Which "side" of the "fence" are you on?

[Freewill]

This latest incident violent incident in Charlottesville is once again illustrating how our divisions are increasing, and how the "sides" of the "fence" are becoming more clear.

On one side of the fence, we have the people who appear to think they're "accomplishing" something by screaming at, verbally attacking, insulting, blaming, and now, finally, physically attacking and even KILLING those who dare to disagree with them. Attack, attack, attack, no matter what.

Their political affiliations are irrelevant, because their behaviors are so similar. They would much rather scream than communicate. They would much rather attack than heal. They would much rather "beat" those who dare to disagree than find a way to co-exist with them like normal, well-adjusted adults.

On the other side of the fence is the majority of the country, those who know that the only way to solve problems is to communicate and cooperate. That you're not always going to get your way. That sometimes you have to be a little humble, check your ego, and respect differing opinions. And that -- horror of horrors -- you may actually be wrong about something now and then.

So, which side of the fence are you on?
.

A couple of observations. The Charlotte protest is over a bunch of white folks thinking that tearing down confederate statues is an attack on white history. How does one rectify that with the left wing's accusation that the statues are a tribute to racism?

On which side, if you need to be on a side, do you fall? Those statues have been in place for YEARS why the need to take them down NOW? Why did the left wing feel the need to attack the group protesting? Of course you will say they did not but if they would have just ignored the original protest we would have never heard of the protest nor cared.

So how do you peacefully accommodate both sides? Leave 1/2 a statue in place? The left wing would have none of it. Those statues must be removed, not because they are particularly offensive to anyone but because the left wing says so. And there ain't nothing that irks people more then to be told what to do especially over something that has almost no significance or really effects anyone.

So how do we deal with "my way or the highway' left wing that controls the MSM?

Or do we just say f..k the white folks?

i can understand the point of having these in public places but i also understand we need to quit altering history as we need it to be today. those were some jacked up times for a lot of reasons back then and the north telling the south how to live and what to do was a big reason for the split. slavery just happened to be one of those issues but not the one the north really cared about when you read more of the history behind the war.

if you forget the past you repeat it. we seem to be repeating it while still tearing it down.

You really need to read some of the letter of succession from the rebel states. It was all about slavery, that is using their own words. If you like start another thread and I will supply you links.

That said, the OP talks about compromise and let's all get along. HOW does one do that when the protest is two sides of a coin? Either the statues stay or they go. The first group was protesting them being torn down as an attack on their WHITE heritage. The other group was protesting what? All I can figure is they were protesting the right of the first group to legally protest.

Personally I would take down the statues. What other country allows tributes to an army that caused more American deaths then any other conflict in their history? Black or white, it just doesn't make sense. If R.E. Lee was fighting Rommel in Northern Africa then I am all for a statue. But invading PA and the slaughter that ensued killing thousands of Americans, I am not a fan.

 

[Freewill]

This latest incident violent incident in Charlottesville is once again illustrating how our divisions are increasing, and how the "sides" of the "fence" are becoming more clear.

On one side of the fence, we have the people who appear to think they're "accomplishing" something by screaming at, verbally attacking, insulting, blaming, and now, finally, physically attacking and even KILLING those who dare to disagree with them. Attack, attack, attack, no matter what.

Their political affiliations are irrelevant, because their behaviors are so similar. They would much rather scream than communicate. They would much rather attack than heal. They would much rather "beat" those who dare to disagree than find a way to co-exist with them like normal, well-adjusted adults.

On the other side of the fence is the majority of the country, those who know that the only way to solve problems is to communicate and cooperate. That you're not always going to get your way. That sometimes you have to be a little humble, check your ego, and respect differing opinions. And that -- horror of horrors -- you may actually be wrong about something now and then.

So, which side of the fence are you on?
.

A couple of observations. The Charlotte protest is over a bunch of white folks thinking that tearing down confederate statues is an attack on white history. How does one rectify that with the left wing's accusation that the statues are a tribute to racism?

On which side, if you need to be on a side, do you fall? Those statues have been in place for YEARS why the need to take them down NOW? Why did the left wing feel the need to attack the group protesting? Of course you will say they did not but if they would have just ignored the original protest we would have never heard of the protest nor cared.

