of history.

Lacking any substantive response, you choose to resort to a sophomoric little gainsay word "ludicrous"?

How childish.

Well now you just point out to the class anything I posted up there that is inaccurate, Spunkles.

Aaaaand GO.

You're the one who is trying to pervert history - not to mention historical context.

Frankly, we can get better from the local junior high.

You're right ---- "ludicrious" DOES seem to be exactly the right word.

So you have no refutation at all. You concede my facts, yet want to cry the blues because you didn't have them.

What a surprise that is.

Apparently, you have failed to realize that you have no facts - you have simply put forth your opinions (and we all know about opinions, don't we?).

The closest you came was your pathetic attempt to somehow correlate the rise of the KKK with the names of different army forts - a damn poor attempt, by the way.

Apparently the distinction between "fact" and "opinion" is beyond your pay grade.

When I refer to "The Clansman" that's 1905, twelve years before 1917. When I refer to the re-founding of the Klan, that's 1915 (Thanksgiving Day), two years before. Same for "Birth of a Nation". earlier the same year. When I refer to the statues and monuments under review lately that's the same period of roughly 1900-1920. The plaque commemorating the Klan in Tennessee, that's 1917 (May to be exact). When I refer to the "Red Summer" that's 1919. And when I refer to when these military bases were named, again that's recorded history --- 1917/1918.

See, these are called "facts". They're quantifiable. They're historical. They're marked at a fixed point in the past. A point that can be pinpointed by date. Those dates are not negotiable. It's not my "opinion" that these events happened when they did --- it's FACT. And there's nothing you can do about that except face it.

 

[Spare_change]

Why would anyone object if forts named after John Bell Hood, John Gordon and Braxton Bragg were instead named after superior generals like Eisenhower, Patton and MacArthur?

No one would object ... but, obviously, some object to your attempts at revisionist history and demeaning of the efforts of post-Civil War reconciliation.

what revisionist history? seems that what your monumennts are trying to do.

the revisionist history is in calling the treason committed by the south for the right to own other people anything but what it was

You make no sense whatsoever ... I have no idea how to respond.

 

[Spare_change]

Ludicrious ... but then, just like stupid opinions, everyone is allowed their own perversion of history.

Lacking any substantive response, you choose to resort to a sophomoric little gainsay word "ludicrous"?

How childish.

Well now you just point out to the class anything I posted up there that is inaccurate, Spunkles.

Aaaaand GO.

You're the one who is trying to pervert history - not to mention historical context.

Frankly, we can get better from the local junior high.

You're right ---- "ludicrious" DOES seem to be exactly the right word.

So you have no refutation at all. You concede my facts, yet want to cry the blues because you didn't have them.

What a surprise that is.

Apparently, you have failed to realize that you have no facts - you have simply put forth your opinions (and we all know about opinions, don't we?).

The closest you came was your pathetic attempt to somehow correlate the rise of the KKK with the names of different army forts - a damn poor attempt, by the way.

Apparently the distinction between "fact" and "opinion" is beyond your pay grade.

When I refer to "The Clansman" that's 1905, twelve years before 1917. When I refer to the re-founding of the Klan, that's 1915 (Thanksgiving Day), two years before. Same for "Birth of a Nation". earlier the same year. When I refer to the statues and monuments under review lately that's the same period of roughly 1900-1920. The plaque commemorating the Klan in Tennessee, that's 1917 (May to be exact). When I refer to the "Red Summer" that's 1919. And when I refer to when these military bases were named, again that's recorded history --- 1917/1918.

See, these are called "facts". They're quantifiable. They're historical. They're marked at a fixed point in the past. A point that can be pinpointed by date. Those dates are not negotiable. It's not my "opinion" that these events happened when they did --- it's FACT. And there's nothing you can do about that except face it.

But, your supposition that these things directly caused army forts to be named after Confederate generals is facetious and unsupported. You offer no proof, other than proximity. Surely, you can do better than that.

As for the Reconstruction period, in the 50 years after the Civil War (that would be 1915, by the way) the South was systematically raped by the North and its carpetbaggers. The books you so blithely reference are much more a reaction to that violation than an attempt to elevate Confederate generals to some exalted position.

You were alive when Hinkley shot Reagan - does that mean you are guilty by proximity, as well?

 

[rightwinger]

Why would anyone object if forts named after John Bell Hood, John Gordon and Braxton Bragg were instead named after superior generals like Eisenhower, Patton and MacArthur?

No one would object ... but, obviously, some object to your attempts at revisionist history and demeaning of the efforts of post-Civil War reconciliation.

What era do you consider post civil war reconciliation?

These posts were named over 50 years after the end of the war. What was to reconcile?

The very naming of these posts, the erection of Confederate monuments and resurrection of the Confederate flag were all part of revisionist history

In an era where the KKK was emerging again, Jim Crow was taking hold and blacks were being attacked by terrorists....these Confederate monuments were a direct message to blacks about their rightful place in society

You know --- it's hard to argue with the factually illiterate.

Go back and study the Reconstruction Period ... then come back ... if you dare.

I am fully versed in the Reconstruction Period....it lasted less than 20 years
The problem with your argument is that Forts like Ft Hood in Texas were named in the early 1940s, 80 years after the war.....hard to justify it as "Reconstruction"

 

[Pogo]

Why would anyone object if forts named after John Bell Hood, John Gordon and Braxton Bragg were instead named after superior generals like Eisenhower, Patton and MacArthur?

No one would object ... but, obviously, some object to your attempts at revisionist history and demeaning of the efforts of post-Civil War reconciliation.

What era do you consider post civil war reconciliation?

These posts were named over 50 years after the end of the war. What was to reconcile?

The very naming of these posts, the erection of Confederate monuments and resurrection of the Confederate flag were all part of revisionist history

In an era where the KKK was emerging again, Jim Crow was taking hold and blacks were being attacked by terrorists....these Confederate monuments were a direct message to blacks about their rightful place in society

Exactly. And they were deliberately placed in public spaces and next to government offices to make that point BIGLY. That's the same period black people --- and other minorities --- were expected to "know their place" and not be "uppity". These public monuments were part and parcel of the propaganda campaign, and a big one.

Here's how one prominent citizen put it:

>> Earlier this week, as the cult of the lost cause statue of P.G.T Beauregard came down, world-renowned musician Terence Blanchard stood watch, his wife Robin and their two beautiful daughters at their side. Terence went to a high school on the edge of City Park named after one of America’s greatest heroes and patriots, John F. Kennedy. But to get there he had to pass by this monument to a man who fought to deny him his humanity.

He said, “I’ve never looked at them as a source of pride … it’s always made me feel as if they were put there by people who don’t respect us … This is something I never thought I’d see in my lifetime. It’s a sign that the world is changing.” << --- Mayor Landrieu's Remarks on Removing Monuments​

 

[Markle]

splc is bullshit n needs to be ignored. calling conservstive sites "hate speech" is bullshit.

Naw, what's bullshit is that the conservative movement has nothing left but hate after all their economic ideas have failed miserably.

Which of these groups are listed as Hate Groups by the destructive Southern Poverty Law Center?

 

[Pogo]

But, your supposition that these things directly caused army forts to be named after Confederate generals is facetious and unsupported. You offer no proof, other than proximity. Surely, you can do better than that.

Actually I didn't make that assertion of causation. It may in fact be true but that would require further research. I just pointed out a pattern. If you care to research the history of the discussions of each of those namings so as to establish that the pattern means nothing, by all means be my jest.

But from your puerile arguments thus far I don't exactly get the impression that such research is within your means.

 

[rightwinger]

But, your supposition that these things directly caused army forts to be named after Confederate generals is facetious and unsupported. You offer no proof, other than proximity. Surely, you can do better than that.

Actually I didn't make that assertion of causation. It may in fact be true but that would require further research. I just pointed out a pattern. If you care to research the history of the discussions of each of those namings so as to establish that the pattern means nothing, by all means be my jest.

But from your puerile arguments thus far I don't exactly get the impression that such research is within your means.

Actually, the naming of the forts is tied to two events...WWI and WWII

Both wars generated the formation of large number of military bases around the country. Camps and forts in the south were named after southern generals. Whether those choices were directly chosen as part of Jim Crow or Lost Cause efforts..it is hard to say

But I imagine local Confederate organizations and Lost Cause groups had some influence

 

[Pogo]

But, your supposition that these things directly caused army forts to be named after Confederate generals is facetious and unsupported. You offer no proof, other than proximity. Surely, you can do better than that.

Actually I didn't make that assertion of causation. It may in fact be true but that would require further research. I just pointed out a pattern. If you care to research the history of the discussions of each of those namings so as to establish that the pattern means nothing, by all means be my jest.

But from your puerile arguments thus far I don't exactly get the impression that such research is within your means.

Actually, the naming of the forts is tied to two events...WWI and WWII

Both wars generated the formation of large number of military bases around the country. Camps and forts in the south were named after southern generals. Whether those choices were directly chosen as part of Jim Crow or Lost Cause efforts..it is hard to say

But I imagine local Confederate organizations and Lost Cause groups had some influence

Zackly, and in 1917-1918 they had a ton of influence over everything... from local laws to public facilities to pop culture to everyday life including work opportunities, how to react upon rumors (lynchings) and even what restaurant you could walk into. That's the whole point of brainwashing a culture; you do it wall-to-wall or else it doesn't take.

Obviously when the military set up a facility in 1917 it was operating in the same 1917 culture that everybody else was in. If they were setting one up today I suspect their rationale might be a wee bit different.

 

[JoeB131]

Yours are aborting babies dipshit and DACA go bye bye.

um, sorry, man... check out the demographic numbers... your side is losing people much faster than ours. And that's before Trump fucks up the economy and all the dumb white people turn on him.

Not as a % of the population pal.

Point is, in raw numbers, there are more white people on welfare even with the vast advantages of being white in this society.