ADVERTISEMENT

Two incidents of domestic terrorism in two weeks...

ecouch said:
Why is there a sudden rush to remove all of these civil war monuments?
Click to expand...
IMHO it's not so much a rush, the tension has been there for a long, long time, as much as the number of people who had contact with those who were alive during the Civil War and Reconstruction are far fewer than during the Civil Rights movement of the '60's.

Think about the number of those who have had contact, family members they could/can talk to and touch, care about, who participated of WWII. In 2041 we will still be a large portion of the population, by 2117, not so many. Its not that its a rush, just those that care are gone.

SC gave in with the AME shooting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ecouch
kescwi said:
IMHO it's not so much a rush, the tension has been there for a long, long time, as much as the number of people who had contact with those who were alive during the Civil War and Reconstruction are far fewer than during the Civil Rights movement of the '60's.

Think about the number of those who have had contact, family members they could/can talk to and touch, care about, who participated of WWII. In 2041 we will still be a large portion of the population, by 2117, not so many. Its not that its a rush, just those that care are gone.

SC gave in with the AME shooting.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I just read that Roof was a breaking point SC. I had completely forgot about that tragedy.

I don't know how I feel about removing the monuments at least. It seems silly to me to have the confederate flag around, but the monuments just feel a bit different. I can't overcome the "erasing history" argument. And I think order to be consistent, founding father's stuff will have to go as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
Yeah, that's a different discussion, and I'm not sure where I stand on the issue, I tend to think there is more harm erasing and recreating history, but then it can be argued that's what the monuments are doing. I'm not southern so it's not my fight to make and these towns are choosing to do this, not being forced.

What bothers me far more here is there is no monument on Sullivan's Island to mark the spot where I have seen estimates that nearly 50% of AA could be able to trace an ancestors entering into America. A horrific Ellis Island no doubt, but still...
 
ecouch said:
Yeah, I just read that Roof was a breaking point SC. I had completely forgot about that tragedy.

I don't know how I feel about removing the monuments at least. It seems silly to me to have the confederate flag around, but the monuments just feel a bit different. I can't overcome the "erasing history" argument. And I think order to be consistent, founding father's stuff will have to go as well.
Click to expand...

It might be splitting hairs but my personal stance is that a memorial to lost soldiers seems fine but monuments to Confederate leaders should have no place in the US.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RegionWarrior101
ecouch said:
Yeah, I just read that Roof was a breaking point SC. I had completely forgot about that tragedy.

I don't know how I feel about removing the monuments at least. It seems silly to me to have the confederate flag around, but the monuments just feel a bit different. I can't overcome the "erasing history" argument. And I think order to be consistent, founding father's stuff will have to go as well.
Click to expand...
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had slaves. Their monuments must come down.

Wash DC should be renamed after Marion Barry: Barry, District of Pocahontas. UVA should be plowed under and planted with cotton to be picked by white Republicans.

Washington State: Sasquatch or maybe Salmon..

And those horrible founding fathers who allowed slavery AND denied women the right to vote: BURN the Constitution! They were RACISTS! They were HATERS!

Gentle Readers, I now see the light. I done found The Religion Of The Left.
 
Last edited:
miksta said:
It might be splitting hairs but my personal stance is that a memorial to lost soldiers seems fine but monuments to Confederate leaders should have no place in the US.
Click to expand...
When it first came up down here regarding the battle flag, what upset me is Colombia had been vague and it appeared they were saying it needed to be removed from historical sites where it had a context and I disagreed with that.

There was a secondary issue with a flag in the chapel at the Citadel which wasn't a battle flag but a Confederate Navy flag... and that shed light on something that lead to another flag that I see more and more down here now and that is the Big Red flag, which looks similar to the state flag, but, who'd of guessed, red. Citadel grads using it I understand but it seems it might be being used by the wink, wink, dog whistle racist idiots who have taken down their battle flags.

At the end of the day it isn't really about the symbols, the people using them to symbolize the abhorrent, will simply find another way.
 
Last edited:
ecouch said:
Nah, I did a little reading and answered my own question. It seems that Dylan Roof really got the ball rolling back in 2015.

