Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 6121314151617 LastLast
Results 226 to 240 of 247

Thread: Texas man explodes with rage at Confederate monument protestors

  1. #226 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Flash,



    Hey, those are all great arguments for other issues. And here they only amount to so much moving of the goal posts.

    Legal peaceful protests at this monument are appropriate, letters to editors, etc. Nobody who puts up a monument like this should expect it to be universally welcomed. I have no problem with the existence of a monument. There should be a place for that. Some of these statues are being moved to cemeteries. That's OK. But to have this thing right by a major highway intersection where everybody is going to be seeing it, that's an affront. People might want to consider creating some legislation to prevent that. I would laugh if the local community decided to erect walls along the highways so this thing could not be seen from the highway.

    We want everybody else to know that if they consider putting something like this in the public's face, they will be getting negative feedback from the public.
    I said legal, peaceful protests are appropriate. I said yelling and screaming at the people who constructed the monument is not productive and is probably harassment or intimidation. Actually, there is seldom anybody at the site. If you drove by your would not know it had anything to do with the Confederacy (until they recently put up flags around the columns representing ? regiments?).

    I don't think legislation would work since there would be no legitimate reason for such a law. I don't think a wall would work since the Interstate 10 overpass is over the road (MLK) that passes under the overpass which the monument sits.

  2. #227 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Flash,

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    I said legal, peaceful protests are appropriate.
    We are in agreement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    I said yelling and screaming at the people who constructed the monument is not productive and is probably harassment or intimidation.
    Also agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Actually, there is seldom anybody at the site. If you drove by your would not know it had anything to do with the Confederacy (until they recently put up flags around the columns representing ? regiments?).

    I don't think legislation would work since there would be no legitimate reason for such a law. I don't think a wall would work since the Interstate 10 overpass is over the road (MLK) that passes under the overpass which the monument sits.
    I'm not sure what kind of legislation might work or not, but if there is something, it should be talked about. If not now then when?

    Shouldn't be too difficult to do a wall. Just needs to be a high enough barrier to obscure the view from vehicle windows. The public can do whatever it wants. If everybody decided something was offensive enough they could simply reroute the highways or rebuild them even higher so the monument ends up below the view of traffic. Just depends on if the outcry is strong enough.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  3. #228 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Threedee View Post
    Pro-CSA apologists are always telling me that the Confederacy was fighting against tyranny and constitutional violations. What was it doing instituting a draft? This debate of America against the Confederacy should be an easy one, given that it's typically waged amongst Americans, who claim to be patriots, and to love their country more than its enemies.

    Fighting against a communist regime, however ill-advisedly and badly planned, is always inherently noble, given the opposing ideology.
    Claiming to be fighting against communism is about as legitimate as those claiming the Confederates were fighting against tyranny--propaganda necessary to make the population want to fight the evil enemy. Neither are noble causes unless attacked or defending another nation against attack. Most foreign policy actions by communist nations have little to do with the communist ideology.

  4. #229 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Flash,



    We are in agreement.



    Also agreed.



    I'm not sure what kind of legislation might work or not, but if there is something, it should be talked about. If not now then when?

    Shouldn't be too difficult to do a wall. Just needs to be a high enough barrier to obscure the view from vehicle windows. The public can do whatever it wants. If everybody decided something was offensive enough they could simply reroute the highways or rebuild them even higher so the monument ends up below the view of traffic. Just depends on if the outcry is strong enough.
    Legislation or a wall is just an attempt to censor free speech you oppose--both probably unconstitutional and contrary to the values of a free nation. Can we legislate or block a billboard that says "Vote Hillary" or Trump?

    The city did look into zoning.

  5. #230 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Federal Way, WA
    Posts
    68,352
    Thanks
    18,375
    Thanked 18,674 Times in 14,047 Posts
    Groans
    628
    Groaned 1,136 Times in 1,080 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Claiming to be fighting against communism is about as legitimate as those claiming the Confederates were fighting against tyranny--propaganda necessary to make the population want to fight the evil enemy. Neither are noble causes unless attacked or defending another nation against attack. Most foreign policy actions by communist nations have little to do with the communist ideology.
    Actually, the Confederates never claimed they were fighting against tyranny. Along with state's rights, that argument was made long after by apologists. The CSA was very clear that it's reason for being—and for fighting—was to preserve slavery.

    Would you say that swallowing-up Eastern Europe and forcing communist party rule upon each nation was about something other than communism? Everywhere the Marxist ideology has ever taken hold has resulted in mass murder, so, there was an inherent nobility in confronting it. It's why I am as confrontational to Marxist posters as I am with Nazis (albeit mostly trolls).

