This topic has been locked by a moderator.
https://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2017/04/13/trump-visitor-logs-foia-lawsuit-frinformsum-4132016/
This is funny. Clinton used Burn Bags for hers which is illegal and she’s still out running around singing? Common sense and priority are apparently out the window for these folks.
You can argue that the Civil War statues shouldn’t be removed, but the statue honoring a white supremacist uprising definitely had to go.
Civil War, white supremacist uprising. You say tomato…
huh?
You say tomato, I say tomahto–it’s an old song. It means that there is no significant difference between those words.
I’m not so sure you can say there is no significant difference between a white supremacist uprising and the Civil War. I think the Civil War was bit more complicated than that.
It took a lot longer to put down than most other white supremacist uprisings, certainly. Other than that, I’m not really seeing it. Certainly if those cop killers honored by the statue in question had the military capacity of the Confederacy, I’m sure they’d have had delusions of statehood as well.
I’d try to argue this with you, but I don’t think you are going to listen.
Have it your way.
http://www.livescience.com/13673-civil-war-anniversary-myths.html
I never said the Civil War wasn’t about slavery. It definitely was about slavery, but I don’t think that it was the only thing the war was about. Certainly not everyone fighting for the south was doing it to preserve slavery. Some were doing so, because they had two options 1: fight against the union, or 2: fight again their own state, against their own cities/towns. I heard it said that is why Lee was fighting for the south, he could fight against the country or fight against his home state of Virginia, he chose to fight against the country.
In that sense, not all Germans in the Nazi army were fighting for white supremacy, only to avoid fighting their own country. Ergo, the Nazi army was not a white supremacist army?
Listen, I know lots of people’s ancestors fought for the Confederacy. My ancestors fought for the Confederacy. Don’t stop tearing the statues down because of fears for injuring my delicate southern heritage. I’m hardly having a sad that my great-great-great grandwhatever is no longer being honored for being a racist ass. If you’re doing an opinion poll of what white people with Confederate heritage think about the statues, here’s a data point to include–me: good riddance.
the north started the war
April 12, 1861, the first shots fired were not by the Union. The “War of Northern Aggression” is exactly as much of a misnomer as it seems.
the north started the war
April 12, 1861, the first shots fired were not by the Union. The “War of Northern Aggression” is exactly as much of a misnomer as it seems.
Like I said, the phrase is silly, but the South didn’t come knocking on the North’s door, it was kinda closer to the other way around.
I’ve been to Fort Sumter (Charleston is really quite a beautiful city), so I understand that kerfuffle and I think I get where you’re coming from in regards to calling them “terrorists,” but I think that’s pushing it a bit. Point being, there wouldn’t be a war if the Union hadn’t decided to take back the South. Don’t take this for me saying they shouldn’t have, I just mean from the eyes of a southern soldier, they were defending themselves.
the north started the war
April 12, 1861, the first shots fired were not by the Union. The “War of Northern Aggression” is exactly as much of a misnomer as it seems.
Like I said, the phrase is silly, but the South didn’t come knocking on the North’s door, it was kinda closer to the other way around.
I’ve been to Fort Sumter (Charleston is really quite a beautiful city), so I understand that kerfuffle and I think I get where you’re coming from in regards to calling them “terrorists,” but I think that’s pushing it a bit. Point being, there wouldn’t be a war if the Union hadn’t decided to take back the South. Don’t take this for me saying they shouldn’t have, I just mean from the eyes of a southern soldier, they were defending themselves.
Actually I called the post-Civil War mob of cop-killers and vigilantes who got a statue honoring them terrorists. The Confederacy was what I called a white supremacist uprising (who only later turned into terrorists in the form of the Klan and the losers behind this statue).
The whole point of the Ft. Sumter reference was that the Confederates started shooting at the Union long before the Union ever decided to take back the South. The North likely would have attacked the South first, if they’d had that opportunity–but the Confederates simply beat them to the punch. The Confederacy unambiguously attacked first, at Ft. Sumter.