So how do you peacefully accommodate both sides? Leave 1/2 a statue in place? The left wing would have none of it. Those statues must be removed, not because they are particularly offensive to anyone but because the left wing says so. And there ain't nothing that irks people more then to be told what to do especially over something that has almost no significance or really effects anyone.

So how do we deal with "my way or the highway' left wing that controls the MSM?

Or do we just say f..k the white folks?

Per my OP, I'm on the second side of the fence:

"On the other side of the fence is the majority of the country, those who know that the only way to solve problems is to communicate and cooperate. That you're not always going to get your way. That sometimes you have to be a little humble, check your ego, and respect differing opinions. And that -- horror of horrors -- you may actually be wrong about something now and then."
.

Yeah yeah hard freakin' decision. You make the dichotomy that either a person is a raving loon or a logical well adjusted patriot like yourself. BS. The whole situation is another example of the left wing arguing kumbyya mFer do as I say.

I am calling you out. What side do you fall on over the protest in Charlotte? Do you tear down the statues or leave them be?

Gosh, I've been called out.

Leave them as a vivid reminder. Work more on opening lines of communication and see if some who support leaving them change their minds and get rid of them on their own. Stop protesting morons like the white "supremacists" because the attention only motivates them. And because it can now get you killed.

Easy. Since I don't have a partisan flank to protect, I can be honest at all times.
.

Again, platitudes are great but not a solution.

Do the statues stay or do they go? Who decides?

And can you see how you work? You talk compromise but then talk of people defending partisan flanks, when that wasn't done at all. Kinda hypocritical don't you think?

 

[jillian]

This latest incident violent incident in Charlottesville is once again illustrating how our divisions are increasing, and how the "sides" of the "fence" are becoming more clear.

On one side of the fence, we have the people who appear to think they're "accomplishing" something by screaming at, verbally attacking, insulting, blaming, and now, finally, physically attacking and even KILLING those who dare to disagree with them. Attack, attack, attack, no matter what.

Their political affiliations are irrelevant, because their behaviors are so similar. They would much rather scream than communicate. They would much rather attack than heal. They would much rather "beat" those who dare to disagree than find a way to co-exist with them like normal, well-adjusted adults.

On the other side of the fence is the majority of the country, those who know that the only way to solve problems is to communicate and cooperate. That you're not always going to get your way. That sometimes you have to be a little humble, check your ego, and respect differing opinions. And that -- horror of horrors -- you may actually be wrong about something now and then.

So, which side of the fence are you on?
.

part of the problem is we should demand the same honesty from left and right. this was an act of domestic terroris and should be called one. that should be something all people of good will should agree on.

 

[jillian]

This latest incident violent incident in Charlottesville is once again illustrating how our divisions are increasing, and how the "sides" of the "fence" are becoming more clear.

On one side of the fence, we have the people who appear to think they're "accomplishing" something by screaming at, verbally attacking, insulting, blaming, and now, finally, physically attacking and even KILLING those who dare to disagree with them. Attack, attack, attack, no matter what.

Their political affiliations are irrelevant, because their behaviors are so similar. They would much rather scream than communicate. They would much rather attack than heal. They would much rather "beat" those who dare to disagree than find a way to co-exist with them like normal, well-adjusted adults.

On the other side of the fence is the majority of the country, those who know that the only way to solve problems is to communicate and cooperate. That you're not always going to get your way. That sometimes you have to be a little humble, check your ego, and respect differing opinions. And that -- horror of horrors -- you may actually be wrong about something now and then.

So, which side of the fence are you on?
.

A couple of observations. The Charlotte protest is over a bunch of white folks thinking that tearing down confederate statues is an attack on white history. How does one rectify that with the left wing's accusation that the statues are a tribute to racism?

On which side, if you need to be on a side, do you fall? Those statues have been in place for YEARS why the need to take them down NOW? Why did the left wing feel the need to attack the group protesting? Of course you will say they did not but if they would have just ignored the original protest we would have never heard of the protest nor cared.

