So, Let's remove Statues but teach about Riots..?? · Page 3

Free Fall
Auctions

Specials
Auctions

QuickBuy
Auctions

Newly Added
Auctions

Ending Soon
Auctions

Welcome Guest

Forum Terms & Conditions | My Topics

DrafterX
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

9 years ago

#41

Side with the libs..?? Why is this political..?? 😕

bgz
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#42

Well, it is in the politics section.

Abrignac
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#43

I'm for all history being taught. I'm also tired of the senseless whining about history. Too many people butt hurt about crap that happened generations ago. Sick of the sjw's and their patrons playing the victim. As long as we have too sides picking fights with each other there will never be any healing. As such I predict that within 200 years everyone realizes we all need to get along or, we will have another civil war.

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#44

I agree Anthony. Too much senseless whining about taking down a statue memorializing a side of a war which was morally wrong and fortunately lost.

Wish these sensitive sally's would just stop crying about it. The nation will never heal as long as they keep crying that their losing generals need some sort of memorials. They've been playing the victim constantly...

Abrignac
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#45

victor809 wrote:

That and douches like you baiting them.

bgz
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#46

but he's a master baiter.

Abrignac
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#47

but he's a master baiter.

bgz wrote:

As opposed to a corn holer?

DrafterX
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

9 years ago

#48

Or a cork soaker.. 😟

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#49

Hey... this whole thing became an issue because some sensitive snowflakes were hurt that a city council (elected officials)had decided a city no longer needed a statue and park commemorating a general who fought to destroy the United States of America, replace it in its entirety with "the confederate states" and make slavery legal throughout (at least in regards to black people)...

These sensitive snowflakes got butthurt... held a protest where they marched with nazi flags and screamed antisemitic phrases (I'm not sure why). When people shouted back at them and counter protested one of them was such a sensitive little baby he had to run a bunch of people down with his car.

The statues or parks or any of that b.s. never belonged in the USA to begin with. They are literally statues to generals who tried to destroy our nation, and who ultimately fought a war to try to bring slavery back to the entire country. With zero good reason for them ever to have been erected in the first place, the bar for removing them should be pretty low... like "it blocks the sun for this patch of grass" low...

Abrignac
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#50

victor809 wrote:

It's **** like this that fans the flame. Get your facts straight.

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#51

Where am I wrong?

Abrignac
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#52

Where am I wrong?

victor809 wrote:

Who invaded who? Spread slavery to all states? Fought to destroy a nation?

I would expect you to know better. Guess not.

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#53

I never stated who invaded who. I don't think that's relevant (you may)
The instant they declared secession they attempted to destroy the nation. Whether they had troops or not.
The confederate state constitution made a point of stating that slavery is legal in all territories of the confederacy AND made a point in the same article of stating that all new states and territory conquered "negro slavery" is recognized and protected.

If that doesn't count as attempting to spread slavery to all the state's I don't know what does.

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#54

I simply don't understand why anyone would ignore this information. It's there in writing.

But instead everyone puts more stock in fictionalized tales and the "thoughts and feelings" of the generals... "oh... he didn't really want to destroy America, he just wanted to fight for his home state!" Well... his home state wrote a documebt which said it was leaving America. In that document in writing it stated it was leaving because it loved having slaves. It then joined a confederacy which wrote a document which stated "we love having slaves and we want to make sure that every territory we control now or in the future let's us have negro slaves"...

There isn't any interpretation here. They wrote it clearly ... they were very literate men... this isn't like one of trumps bull**** tweets where it can be interpreted 5 ways because he doesn't know how to string a coherent sentence together.

Too many people like to put more weight on personal letters and use that to interpret what they thought their romanticized southerners may have felt about the whole thing. They aren't putting enough weight on the very simple fact that the government they chose to fight for and defend explicitly stated what it wanted to continue doing to blacks across the entire nation.

Yet this is the same group that claims the other side worried too much about feelings.

Abrignac
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#55

victor809 wrote:

At the time there were no precedents regarding secession. The confederate states chose to secede. Instead of litigation they were invaded when the declared sovereignty.

In their articles they stated that slavery would be allowed for new territories That's not the same as saying they are going to conquer the northern states and force slavery on them.

You've taken things waaaay out of context of the times. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So when people on one side conjure up the worst case scenario of events that happened generations ago and then disparage people who view things differently we have what we have now. We have two groups fighting each other.

I don't for a minute agree with slavery. But, I've much more to worry about than people using events of a bygone era to force an agenda on people who had absolutely nothing to do with said events when you do you end up with what we have now.

Certain groups of people are going to hate other people. It's been like that since the dawn of man. Some people are smart and mouth to see that. Some are. It and some would use that to benefit themselves at the expense of others.

That's the difference between you and I. I try to get along where I can. You wear your feelings on your sleeve.

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

9 years ago

#56

Anthony... don't be obtuse. The constitution of the confederacy isn't going to state they will conquer the northern states. That's simply not something you can put in a constitution and have it make sense. But where do you think these additional territories will come from? It has to come from either a state or territory of the union...

And I find your victim game funny. You're claiming someone is using "events from a bygone era to force an agenda on" ... some people. Who? Where? Who is forcing what agenda on you? Not having statues commemorating the heroes of the side that lost isn't "forcing an agenda" that's just common sense... seems like actually constructing those types of statues or memorials is much more an agenda driven concept.

As for your "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"... why didn't you apply that concept to the construction of the monuments in the first place? I know you weren't there, but a logical person would say "hey... I wonder what the reaction from one group would have been regarding race relations if we put a statue up commemorating soldiers who fought to defend the institution of slavery?"...
To be fair I think that was intentionally taken into consideration. But you don't seem to want to apply it there.