The Hillary Clinton “I’m With Her” cult … LOL. These are the same people that were given a “day off” and had counselors made available to them to deal with such a devastating blow that they could not function, GMAFB.
Don’t forget the Colouring Books, that helped ease the pain.
Along with the “It’ll Will Be Alright” narcotic prescriptions and the mandated nap times for recovery purposes it’s all roses.
Yeah, it was really strange when I read that.
The Hillary Clinton “I’m With Her” cult … LOL. These are the same people that were given a “day off” and had counselors made available to them to deal with such a devastating blow that they could not function, GMAFB.
Don’t forget the Colouring Books, that helped ease the pain.
Along with the “It’ll Will Be Alright” narcotic prescriptions and the mandated nap times for recovery purposes it’s all roses.
Yeah, it was really strange when I read that.
It’s a “spare the rod, spoil the child” mentality.
the north started the war
April 12, 1861, the first shots fired were not by the Union. The “War of Northern Aggression” is exactly as much of a misnomer as it seems.
Like I said, the phrase is silly, but the South didn’t come knocking on the North’s door, it was kinda closer to the other way around.
I’ve been to Fort Sumter (Charleston is really quite a beautiful city), so I understand that kerfuffle and I think I get where you’re coming from in regards to calling them “terrorists,” but I think that’s pushing it a bit. Point being, there wouldn’t be a war if the Union hadn’t decided to take back the South. Don’t take this for me saying they shouldn’t have, I just mean from the eyes of a southern soldier, they were defending themselves.
Actually I called the post-Civil War mob of cop-killers and vigilantes who got a statue honoring them terrorists. The Confederacy was what I called a white supremacist uprising (who only later turned into terrorists in the form of the Klan and the losers behind this statue).
Fair enough.
The whole point of the Ft. Sumter reference was that the Confederates started shooting at the Union long before the Union ever decided to take back the South. The North likely would have attacked the South first, if they’d had that opportunity–but the Confederates simply beat them to the punch. The Confederacy unambiguously attacked first, at Ft. Sumter.
No doubt, but even though that means they literally “started the war,” in the broader sense I think it’s fair to say the Union was responsible for the conflict. In regards to Ft. Sumter, this wasn’t the South trying to take control of northern territory. It was in SC and if the Union didn’t want a fight there, they would have left it.
the north started the war
April 12, 1861, the first shots fired were not by the Union. The “War of Northern Aggression” is exactly as much of a misnomer as it seems.
Like I said, the phrase is silly, but the South didn’t come knocking on the North’s door, it was kinda closer to the other way around.
I’ve been to Fort Sumter (Charleston is really quite a beautiful city), so I understand that kerfuffle and I think I get where you’re coming from in regards to calling them “terrorists,” but I think that’s pushing it a bit. Point being, there wouldn’t be a war if the Union hadn’t decided to take back the South. Don’t take this for me saying they shouldn’t have, I just mean from the eyes of a southern soldier, they were defending themselves.
Actually I called the post-Civil War mob of cop-killers and vigilantes who got a statue honoring them terrorists. The Confederacy was what I called a white supremacist uprising (who only later turned into terrorists in the form of the Klan and the losers behind this statue).
Fair enough.
The whole point of the Ft. Sumter reference was that the Confederates started shooting at the Union long before the Union ever decided to take back the South. The North likely would have attacked the South first, if they’d had that opportunity–but the Confederates simply beat them to the punch. The Confederacy unambiguously attacked first, at Ft. Sumter.
No doubt, but even though that means they literally “started the war,” in the broader sense I think it’s fair to say the Union was responsible for the conflict. In regards to Ft. Sumter, this wasn’t the South trying to take control of northern territory. It was in SC and if the Union didn’t want a fight there, they would have left it.
It was federal property. Even granting the fairly tall order that secession was legal in the first place, South Carolina would still only have the authority over its own territory. They attacked a part of the Union that was completely surrounded by Confederate territory, but it was still Union territory. There is a difference between initiating a war and failing to surrender to an attacker.
the north started the war
April 12, 1861, the first shots fired were not by the Union. The “War of Northern Aggression” is exactly as much of a misnomer as it seems.
Like I said, the phrase is silly, but the South didn’t come knocking on the North’s door, it was kinda closer to the other way around.
I’ve been to Fort Sumter (Charleston is really quite a beautiful city), so I understand that kerfuffle and I think I get where you’re coming from in regards to calling them “terrorists,” but I think that’s pushing it a bit. Point being, there wouldn’t be a war if the Union hadn’t decided to take back the South. Don’t take this for me saying they shouldn’t have, I just mean from the eyes of a southern soldier, they were defending themselves.
Actually I called the post-Civil War mob of cop-killers and vigilantes who got a statue honoring them terrorists. The Confederacy was what I called a white supremacist uprising (who only later turned into terrorists in the form of the Klan and the losers behind this statue).
Fair enough.
The whole point of the Ft. Sumter reference was that the Confederates started shooting at the Union long before the Union ever decided to take back the South. The North likely would have attacked the South first, if they’d had that opportunity–but the Confederates simply beat them to the punch. The Confederacy unambiguously attacked first, at Ft. Sumter.
No doubt, but even though that means they literally “started the war,” in the broader sense I think it’s fair to say the Union was responsible for the conflict. In regards to Ft. Sumter, this wasn’t the South trying to take control of northern territory. It was in SC and if the Union didn’t want a fight there, they would have left it.
It was federal property. Even granting the fairly tall order that secession was legal in the first place, South Carolina would still only have the authority over its own territory. They attacked a part of the Union that was completely surrounded by Confederate territory, but it was still Union territory.
I don’t deny this. I just mean, in the broader scope of things, from their perspective they wanted the all of the south to be the CSA and that was that. The war started when the Union wouldn’t budge and then decided to take the south back.
Again, I’m not siding with the Confederates on this but if we’re talking about the soldiers you have to look at it from their point of view. They weren’t all demons, and just because slavery was a big part of the war doesn’t mean we can spit on their collective graves. Now I’m not saying that that is what removing the statues is doing, but it’s something that careful thought should be put into. It’s not a black and white situation.
It’s not a black and white situation.
I know it’s not what you meant, but I’m requoting this bit because I can’t pass up irony.
haha
I hear they put the 1891 monument in storage, which is better than simply destroying it. I think it’s important to remember not just what we value now, but what we once valued in the past, this includes the bad. The monuments are physical evidence of this. We never valued Benedict Arnold, but we do value all the innocent lives lost in the conflict, and once valued the lives of people like General Lee, who I honestly can’t fault for fighting the Union anyway, the guy might be the worst Confederate figure to point at for dishonor and suppression.
In regards to the rest of the discussion, I’m in general agreement with Dom (I think this is the first time we’ve been on the same side of an issue in this thread).
I hear they put the 1891 monument in storage, which is better than simply destroying it. I think it’s important to remember not just what we value now, but what we once valued in the past, this includes the bad. The monuments are physical evidence of this. We never valued Benedict Arnold, but we do value all the innocent lives lost in the conflict, and once valued the lives of people like General Lee, who I honestly can’t fault for fighting the Union anyway, the guy might be the worst Confederate figure to point at for dishonor and suppression.
In regards to the rest of the discussion, I’m in general agreement with Dom (I think this is the first time we’ve been on the same side of an issue in this thread).
http://www.neatorama.com/2014/01/01/Americas-Monument-to-Its-Most-Infamous-Traitor-Benedict-Arnold/
Where were you in '77?
The Hillary Clinton “I’m With Her” cult … LOL. These are the same people that were given a “day off” and had counselors made available to them to deal with such a devastating blow that they could not function, GMAFB.
Don’t forget the Colouring Books, that helped ease the pain.
Along with the “It’ll Will Be Alright” narcotic prescriptions and the mandated nap times for recovery purposes it’s all roses.
Yeah, it was really strange when I read that.
It’s a “spare the rod, spoil the child” mentality.
It’s hard for these kids to accept “no”.
I hear they put the 1891 monument in storage, which is better than simply destroying it. I think it’s important to remember not just what we value now, but what we once valued in the past, this includes the bad. The monuments are physical evidence of this. We never valued Benedict Arnold, but we do value all the innocent lives lost in the conflict, and once valued the lives of people like General Lee, who I honestly can’t fault for fighting the Union anyway, the guy might be the worst Confederate figure to point at for dishonor and suppression.
In fairness to Mr. Arnold, he was well respected before his turn.
I’m with you on Lee. And I’m glad the statues weren’t destroyed, honestly they probably belong in a museum.
In regards to the rest of the discussion, I’m in general agreement with Dom (I think this is the first time we’ve been on the same side of an issue in this thread).
Hmm, good point, maybe I’m on the wrong side of this after all.
I hear they put the 1891 monument in storage, which is better than simply destroying it. I think it’s important to remember not just what we value now, but what we once valued in the past, this includes the bad. The monuments are physical evidence of this. We never valued Benedict Arnold, but we do value all the innocent lives lost in the conflict, and once valued the lives of people like General Lee, who I honestly can’t fault for fighting the Union anyway, the guy might be the worst Confederate figure to point at for dishonor and suppression.
In regards to the rest of the discussion, I’m in general agreement with Dom (I think this is the first time we’ve been on the same side of an issue in this thread).
http://www.neatorama.com/2014/01/01/Americas-Monument-to-Its-Most-Infamous-Traitor-Benedict-Arnold/
Wow, I guess we’re closer to naming a military base after the guy than I thought.
Also, from an art history POV, the Confederate statues are mostly just mass-produced statues of the same guys over and over with different plaques underneath. They could probably destroy close to 700 statues and still have the complete set available for museums.
I hear they put the 1891 monument in storage, which is better than simply destroying it. I think it’s important to remember not just what we value now, but what we once valued in the past, this includes the bad. The monuments are physical evidence of this. We never valued Benedict Arnold, but we do value all the innocent lives lost in the conflict, and once valued the lives of people like General Lee, who I honestly can’t fault for fighting the Union anyway, the guy might be the worst Confederate figure to point at for dishonor and suppression.
In regards to the rest of the discussion, I’m in general agreement with Dom (I think this is the first time we’ve been on the same side of an issue in this thread).
http://www.neatorama.com/2014/01/01/Americas-Monument-to-Its-Most-Infamous-Traitor-Benedict-Arnold/
That’s fascinating, I didn’t know that. It doesn’t really hurt my argument, if that was the intention, though I’m glad I learned something new today.
In regards to the rest of the discussion, I’m in general agreement with Dom (I think this is the first time we’ve been on the same side of an issue in this thread).
Hmm, good point, maybe I’m on the wrong side of this after all.
Hey, don’t turn on me now! 😉
https://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2017/04/13/trump-visitor-logs-foia-lawsuit-frinformsum-4132016/
This is funny. Clinton used Burn Bags for hers which is illegal and she’s still out running around singing? Common sense and priority are apparently out the window for these folks.
Dude, hush. Clinton is no longer relevant. She lost. She’s not running again. The End. Attacking her now makes no difference.
Meanwhile, Trump is still a pompous, blundering, bumbling idiot. You say if Hillary had won you’d give her a chance, but you can’t shut up about her when she doesn’t matter anymore. Shut up already about Hillary–she’s not even in any public office at all anymore.
I mean, you could similarly start attacking Michael Dukakis or Al Gore, or I could attack Bob Dole or Mitt Romney–for all the difference it would make.
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
https://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2017/04/13/trump-visitor-logs-foia-lawsuit-frinformsum-4132016/
This is funny. Clinton used Burn Bags for hers which is illegal and she’s still out running around singing? Common sense and priority are apparently out the window for these folks.
Dude, hush. Clinton is no longer relevant. She lost. She’s not running again. The End. Attacking her now makes no difference.
Meanwhile, Trump is still a pompous, blundering, bumbling idiot. You say if Hillary had won you’d give her a chance, but you can’t shut up about her when she doesn’t matter anymore. Shut up already about Hillary–she’s not even in any public office at all anymore.
I mean, you could similarly start attacking Michael Dukakis or Al Gore, or I could attack Bob Dole or Mitt Romney–for all the difference it would make.
I was just using her as an example in comparison to the article. It is fair game in that respect.
I hear they put the 1891 monument in storage, which is better than simply destroying it. I think it’s important to remember not just what we value now, but what we once valued in the past, this includes the bad. The monuments are physical evidence of this. We never valued Benedict Arnold, but we do value all the innocent lives lost in the conflict, and once valued the lives of people like General Lee, who I honestly can’t fault for fighting the Union anyway, the guy might be the worst Confederate figure to point at for dishonor and suppression.
In regards to the rest of the discussion, I’m in general agreement with Dom (I think this is the first time we’ve been on the same side of an issue in this thread).
http://www.neatorama.com/2014/01/01/Americas-Monument-to-Its-Most-Infamous-Traitor-Benedict-Arnold/
Wow, I guess we’re closer to naming a military base after the guy than I thought.
Also, from an art history POV, the Confederate statues are mostly just mass-produced statues of the same guys over and over with different plaques underneath. They could probably destroy close to 700 statues and still have the complete set available for museums.
you think they are mass-produced?
I hear they put the 1891 monument in storage, which is better than simply destroying it. I think it’s important to remember not just what we value now, but what we once valued in the past, this includes the bad. The monuments are physical evidence of this. We never valued Benedict Arnold, but we do value all the innocent lives lost in the conflict, and once valued the lives of people like General Lee, who I honestly can’t fault for fighting the Union anyway, the guy might be the worst Confederate figure to point at for dishonor and suppression.
In regards to the rest of the discussion, I’m in general agreement with Dom (I think this is the first time we’ve been on the same side of an issue in this thread).
http://www.neatorama.com/2014/01/01/Americas-Monument-to-Its-Most-Infamous-Traitor-Benedict-Arnold/
Wow, I guess we’re closer to naming a military base after the guy than I thought.
Also, from an art history POV, the Confederate statues are mostly just mass-produced statues of the same guys over and over with different plaques underneath. They could probably destroy close to 700 statues and still have the complete set available for museums.
you think they are mass-produced?
At least a large portion are. Most were made all at once in a rush of Confederate fervor (basically when Reconstruction ended and the former Confederates wanted to signal to everyone who was in charge of their states again and not to get any ideas about things like retaining voting rights–they were intended to intimidate the nonwhite population, not to be the anachronistic larger-than-life participation trophies they are today). It’s cheaper to make one cast for multiple statues than one cast per statue. As long as you have enough different statues that there aren’t duplicates within one city, nobody will know the difference. At most, the local newspaper may run stories about how a statue had a “twin” in the town down the highway, just for local color.
Someone out there was engaged in an anonymous, passive-aggressive protest that really amounted to strategic littering on a New York street. The residents subverted the protest and brought their community together around it. It’s still littering though, I guess, but at least it’s pretty now and community-approved: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/love-cross-nyc_us_58ff5447e4b0b6f6014ac24e?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
Someone out there was engaged in an anonymous, passive-aggressive protest that really amounted to strategic littering on a New York street. The residents subverted the protest and brought their community together around it. It’s still littering though, I guess, but at least it’s pretty now and community-approved: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/love-cross-nyc_us_58ff5447e4b0b6f6014ac24e?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
I had no idea there was a Gay Street in New York til I read this article. They did beautify it though.
Yay GOP.
Just because some lame republican guy made that blog does not make it the fault of the GOP.
Yay, reason out the window.
LOL