So how do you peacefully accommodate both sides? Leave 1/2 a statue in place? The left wing would have none of it. Those statues must be removed, not because they are particularly offensive to anyone but because the left wing says so. And there ain't nothing that irks people more then to be told what to do especially over something that has almost no significance or really effects anyone.

So how do we deal with "my way or the highway' left wing that controls the MSM?

Or do we just say f..k the white folks?

i can understand the point of having these in public places but i also understand we need to quit altering history as we need it to be today. those were some jacked up times for a lot of reasons back then and the north telling the south how to live and what to do was a big reason for the split. slavery just happened to be one of those issues but not the one the north really cared about when you read more of the history behind the war.

if you forget the past you repeat it. we seem to be repeating it while still tearing it down.

You really need to read some of the letter of succession from the rebel states. It was all about slavery, that is using their own words. If you like start another thread and I will supply you links.

That said, the OP talks about compromise and let's all get along. HOW does one do that when the protest is two sides of a coin? Either the statues stay or they go. The first group was protesting them being torn down as an attack on their WHITE heritage. The other group was protesting what? All I can figure is they were protesting the right of the first group to legally protest.

Personally I would take down the statues. What other country allows tributes to an army that caused more American deaths then any other conflict in their history? Black or white, it just doesn't make sense. If R.E. Lee was fighting Rommel in Northern Africa then I am all for a statue. But invading PA and the slaughter that ensued killing thousands of Americans, I am not a fan.

why would he want to read treasonous material from losers.

get over it.

 

[Mac1958]

This latest incident violent incident in Charlottesville is once again illustrating how our divisions are increasing, and how the "sides" of the "fence" are becoming more clear.

On one side of the fence, we have the people who appear to think they're "accomplishing" something by screaming at, verbally attacking, insulting, blaming, and now, finally, physically attacking and even KILLING those who dare to disagree with them. Attack, attack, attack, no matter what.

Their political affiliations are irrelevant, because their behaviors are so similar. They would much rather scream than communicate. They would much rather attack than heal. They would much rather "beat" those who dare to disagree than find a way to co-exist with them like normal, well-adjusted adults.

On the other side of the fence is the majority of the country, those who know that the only way to solve problems is to communicate and cooperate. That you're not always going to get your way. That sometimes you have to be a little humble, check your ego, and respect differing opinions. And that -- horror of horrors -- you may actually be wrong about something now and then.

So, which side of the fence are you on?
.

A couple of observations. The Charlotte protest is over a bunch of white folks thinking that tearing down confederate statues is an attack on white history. How does one rectify that with the left wing's accusation that the statues are a tribute to racism?

On which side, if you need to be on a side, do you fall? Those statues have been in place for YEARS why the need to take them down NOW? Why did the left wing feel the need to attack the group protesting? Of course you will say they did not but if they would have just ignored the original protest we would have never heard of the protest nor cared.

So how do you peacefully accommodate both sides? Leave 1/2 a statue in place? The left wing would have none of it. Those statues must be removed, not because they are particularly offensive to anyone but because the left wing says so. And there ain't nothing that irks people more then to be told what to do especially over something that has almost no significance or really effects anyone.

So how do we deal with "my way or the highway' left wing that controls the MSM?

Or do we just say f..k the white folks?

Per my OP, I'm on the second side of the fence:

"On the other side of the fence is the majority of the country, those who know that the only way to solve problems is to communicate and cooperate. That you're not always going to get your way. That sometimes you have to be a little humble, check your ego, and respect differing opinions. And that -- horror of horrors -- you may actually be wrong about something now and then."
.

Yeah yeah hard freakin' decision. You make the dichotomy that either a person is a raving loon or a logical well adjusted patriot like yourself. BS. The whole situation is another example of the left wing arguing kumbyya mFer do as I say.

I am calling you out. What side do you fall on over the protest in Charlotte? Do you tear down the statues or leave them be?

Gosh, I've been called out.

Leave them as a vivid reminder. Work more on opening lines of communication and see if some who support leaving them change their minds and get rid of them on their own. Stop protesting morons like the white "supremacists" because the attention only motivates them. And because it can now get you killed.

Easy. Since I don't have a partisan flank to protect, I can be honest at all times.
.

Again, platitudes are great but not a solution.

Do the statues stay or do they go? Who decides?

Did you not see "leave them"? WTF? Is there something ambiguous about that?

I dunno who decides, the city? Who owns them? Follow the rules, whatever they are.
.

 

[Mac1958]

This latest incident violent incident in Charlottesville is once again illustrating how our divisions are increasing, and how the "sides" of the "fence" are becoming more clear.

On one side of the fence, we have the people who appear to think they're "accomplishing" something by screaming at, verbally attacking, insulting, blaming, and now, finally, physically attacking and even KILLING those who dare to disagree with them. Attack, attack, attack, no matter what.

Their political affiliations are irrelevant, because their behaviors are so similar. They would much rather scream than communicate. They would much rather attack than heal. They would much rather "beat" those who dare to disagree than find a way to co-exist with them like normal, well-adjusted adults.

On the other side of the fence is the majority of the country, those who know that the only way to solve problems is to communicate and cooperate. That you're not always going to get your way. That sometimes you have to be a little humble, check your ego, and respect differing opinions. And that -- horror of horrors -- you may actually be wrong about something now and then.

So, which side of the fence are you on?
.

part of the problem is we should demand the same honesty from left and right. this was an act of domestic terroris and should be called one. that should be something all people of good will should agree on.

As I understand it, "terrorism" is the use of indiscriminate violence to intimidate and stoke fear.

So for anyone to pretend this was not a terrorist act is simply not being intellectually honest.

Which is pretty much par for the course nowadays.
.

 

[jillian]

This latest incident violent incident in Charlottesville is once again illustrating how our divisions are increasing, and how the "sides" of the "fence" are becoming more clear.

On one side of the fence, we have the people who appear to think they're "accomplishing" something by screaming at, verbally attacking, insulting, blaming, and now, finally, physically attacking and even KILLING those who dare to disagree with them. Attack, attack, attack, no matter what.

Their political affiliations are irrelevant, because their behaviors are so similar. They would much rather scream than communicate. They would much rather attack than heal. They would much rather "beat" those who dare to disagree than find a way to co-exist with them like normal, well-adjusted adults.

On the other side of the fence is the majority of the country, those who know that the only way to solve problems is to communicate and cooperate. That you're not always going to get your way. That sometimes you have to be a little humble, check your ego, and respect differing opinions. And that -- horror of horrors -- you may actually be wrong about something now and then.

So, which side of the fence are you on?
.

part of the problem is we should demand the same honesty from left and right. this was an act of domestic terroris and should be called one. that should be something all people of good will should agree on.

As I understand it, "terrorism" is the use of indiscriminate violence to intimidate and stoke fear.

So for anyone to pretend this was not a terrorist act is simply not being intellectually honest.

Which is pretty much par for the course nowadays.
.

it's certainly on par for the man who is president of his base and screwing up everything else.

 

[Slash]

i can understand the point of having these in public places but i also understand we need to quit altering history as we need it to be today. those were some jacked up times for a lot of reasons back then and the north telling the south how to live and what to do was a big reason for the split. slavery just happened to be one of those issues but not the one the north really cared about when you read more of the history behind the war.

if you forget the past you repeat it. we seem to be repeating it while still tearing it down.

I mean to say that you have to ignore the minutes of the continental congress, where northern leaders only gave in on slavery not being explicitly banned in the constitution to keep the southern states from leaving. You have to burn Jefferson's speeches where he said slavery is the rock which the union would split upon.

That's the problem. The war was only not about slavery if you get a massive sharpie and start crossing out all the parts where the articles of secession was deeming slavery to be the fundamental reason, where you start crossing out the speeches where slavery was the cornerstone of the split. When you black out what the "states rights " they actually listed were (expansion of slavery, slave trade, fugitive slave act).

It's funny that the ones seemingly wanting to preserve history by keeping statues are the ones that would apparently rather burn those letters, burn the minutes of the congresses that spoke to slavery being THE factor and hide that part of history.

I'm fine keeping them up, but like the statues of King George, remove them off federal property.