The Atlantic notes the uptick in this article.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...removal-of-confederate-monuments-stop/532125/

This blog details some of the silliness surrounding the issue - Like going after the Dukes of Hazard car.

https://hyperallergic.com/218473/confederate-monument-watch-a-new-genre-of-journalism/

There certainly is a lot more coverage. That could be it as well.
Click to expand...
I'd agree there's been an uptick recently, largely due to increased coverage as well as successful ventures to get them removed in other places, notably Nikki Haley removing the flag from statehouse grounds in SC. That said, the movement to remove the confederate flag from statehouse grounds in SC was going on when I lived in Charleston in 2002-2003 and again in 2005-2007. Groups have been protesting Mississippi's state flag since before I was alive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ecouch
kescwi said:
At the end of the day it isn't really about the symbols, the people using them to symbolize the abhorrent, will simply find another way.
Click to expand...
I don't mind confederate memorials. Those people died in warfare, and we memorialize people who fight in wars we win and wars we lose. I had a problem with the Confederate flag flying on statehouse grounds, even as part of a memorial, in large part because of the symbolism to those groups. It's akin, IMO, to the use of swastika by the Nazis. The symbol, in and of itself, is harmless, but because a certain group used it to represent a certain ideology, it's taboo. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and would then tell those who protest the removal of the flag that it's likely their own damn fault for allowing its use to be perverted from historical or memorial ends.

Now, I personally don't see a need to have a statue to Robert E. Lee, but I have much less a problem with that. As my wife said when discussing this yesterday, there were good people who fought for the confederacy just as there were bad people that fought for the Union.
 
  • Like
Reactions: boilerbusdriver
gr8indoorsman said:
I don't mind confederate memorials. Those people died in warfare, and we memorialize people who fight in wars we win and wars we lose. I had a problem with the Confederate flag flying on statehouse grounds, even as part of a memorial, in large part because of the symbolism to those groups. It's akin, IMO, to the use of swastika by the Nazis. The symbol, in and of itself, is harmless, but because a certain group used it to represent a certain ideology, it's taboo. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and would then tell those who protest the removal of the flag that it's likely their own damn fault for allowing its use to be perverted from historical or memorial ends.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and that's why SC gave in, that flag had been taken over to symbolize hate.
 
kescwi said:
Agreed, and that's why SC gave in, that flag had been taken over to symbolize hate.
Click to expand...
George Washington owned slaves for his entire life and he must be totally eliminated from civil discourse. First, bring down this absurd monument on the Mall. Washington was a racist and a hater. HE OWNED SLAVES!!!!!!
 
gr8indoorsman said:
When I see replies like this to (apparently) nothing, I assume TheBoris strikes again. The ignore feature is worth its weight in gold. Apropos for this thread, in fact.
Click to expand...

You do miss some minor amusement value when he replies to his own posts, but yeah, the ignore option is excellent.
 
Oh for christ sake...... Enough is enough they attempt to divide us enough. For the conservatives on here that are arguing, this isn't about left or right for the last time. You keep saying "it's their right" did you ever thing that some new laws need passed revoking RACIST groups their rights to protest. Racism is a sickening disease and ideology that has ZERO place in this country any variety. That goes for blacks, whites or bigotry in sexual orientation. We can carry on our arguments in regards to the economy though ;) I can't believe some of you even came to the defense of these bigots
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
jadeezra said:
You keep saying "it's their right" did you ever thing that some new laws need passed revoking RACIST groups their rights to protest.
Click to expand...

No.....not at all. In fact what you are proposing is probably the scariest concept that is being discussed in this thread. What you are proposing strikes to the heart of what a democracy stands for. White supremacists are an easy target because everybody agrees they suck...what if somebody says that BLM should not be allowed to protest under the new laws you just proposed we enact because, in their personal political view, they constitute a racist group....not so cut and dry anymore is it. (just an example not / demonstrative of my view points)

The marketplace of ideas is essential to a functioning democracy.

The problem is you are completely missing the point of what people are arguing....nobody here is saying what White supremacists are correct/right/good/etc. - just that they have a right to say what they believe (peacefully) - regardless of how abhorrent their positions are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: boilerbusdriver, LSLBoiler, TheBoris and 1 other person
WindyCityBoiler20 said:
No.....not at all. In fact what you are proposing is probably the scariest concept that is being discussed in this thread. What you are proposing strikes to the heart of what a democracy stands for. White supremacists are an easy target because everybody agrees they suck...what if somebody says that BLM should not be allowed to protest under the new laws you just proposed we enact because, in their personal political view, they constitute a racist group....not so cut and dry anymore is it. (just an example not / demonstrative of my view points)

The marketplace of ideas is essential to a functioning democracy.

The problem is you are completely missing the point of what people are arguing....nobody here is saying what White supremacists are correct/right/good/etc. - just that they have a right to say what they believe (peacefully) - regardless of how abhorrent their positions are.
Click to expand...