  6. #231 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Threedee View Post
    Actually, the Confederates never claimed they were fighting against tyranny. Along with state's rights, that argument was made long after by apologists. The CSA was very clear that it's reason for being—and for fighting—was to preserve slavery.

    Would you say that swallowing-up Eastern Europe and forcing communist party rule upon each nation was about something other than communism? Everywhere the Marxist ideology has ever taken hold has resulted in mass murder, so, there was an inherent nobility in confronting it. It's why I am as confrontational to Marxist posters as I am with Nazis (albeit mostly trolls).
    I think it was more about expanding slavery than preserving it since there were no efforts to abolish it with serious chance of passage.

    Swallowing up Eastern Europe was an expansion of Russian influence to build a buffer after Germany's invasion. We were stopping Russian expansion, not communism, since Soviet foreign policy was essentially the same before and after communism. We would have tried to stop that expansion even if the Soviet Union had not adopted the communist ideology. Countries that became communist had a history of authoritarianism and totalitarianism and mass murder long before communism.

  7. #232 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Flash,

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Legislation or a wall is just an attempt to censor free speech you oppose--both probably unconstitutional and contrary to the values of a free nation. Can we legislate or block a billboard that says "Vote Hillary" or Trump?

    The city did look into zoning.
    It wouldn't be the first community to take measures to deal with a public eyesore. It's really up to the public. If enough of the public doesn't want it, something will be done.

    Look. This guy who built it. He could have put it anywhere. It could be located in a private place, open to the public that wants to see it, but not sanctioned by the community.
    Some consider it offensive. It's purposely placed to be 'in your face.' Many will consider it a monument to racism or slavery. If people don't want it, they shouldn't have that kind of thing forced on them. That's not right. And it is particularly offensive that it is placed near MLK Blvd.

    If the public doesn't want to have it right there in plain sight, they shouldn't have to.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  8. #233 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Federal Way, WA
    Posts
    68,352
    Thanks
    18,375
    Thanked 18,674 Times in 14,047 Posts
    Groans
    628
    Groaned 1,136 Times in 1,080 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    I think it was more about expanding slavery than preserving it since there were no efforts to abolish it with serious chance of passage.

    Swallowing up Eastern Europe was an expansion of Russian influence to build a buffer after Germany's invasion. We were stopping Russian expansion, not communism, since Soviet foreign policy was essentially the same before and after communism. We would have tried to stop that expansion even if the Soviet Union had not adopted the communist ideology. Countries that became communist had a history of authoritarianism and totalitarianism and mass murder long before communism.
    One of the knocks on communist ideology, is that it has accomplished exactly nothing other than mass murder. Liberalism, for all of its practitioners faults, has produced a Western world that is full of richness.

    The CSA, being southern, handled slavery as stupidly as one could expect. The north had been offering constitutional protections of slavery in the south. The southern perspective was that slavery needed to expand in order to survive, but, by seceding, they could never hope to expand it into the Western territories. By seceding, and then subsequently attacking America, the south brought about the only means possible means to abolish slavery outright at that moment in time.

  9. #234 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Flash,



    It wouldn't be the first community to take measures to deal with a public eyesore. It's really up to the public. If enough of the public doesn't want it, something will be done.

    Look. This guy who built it. He could have put it anywhere. It could be located in a private place, open to the public that wants to see it, but not sanctioned by the community.
    Some consider it offensive. It's purposely placed to be 'in your face.' Many will consider it a monument to racism or slavery. If people don't want it, they shouldn't have that kind of thing forced on them. That's not right. And it is particularly offensive that it is placed near MLK Blvd.

    If the public doesn't want to have it right there in plain sight, they shouldn't have to.
    That is the purpose of the 1st Amendment, so the majority cannot deprive an unpopular minority of basic constitutional rights.

    After 9-11 Muslims were unpopular and many wanted to limit their speech, many wanted to segregate blacks or prevent them from voting, laws sought to prevent free speech by communists or those seen as subversive. The Constitution protected the rights of these groups and should protect the buy who built the monument. Because we find it offensive does not give us the right to deprive him of his rights. We all have things forced on us we find offensive.

    Our freedoms outweigh any attempt by others to decide what we are allowed to see because it is offensive. No doubt somebody will accuse me of being pro-slavery or pro-Confederate because my support for civil liberties.

  10. #235 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Threedee View Post
    One of the knocks on communist ideology, is that it has accomplished exactly nothing other than mass murder. Liberalism, for all of its practitioners faults, has produced a Western world that is full of richness.