 

[Freewill]

Noun 1. domestic terrorism - terrorism practiced in your own country against your own people; "the 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City was an instance of domestic terrorism"
act of terrorism, terrorism, terrorist act - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

Now, yes, it would fit that definition.

But how about this act of terror? Was the domestic terrorism even mentioned? Is not a fair playing field what the OP pretends to care about?

Steve Scalise Among 4 Shot at Baseball Field; Suspect Is Dead

 

[iceberg]

i can understand the point of having these in public places but i also understand we need to quit altering history as we need it to be today. those were some jacked up times for a lot of reasons back then and the north telling the south how to live and what to do was a big reason for the split. slavery just happened to be one of those issues but not the one the north really cared about when you read more of the history behind the war.

if you forget the past you repeat it. we seem to be repeating it while still tearing it down.

I mean to say that you have to ignore the minutes of the continental congress, where northern leaders only gave in on slavery not being explicitly banned in the constitution to keep the southern states from leaving. You have to burn Jefferson's speeches where he said slavery is the rock which the union would split upon.

That's the problem. The war was only not about slavery if you get a massive sharpie and start crossing out all the parts where the articles of secession was deeming slavery to be the fundamental reason, where you start crossing out the speeches where slavery was the cornerstone of the split. When you black out what the "states rights " they actually listed were (expansion of slavery, slave trade, fugitive slave act).

It's funny that the ones seemingly wanting to preserve history by keeping statues are the ones that would apparently rather burn those letters, burn the minutes of the congresses that spoke to slavery being THE factor and hide that part of history.

I'm fine keeping them up, but like the statues of King George, remove them off federal property.

so if we allow the removal of the issues to drive the reasons behind the war, we can only do so as long as slavery remains the sole topic of reason FOR the war.

i don't want any of our history burned or altered but history has shown those in power will rewrite it to fit their views. and a lot of history has been rewritten in the last decade for some reason.

 

[Freewill]

A couple of observations. The Charlotte protest is over a bunch of white folks thinking that tearing down confederate statues is an attack on white history. How does one rectify that with the left wing's accusation that the statues are a tribute to racism?

On which side, if you need to be on a side, do you fall? Those statues have been in place for YEARS why the need to take them down NOW? Why did the left wing feel the need to attack the group protesting? Of course you will say they did not but if they would have just ignored the original protest we would have never heard of the protest nor cared.

So how do you peacefully accommodate both sides? Leave 1/2 a statue in place? The left wing would have none of it. Those statues must be removed, not because they are particularly offensive to anyone but because the left wing says so. And there ain't nothing that irks people more then to be told what to do especially over something that has almost no significance or really effects anyone.

So how do we deal with "my way or the highway' left wing that controls the MSM?

Or do we just say f..k the white folks?

Per my OP, I'm on the second side of the fence:

"On the other side of the fence is the majority of the country, those who know that the only way to solve problems is to communicate and cooperate. That you're not always going to get your way. That sometimes you have to be a little humble, check your ego, and respect differing opinions. And that -- horror of horrors -- you may actually be wrong about something now and then."
.

Yeah yeah hard freakin' decision. You make the dichotomy that either a person is a raving loon or a logical well adjusted patriot like yourself. BS. The whole situation is another example of the left wing arguing kumbyya mFer do as I say.

I am calling you out. What side do you fall on over the protest in Charlotte? Do you tear down the statues or leave them be?

Gosh, I've been called out.

Leave them as a vivid reminder. Work more on opening lines of communication and see if some who support leaving them change their minds and get rid of them on their own. Stop protesting morons like the white "supremacists" because the attention only motivates them. And because it can now get you killed.

Easy. Since I don't have a partisan flank to protect, I can be honest at all times.
.

Again, platitudes are great but not a solution.

Do the statues stay or do they go? Who decides?

Did you not see "leave them"? WTF? Is there something ambiguous about that?

I dunno who decides, the city? Who owns them? Follow the rules, whatever they are.
.

OK, the cities decides. Do you think that is the best decision? Is it one of compromise? Does anyone have the right to protest the decision?

But it is interesting that you admit you "dunno." You start a whole thread on a subject you apparently "dunno" anything about.

 

[Mac1958]

Per my OP, I'm on the second side of the fence:

"On the other side of the fence is the majority of the country, those who know that the only way to solve problems is to communicate and cooperate. That you're not always going to get your way. That sometimes you have to be a little humble, check your ego, and respect differing opinions. And that -- horror of horrors -- you may actually be wrong about something now and then."
.

Yeah yeah hard freakin' decision. You make the dichotomy that either a person is a raving loon or a logical well adjusted patriot like yourself. BS. The whole situation is another example of the left wing arguing kumbyya mFer do as I say.

I am calling you out. What side do you fall on over the protest in Charlotte? Do you tear down the statues or leave them be?

Gosh, I've been called out.

Leave them as a vivid reminder. Work more on opening lines of communication and see if some who support leaving them change their minds and get rid of them on their own. Stop protesting morons like the white "supremacists" because the attention only motivates them. And because it can now get you killed.

Easy. Since I don't have a partisan flank to protect, I can be honest at all times.
.

Again, platitudes are great but not a solution.

Do the statues stay or do they go? Who decides?

Did you not see "leave them"? WTF? Is there something ambiguous about that?

I dunno who decides, the city? Who owns them? Follow the rules, whatever they are.
.

OK, the cities decides. Do you think that is the best decision? Is it one of compromise? Does anyone have the right to protest the decision?

But it is interesting that you admit you "dunno." You start a whole thread on a subject you apparently "dunno" anything about.

Attack, attack, attack.

I've had partisans on both ends get defensive on this thread. Illustrating my point beautifully. As always.

Believe what you will.
.

 

[JoeB131]

Lies are all you have. But I figure this isn't good enough for you because you need your political "points" to be scored.

The Nazis were the largest party at a few points during the Weimar period, and they were included in a coalition government with the conservative parties following the legal procedure under the Weimar Constitution.

No, meally mouthed statements from spokesmen don't quite cut it. Nor does saying that the Nazis met a legal technicality when they siezed power against the will of the majority. (Kind of like Trump)

I'm being ignored by the warriors for free speech. Love it.

True enough. Marty and Mac are really kind of self-righteous...

 

[JoeB131]

The Regressives really aren't up on this topic.

"regressive" - Any liberal who doesn't share Mac's Islamophobia

 

[Slash]

so if we allow the removal of the issues to drive the reasons behind the war, we can only do so as long as slavery remains the sole topic of reason FOR the war.

i don't want any of our history burned or altered but history has shown those in power will rewrite it to fit their views. and a lot of history has been rewritten in the last decade for some reason.

No. There can be other reasons. Just like terrorism and Al-Qaeda wasn't the only reason we attacked Afghanistan, or the spread of communism isn't the only reason we got involved in Vietnam.

But like you say, we are getting a LOT of history rewritten lately.

It used to be the war was about the lack of the federal government to enforce the fugitive slave act, the lack of the federal government to allow slavery to expand to new states, and the lack of the federal government to allow states to decide if they wanted a slave trade with Africa. Now lately those reasons get clumped into this "states rights" movement.

People seem to bring up tariffs as one of the reasons yet the Tariff in place at the time was put together by Robert M.T. Hunter (might recognize him as the Confederate Sec'y of State during the Civil War). Yes, not one article of secession mentioned Tariff's because the Tariff law won by Southern Vote. But we re-write that now.

It used to be Lincoln was an abolitionist. Like EVERYONE called him back then, and his actions followed. But hey, now we have to judge him on campaign speeches and things he said when saying otherwise would have lost him the war before it even started.


Some day I have a feeling people will be writing about how much Trump loves Obamacare because he had a speech in NY that talked it up once on the campaign trail trying to win some votes and he didn't get rid of it right away.

 

[Mac1958]

Would anyone like to sub-lease the space I'm taking up in the Regressives' heads?


.

 

[eddiew37]

have no need for an ignore list you right wing nut jobs are my entertainment

heh - it will get old soon enough. nut jobs have 1 thing in common on both sides.

they're fucking stupid and nothing is going to change that.

maybe you're right but how fn stupid does one have to be who like our president can't condemn nazis and alt right people Even his own people can't believe he didn't

how f'n stupid is it to boil down something to such a base binary response and ignore all the reasons people may have to feel that way that when you have open conversation you'd see they don't agree with nazis and the like, the term, it would seem, it just being used as a broad paintbrush vs. giving something more thought.

did trump give it more thought when condemning the ceo of merck instead of the alt right and nazis ? His subjects were able to Why not him? afraid he'd lose David Dukes vote?

dunno.

did obama ever give it thought when he trashed the police at every turn before evidence was even available?
did obama think it through when he invited clock boy to the white house? hey, now we know he was a full of shit kid from a full of shit family and it was all a plan from the beginning.

also - that's not exactly what happened unless you choose to boil things down to that in order to prop up your hate.

you needed evidence when ON CAMERA you see a cop shooting a kid 7 times in the back?? for example

 

[JoeB131]

The DNC has aligned with progressives and phucked themselves big time in the process. They have become the party for twisted minded degenerates and the like.
I'm on the side that believes 6 foot 4 inch Bubba in a dress with an 8 inch penis and a beard should shit next to Robert and not next to Christina.

Oh, so you are on the side that is susceptible to fake moral panics!!! Got it.

I explicitly said that the cops didn't follow the laws or enforce the laws and allowed for mob rule. You seem to implicitly support that.

Again, "The Cops didn't protect me when I acted like a racist asshole" doesn't seem very sensible to me.

A couple of observations. The Charlotte protest is over a bunch of white folks thinking that tearing down confederate statues is an attack on white history. How does one rectify that with the left wing's accusation that the statues are a tribute to racism?

I don't think that word means what you think it means. Okay, here's the problem. You can't reconcile it, nor should you. Those statues are a tribute to racism. They weren't put up until blacks started demanding civil rights as a big fuck you to them. Most of these statues weren't erected until the mid-20th century. They should be removed, period.

Does that mean we pretend the Civil War didn't happen. No. But we make it very clear that the men who instigated it weren't heroes, and the men who fought it don't deserve veneration.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Would anyone like to sub-lease the space I'm taking up in the Regressives' heads?


.

Oh yeah. You're in everyone's head. You label anyone who isn't a RW nut and sees through you a "regressive". It is your favorite insult...but you hate to insult people.

For a guy who has some cognitive ability, one would expect that you would have bored yourself by now.

 

[iceberg]

so if we allow the removal of the issues to drive the reasons behind the war, we can only do so as long as slavery remains the sole topic of reason FOR the war.

i don't want any of our history burned or altered but history has shown those in power will rewrite it to fit their views. and a lot of history has been rewritten in the last decade for some reason.

No. There can be other reasons. Just like terrorism and Al-Qaeda wasn't the only reason we attacked Afghanistan, or the spread of communism isn't the only reason we got involved in Vietnam.

But like you say, we are getting a LOT of history rewritten lately.

It used to be the war was about the lack of the federal government to enforce the fugitive slave act, the lack of the federal government to allow slavery to expand to new states, and the lack of the federal government to allow states to decide if they wanted a slave trade with Africa. Now lately those reasons get clumped into this "states rights" movement.

People seem to bring up tariffs as one of the reasons yet the Tariff in place at the time was put together by Robert M.T. Hunter (might recognize him as the Confederate Sec'y of State during the Civil War). Yes, not one article of secession mentioned Tariff's because the Tariff law won by Southern Vote. But we re-write that now.

It used to be Lincoln was an abolitionist. Like EVERYONE called him back then, and his actions followed. But hey, now we have to judge him on campaign speeches and things he said when saying otherwise would have lost him the war before it even started.

Some day I have a feeling people will be writing about how much Trump loves Obamacare because he had a speech in NY that talked it up once on the campaign trail trying to win some votes and he didn't get rid of it right away.

maybe. even when people who committed the acts in question tell you their motivation is not what you say it is/was, the left still likes to march on as if the other side lied about this and pretend they're still right.

all i can do is go back and read what has been said and apply it as best i can to a time i was never a part of. i can be right on some of what i think and i could be wrong also. but all i can do is keep the hate out of the topics as much as possible and continue to do what we're doing.

talking w/o insulting.