Do you think the pro-Hamas wing of your dem party is aware of these facts, JM?
Majority of House GOP, including 3 Black Republican grifters voted to reinstate confederate monument at Arlington National Cemetary
- Thread starter BNIBoiler
- Start date
Last edited:
Didn't they cover that in iu's nationally acclaimed General Studies program, JM?
Many issues are decided on the federal or state levels. A state can have laws that are different from those of other states, e.g., insurance. The issue that Democrats have a problem processing is the right to life; this is a state issue.
You deflect from the important issues and things that actually affect people of colors lives. 71/9. If you didn’t talk about statues you would be left having to talk about the destruction of black lives in a city/county/state that is controlled by democrats. If democrats cared about black people they would spend 99.9% of their time addressing the above. And .1% of their time on statues.
Last edited:
I am the person most vocal about school choice opportunities for low income black people to attend the same schools as rich white kids and I am a racist. You oppose to support the teacher’s union. I am the most vocal on this board ripping Democrat pols for their covid school lockdown policies that disproportionately affected children of color and I am the racist. You don’t hold the Dem pols responsible,
TBH I am proud you called me a racist because I know I gave won the argument. That’s all you got.
And now that you got that out of your system what was the solutions to resolve 71/9 on your urban radio?
Y'all keep saying that it is the dems fault without saying what repub polices would help. I keep telling y'all, there is no solution from the outside that will solve your so-called 71/9. But, I've said this here before, the only solution, but it will take generations, is that the folks that live in these neighborhoods have to finally take the issue themselves and stop the violence themselves. Take accountability for themselves. There are no laws or policies from the outside that will stop these folks from killing each other.
A eye for an eye policy and or law would work. Do it a few times and it would slow down the senseless killings.
Plenty of laws. The lib DA & judges just need to get with it & use them.
I do like your suggestion that the locals should get after it though. Sounds very Charles Bronson like....would be interesting.
This is what I’m talking about. No outside intervention is going to stop the violence. It’s been done already and no help. In some ways tougher laws may have made it worse. Some think that the violence in Chicago in particular got worse after 2 situations. One, in the early 2000s they in prisoned several top gang leaders across the city. In theory, this led to the lower level gang bangers with no direction and control from the top. Another theory that I’ve heard was that the violence seem to have increased when they tore down most if not all of the large public housing complexes like Cabrini Geeen and the Robert Taylor homes. This supposedly led to these folks being moved to different parts of the city, crossing into rival gang territories.
Y’all talk tough in general terms but with no substance and detail on a solution. So what is this eye for an eye or law policy?
I’m not talking about vigilante justice. I’m talking actually realizing that what they doing is detrimental to the community and just stop dealing in narcotics and killing each other over it. But the fact is that these folks for various reasons, I think it’s PTSD, are desensitized to the violence that they have been experiencing since they came out of the womb.
Eye for an eye policy is where the criminals get shot with no consequences to the one who did it. It won’t happen in our liberal society today, but that is what it’s going to take to stop it. Mayor Daley had that policy at one time in Chicago to stop the nonsense.
Bullchit BNI....The Confederacy was and is and always will be a part of our history, including your ancestors. To forget the past means there's one heck of a chance it will repeat itself. Your whining about everything in the past is boring and trivial at best
The Airmen are finally getting their due. A great bunch of Americans no matter the color of their skin. As is the Negro Leagued and as a long time baseball coach, I'm happy for both.
I couldn't agree more with you. Why honor those who committed treason by taking up arms against the United States.
Answer this simple question. Should there be statues and naming of schools/military bases of confederate soldiers?
I never said that the confederacy is not part of US history. That is why we learn about it in history classes and documentaries. If I wanted to erase history I would have called for taking that part of history out of the history books. Nobody wants that. Taking down confederate statues and renaming schools and military bases is NOT changing history. Confederate statues were erected out of hate under Jim Crow that embraces white supremacy. Therefore, removing them is removing symbols of hatred towards a group of people and not removing history.
In Germany, it is illegal to display any references to former Nazi regime. Should be illegal in the US to display any crap from the confederacy.
Oklahoma City should have a government monument for a proud, motivated Timothy McVeigh?
NYC should have a public statue for Bin Laden?
Chicago with a public statue for John Wayne Gacy?
Israel should allow public statues of Hamas leaders? Name a military base after them?
Of course not.
This is such illogical nonsense. Historically relevant scoundrels, murderers, and purveyors of treason belong in museums of history, not celebrated in public squares with regal statues like some of these Confederate monsters had.
There would be no movement for removal of statues noting the defeat of these treasonous, slave-holding bastards; it’s the statues, bases, and schools honoring these awful historical figures that are repulsive.
Last edited:
Of course not - unless the monster is a dem icon, in which case it is fine. Right JM and Uncle Pav?
LBJ Statue (U.S. National Park Service)
I already answered you. I wouldn’t erect a statue of LBJ. However, LBJ wasn’t a traitor to the country. He sho nuff jacked up the Viet Nam war though.Of course not - unless the monster is a dem icon, in which case it is fine. Right JM and Uncle Pav?
LBJ Statue (U.S. National Park Service)
www.nps.gov
Meh. Not a fan.
But at least Floyd was a two bit criminal whose murder prompted a bit of an awakening of consciousness regarding race relations and law enforcement integrity.
Whereas the Confederacy was an unmitigated treasonous movement attempting to preserve slavery that caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and attempted to dissolve the United States of America.
So you see, the diversion you’ve attempted without commenting on the actual point about the awfulness of publicly honoring the Confederacy is ridiculous and not remotely comparable.
Last edited:
Who tore down the HUD housing complexes so their friends could make bank? They were members of which party?
TBH. Who built the high rise ghettos to segregate poor blacks away from whites and influential blacks? What party was it?
And who has run CHA since its inception and forced low income people of color to live in 3rd world conditions and look the other way in slum lords?
There hasn’t been a single R in any of these decisions or management. And in many situations it’s been people of color, But hey. If we get that statue taken down we are tackling the real problems.
Step 1. Stop treating the justice system like a social experiment and remove Soros-funded prosecutors. In a red area this gunman would have NOT been free to commit this murder and a 7 year old girl would be alive. 14th person killed YTD by an individual out on cashless bail. Have these destructive policies been discussed on your urban radio show?
https://cwbchicago.com/2024/06/gunm...er-cutting-off-ankle-monitor-prosecutors.html
The South was being taxed, and little to no money was given to the Southern states. They were consistently outvoted. They had more or less taxation without representation.
Hahahaha… no, really…
Confederate VP Stephens:
“Our new government['s]...foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth“
South Carolina articles of secession:
“A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that ‘Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free. And that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.’”
Mississippi articles of secession:
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world.”
Texas:
“Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. . . . She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery – the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits – a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association.
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.“
Last edited:
So your argument is that over 300k white northerners were so adamant in their Christian principles against slavery that they gave their lives to abolish it? I think that is so admirable.
How come countries in Asia and Africa are not doing that today. since slavery is so rampant there?
How come countries in Asia and Africa are not doing that today. since slavery is so rampant there?
Well, the Bible supports slavery, but that notwithstanding, slavery being the reason the southern states seceded does not necessitate that slavery be the reason the northern states engaged in military conflict.
South: We're seceding because we want to keep our slaves!
North: You're not allowed to secede!
The vast majority of southern soldiers did not own slaves, and were being exploited in commerce by the wealthy who did own slaves. Those poor soldiers were doing what young men have always done and did in our nation after Pearl Harbor and 9/11 - stepping up to stop an invader.
As Grant said in recognizing the bravery of the southern soldiers, their cause "was one of the worst for which a people ever fought."
Do they deserve statues? No, but the southern foot soldier does deserve a measure of respect for his bravery in support of a horrible cause most of them probably didn't understand beyond "fighting for our home."
Chicago has a black mayor, a black DA, a black police chief, a black CTU president, a number of blacks in high level govt positions. All Democrats.
Now, remind me again why racial problems exist in Chicago?
Again, what does all this have to do with republicans, including black republicans voting to re-instate the confederate monuments in Arlington National Cemetery? Why would you have a monument honoring soldiers that killed real US soldiers during the civil war?
For me I am just wondering why you support the party responsible for segregating low income blacks into high rise ghettos and sentencing them to failing schools (and taking away their school choice vouchers), and then unjustly tearing them from their homes and support networks and why you give a pass to the leaders that have been responsible for generations of despair in Chicago.
And to be honest. Lightfoot took down some statues and changed some names and I nothing really changed. So maybe let’s put some people in charge who actually want to improve people’s lives. And not just harvest their votes.
Again, what does all this have to do with republicans, including black republicans voting to re-instate the confederate monuments in Arlington National Cemetery? Why would you have a monument honoring soldiers that killed real US soldiers during the civil war?
Why do you support a party that supports white supremacy and the confederacy?
What it has to do is that I and others are pointing out your interest in starting a thread on racist acts which in truth are symbolic and has no real affect on black residents of the Chicagoland area, but they are brought to attention because it’s “Republicans.”
Yet. The people who have time and again actually taken actions and enacted policy that has a direct negative affect on black people and destroyed generations (see above) you have no interest because they are “Democrats.”
So with honesty. What would benefit the life of a black kid in Chicago more? Providing a school choice voucher to attend a high performing private school? Or voting to not reinstate the statue?
Don't you understand that BNI and the other Dem Denyers would rather point at a statue and yell "Racist" than admit the root of their problems? Pointing fingers at Republicans over a statue beats doing the real work.
Dude, if y’all want to talk about the violence and schools in Chicago, start your own topic about and we can discuss it until the cows come home. Y’all did a 180 degrees with my topic. Y’all hijacked my topic because it makes y’all uncomfortable to talk about race, particularly when it comes to the racist republicans. The aforementioned topics are 2 different issues. We can discuss them both. But right now my topic is republicans, including black republicans voting to re-instate the confederate monuments at the Arlington National Cemetery. You can even take race out of it for now. It is wrong by itself from a traitorous stand point.