LOL yeah revoking the right to "protest racism" is scary indeed. Oh no... I get it totally get it, and I stand by my statement that it should be illiegal. BTW it isn't political as you hinted to in theory above. Come on one look at this guys facebook says it all, it usually does.

You actually couldn't be more wrong, can the FBI tap into a suspected molesters phone or pc? Racism should be a CRIME.

They're are all sorts of laws that we don't think of , why can we eat a pig or cow and horse/dog is illegal?

I have a zero tolerance in regards to racism and in 20 years there will be laws in place. Don't forget in the 90's our senators were still using word "FAG"
 
Last edited:
jadeezra said:
LOL yeah revoking the right to "protest racism" is scary indeed. Oh no... I get it totally get it, and I stand by my statement that it should be illiegal. BTW it isn't political as you hinted to in theory above. Come on one look at this guys facebook says it all, it usually does.

You actually couldn't be more wrong, can the FBI tap into a suspected molesters phone or pc? Racism should be a CRIME.

They're are all sorts of laws that we don't think of , why can we eat a pig or cow and horse/dog is illegal?

I have a zero tolerance in regards to racism and in 20 years there will be laws in place. Don't forget in the 90's our senators were still using word "FAG"
Click to expand...
This is quite interesting. Once someone is arrested as a "racist", what should be done with him/her?
 
jadeezra said:
Are you racist?
Click to expand...

The U.S. is the most racist Country in the Free World. What other Country has laws in place the show preferential treatment to individuals based only on race or gender.
Affirmative Action must go.
 

Site
Home
Authors
Topics
Quote Of The Day
Pictures
Top 100 Quotes
Professions
Birthdays
Social
BQ on Facebook
BQ on Twitter
BQ on Pinterest
BQ on Google+
BQ on Instagram
Shop
BrainyQuote Store
Apps
iPhone/iPad app

Quote Of The Day Feeds
Javascript and RSS feeds
WordPress plugin
Quote of the Day Email
About
About Us
Contact Us
Submit
Privacy
Terms
Copyright © 2001 - 2017 BrainyQuote
Language: Español | Français
 
If you are going to quote Lincoln, please use his best:

dont-believe-everything-you-see-on-the-internet.jpg


Also @Purdue97 can you answer my question about charging people with civil rights violations?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SKYDOG
jadeezra said:
LOL yeah revoking the right to "protest racism" is scary indeed. Oh no... I get it totally get it, and I stand by my statement that it should be illiegal. BTW it isn't political as you hinted to in theory above. Come on one look at this guys facebook says it all, it usually does.

You actually couldn't be more wrong, can the FBI tap into a suspected molesters phone or pc? Racism should be a CRIME.

They're are all sorts of laws that we don't think of , why can we eat a pig or cow and horse/dog is illegal?

I have a zero tolerance in regards to racism and in 20 years there will be laws in place. Don't forget in the 90's our senators were still using word "FAG"
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, I have zero tolerance in regards to racism as well. But, unlike you, I also have zero tolerance against the blatant disregard for people's constitutional rights.

Yes, you are correct, the FBI can potentially tap into a suspects home - but only after A) a crime has been committed (e.g., a physical act), and B) the necessary probable cause has been produced. Not sure how this has anything to do with limiting free speech.

As for your second example - I'm not sure what this has to do about the first amendment. If you are arguing that some laws seem somewhat arbitrary, I agree with that point. But either way, this has nothing to do with our discussion because eating a cow, or eating a dog for that matter, is a physical act and, as a point of commerce, something the government can and does regulate all the time.

And per your last point, realize that a senator can still say those words and it would not land them in jail. The difference is that, today, such conduct is no longer considered socially acceptable and therefore said Senator would likely lose their re-election. This is perfectly OK. In fact, it is the basic example of how the free market/marketplace of ideas works. Such influences can be (and are) in play regarding racist ideas as well. But this is completely and utterly different from passing a law saying a senator cannot say those words - that would be a blatant disregard for his or her 1st amendment rights and an attack on our democracy.
 
Either you're for the First Amendment or you're not. When we start banning any type of speech simply because it offends someone, or even if it offends most everyone, then this country is in serious trouble.

You want to know what the best reaction to this rally would've been? Nothing. No counter protests. No media coverage. No violence. Just let the fringe minority stage their rally and let the rest of go on and give them the attention they deserve......none.

The coverage is entirely politically motivated. All of a sudden this is being held out as an example of what all of America is like and I call BS on that. Never once in my life have I stumbled upon such a demonstration or even one close to similar in nature. Doesn't mean they don't exist. Clearly they do. But just because a few dozen or few hundred people that think a certain way congregate doesn't mean it's an accurate projection of America as a whole. If 95% of Americans are good, decent people then guess what, that's still 20 million a-holes out running around every day.

I guess it comes down to your vision of America. It's not a perfect country. Not even close. It has problems and it always will. This will never be a perfect country, nor will any other. Are you willing to scrap some of the basic rights this country was founded on to chase this mythical utopia? Who determines what this utopia looks like and what happens if your views ever differ from what the majority believes? It will simply become a political tool used to oppose people with any agenda different than the majority. Sounds like a really scary road to go down to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ecouch and WindyCityBoiler20
Shocking that yesterday's teleprompter was 100% fake.

Apparently there's many "fine" white supremacists, KKK members and neo-nazis.

And don't you forget, he owns a winery in Virginia!

How on earth do you defend this pathetic behavior?
 
lbodel said:
Shocking that yesterday's teleprompter was 100% fake.

Apparently there's many "fine" white supremacists, KKK members and neo-nazis.

And don't you forget, he owns a winery in Virginia!

How on earth do you defend this pathetic behavior?
Click to expand...

Someone didn't listen to the presser.
 
lbodel said:
Shocking that yesterday's teleprompter was 100% fake.

Apparently there's many "fine" white supremacists, KKK members and neo-nazis.

And don't you forget, he owns a winery in Virginia!

How on earth do you defend this pathetic behavior?
Click to expand...
He didn't say there's many fine white supremacist. I watched the press conference. How the left interpreted what he said is beyond me. Listening is a skill.
 
WindyCityBoiler20 said:
Just to be clear, I have zero tolerance in regards to racism as well. But, unlike you, I also have zero tolerance against the blatant disregard for people's constitutional rights.

Yes, you are correct, the FBI can potentially tap into a suspects home - but only after A) a crime has been committed (e.g., a physical act), and B) the necessary probable cause has been produced. Not sure how this has anything to do with limiting free speech.

As for your second example - I'm not sure what this has to do about the first amendment. If you are arguing that some laws seem somewhat arbitrary, I agree with that point. But either way, this has nothing to do with our discussion because eating a cow, or eating a dog for that matter, is a physical act and, as a point of commerce, something the government can and does regulate all the time.

And per your last point, realize that a senator can still say those words and it would not land them in jail. The difference is that, today, such conduct is no longer considered socially acceptable and therefore said Senator would likely lose their re-election. This is perfectly OK. In fact, it is the basic example of how the free market/marketplace of ideas works. Such influences can be (and are) in play regarding racist ideas as well. But this is completely and utterly different from passing a law saying a senator cannot say those words - that would be a blatant disregard for his or her 1st amendment rights and an attack on our democracy.
Click to expand...
You have a First Amendment right to speech, there is no right to be heard. If you truely hate racism, if you truely hate genocide, you truely view yourself as an American and a Christian, you have an obligation to shout those evils down, attack them, emphatically state they have no place here. But continue on with your fallacies of equivalence and what about them. Make sure everyone notices you at church Sunday.
 
kescwi said:
You have a First Amendment right to speech, there is no right to be heard. If you truely hate racism, if you truely hate genocide, you truely view yourself as an American and a Christian, you have an obligation to shout those evils down, attack them, emphatically state they have no place here. But continue on with your fallacies of equivalence and what about them. Make sure everyone notices you at church Sunday.
Click to expand...

You don't understand free speech. I have an absolute right to hear. They are one and the same.

Why do you oppose my right to hear another persons voice? Surely you aren't endorsing a heckler's veto.

Ironically, you have a fascist position. Thanks for telling me what I can hear.

How many times do beelzebub and I need to post this video?

Hate speech is only defeated with more speech, not less.

 
  • Like
Reactions: TC4THREE
ecouch said:
You don't understand free speech. I have an absolute right to hear. They are one and the same.

Why do you oppose my right to hear another persons voice? Surely you aren't endorsing a heckler's veto.

Ironically, you have a fascist position. Thanks for telling me what I can hear.

How many times do beelzebub and I need to post this video?

View embedded media
Click to expand...
BS there is no protected constitutional right to be heard. Try again.
 
anyone has the right to say what they want.
however there are caveats to that and possible repercussions - the example of yelling fire in a theatre, making personal threatening comments, etc
 
kescwi said:
BS there is no protected constitutional right to be heard. Try again.
Click to expand...

So there is no constitutional right to free speech? I...don't know what you are going at here. Maybe you should watch the video. Being heard isn't a right. But being able to hear is as it is inherent in free speech. And taking away my right to hear is a in fact a violation of free speech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TC4THREE
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back