    The CSA, being southern, handled slavery as stupidly as one could expect. The north had been offering constitutional protections of slavery in the south. The southern perspective was that slavery needed to expand in order to survive, but, by seceding, they could never hope to expand it into the Western territories. By seceding, and then subsequently attacking America, the south brought about the only means possible means to abolish slavery outright at that moment in time.
    I wasn't attempt to defend or express any sympathy toward communism. My point was that any country that became communist had a history of authoritarian or totalitarian governments. I don't think communism was imposed on any country that had any level of freedom.

    Fighting for the "freedom" of South Vietnam (or Iraq) was useful propaganda for American public opinion. The U. S. has often resorted to a moralistic theme to justify war because of fear Americans won't support something just because it is in our national interest.

  11. #236 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    14,239
    Thanks
    1,579
    Thanked 4,734 Times in 3,515 Posts
    Groans
    5
    Groaned 291 Times in 282 Posts
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    I wasn't attempt to defend or express any sympathy toward communism. My point was that any country that became communist had a history of authoritarian or totalitarian governments. I don't think communism was imposed on any country that had any level of freedom.

    Fighting for the "freedom" of South Vietnam (or Iraq) was useful propaganda for American public opinion. The U. S. has often resorted to a moralistic theme to justify war because of fear Americans won't support something just because it is in our national interest.
    The U. S. has often resorted to a moralistic theme to justify war because of fear Americans won't support something just because it is not in our national interest, but rather in the interest of the Wall Street/donor/"job creator" class.

    Our last national interest foray was WWII.

  12. #237 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fentoine Lum View Post
    The U. S. has often resorted to a moralistic theme to justify war because of fear Americans won't support something just because it is not in our national interest, but rather in the interest of the Wall Street/donor/"job creator" class.

    Our last national interest foray was WWII.
    I think the "munitions makers" argument lost any credibility after WWI (still popular in Marxist college classrooms). War is not good for the economy and not supported by Wall Street or most American corporations. If they wanted more government money it would be much more popular to push for infrastructure projects or other government programs that pump up corporate profits-food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, job training, educational funding.....

  13. #238 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Federal Way, WA
    Posts
    68,352
    Thanks
    18,375
    Thanked 18,674 Times in 14,047 Posts
    Groans
    628
    Groaned 1,136 Times in 1,080 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    I wasn't attempt to defend or express any sympathy toward communism. My point was that any country that became communist had a history of authoritarian or totalitarian governments. I don't think communism was imposed on any country that had any level of freedom.

    Fighting for the "freedom" of South Vietnam (or Iraq) was useful propaganda for American public opinion. The U. S. has often resorted to a moralistic theme to justify war because of fear Americans won't support something just because it is in our national interest.
    Just as in post-WWI Russia and postwar Korea, there did exist a republic in Vietnam. It was poorly set-up, and ineptly run, of course. As I stated before, there is always an inherent nobility in confronting communism. There is also a moral imperative not to waste the lives of your own people in the process, along with the national treasury and the public trust. We blundered early on by attempting to prop-up a failed republic, along with a crony head-of-state. We made a similar mistake when we helped the Brits topple the democratic government in Iran, out of fear that socialism would take hold. We are still paying for that mistake.

  14. #239 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    14,239
    Thanks
    1,579
    Thanked 4,734 Times in 3,515 Posts
    Groans
    5
    Groaned 291 Times in 282 Posts
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    I think the "munitions makers" argument lost any credibility after WWI (still popular in Marxist college classrooms). War is not good for the economy and not supported by Wall Street or most American corporations. If they wanted more government money it would be much more popular to push for infrastructure projects or other government programs that pump up corporate profits-food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, job training, educational funding.....
    Your economic system cannot support itself without endless generational war now. Watch.

  15. #240 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,657 Times in 4,437 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fentoine Lum View Post
    Your economic system cannot support itself without endless generational war now. Watch.
    That is silly. The economy functions much better without war and there is nothing about our economy that needs war any more than any other economy. Most business and military leaders usually oppose going to war.

Similar Threads

  1. Richmond panel urges removal of 1 Confederate monument
    By Bourbon in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 154
    Last Post: 07-27-2018, 01:50 PM
  2. Federal Judge allows Confederate Monument removal in Shreveport
    By katzgar in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-05-2018, 06:07 AM
  3. Confederate monument to be removed
    By Legion Troll in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-02-2016, 09:49 AM
  4. Oil Rig Explodes off LA Coast
    By Mott the Hoople in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 227
    Last Post: 06-16-2010, 06:48 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •