what everyone is missing

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by _______

I know this was just a troll but I'll pretend you aren't trying to make a ridiculous point about how removing statutes mostly erected in the South during the civil rights movement is exactly like pissing on George Washington's grave.

Most confederate soldiers weren't slaveholders. In fact, most weren't landholders. They were poor whites little better off than the slaves their leaders wanted to sacrifice their lives to keep. I'm sure a modern mind would find their attitudes archaic, in the same way we can look back and see flaws in Thomas Jefferson and other founders.

But, on balance, I have far more sympathy for a common soldier who fought for a cause which didn't also assure their countinied wealth on the back of slave labor.

Why are you conflating? I asked why the delineation, by you, regarding statues erected to honor leaders versus soldiers. The mere fact the majority of soldiers were not slave owners, makes them more culpable. The leaders had economic reasons to support the institution of slavery, while the common soldier fought because of his racism.

The common soldier, having no economic interests, fought based solely on the moral grounds that black people were inferior and to keep them in their subjected place. The common soldier's racist reason for fighting is more reprehensible.

[_______]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Why are you conflating? I asked why the delineation by you regarding statues erected to honor leaders versus soldiers. The mere fact the majority of soldiers were not slave owners, makes them more culpable. The leaders had economic reasons to support the institution of slavery, while the common soldier fought because of his racism.

The common soldier, having no economic interests, fought based solely on the moral grounds that black people were inferior and to keep them in their subjected place. The common soldier's racist reason for fighting is more reprehensible.

You've convinced me with your logic and repetitious use of the word conflating.

You actually believe this nonsense and I pissed you off by inadvertaly using a trigger word.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by _______

You've convinced me with your logic and repetitious use of the word conflating.

You actually believe this nonsense and I pissed you off by inadvertaly using a trigger word.

I am far from pissed off. I actually agree with your following point:

I don't think anyone actually thinks history is being erased by the removal of statutes honoring leaders of secession from public places. Many of them were erected in the 40's and after as signals during the civil rights movement. That part of history does get regularly ignored.

I agree the statues were used as signals during the civil rights movement. If you read the entire thread I also agreed with the sentiment that it is history which belongs in a museum.

If you read the whole thread you would understand my objection was about mob action making the decision. In light of mob action there is a slippery slope about which statues (founding fathers) would be violently removed or removed by some authorities to prevent mob violence.

[Nutz and Boltz]

The Confederate Civil War generals should have never been "honored" in any way in the first place . The Civil War was a shameful part of American history, turning fellow countrymen against each other. That war should have quickly been forgotten, not celebrated in any manner.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

The leaders had economic reasons to support the institution of slavery, while the common soldier fought because of his racism.

The common soldier, having no economic interests, fought based solely on the moral grounds that black people were inferior and to keep them in their subjected place. The common soldier's racist reason for fighting is more reprehensible.

The common solider fought because he was defending his home against what he considered to be an invasion. People at that time, especially in the south, considered themselves to be citizens of their state first, and of a country second. Yes, the majority of them were racists, but that is not why they fought. They fought to defend their homeland against a foreign invader.

[classhandicapper]

I'm going to keep calling out people defending BLM and Antifa again and again.

The BLM movement and Antifa have been directly responsible or influenced people that have rioted, looted, suppressed reasonable speech at universities, destroyed public and private properly, killed innocent cops, beaten innocent bystanders, shot a congressman, and typically show up armed to their protests.

Exactly what does that have in common with civil rights?

Just because there are still skinheads and nazis in the world does not mean you have a right run amok killing people and destroying things.

That anyone is trying to defend these scumbags (especially the left wing media) because they are in opposition to another bigger set of scumbags is reprehensible. They ARE BOTH scumbags and this country has no use for either of them.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

You're in the right place.

He sure is. Right here with you.

Do you know what these stinking racists did over the years?
They voted Robert Byrd into office multiple times.
the named road, building, bridges after him, to glorify the KKK, a racist organization THEY themselves founded to deny Blacks their rights.

We have to do all we can do to stamp out what is left of this racist, murdering group.....democrats.

Deny that, Sparky.

btw, when do you guys start renaming the Byrd stuff?

This has nothing to do with racism or neo-nazis of the KKK and only an outright idiot believes it is.

I got two of them on my list so far.....

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'm going to keep calling out people defending BLM and Antifa again and again.

And that's totally your prerogative.

However, I'm going to disagree with any attempt at equivalence. I know there are bad apples in every bunch but I think a lot of people who showed up at black rights rallies across the country are not violent. I would venture to say the majority, or at least a large percentage, of them are "dreamers" in the MLK ilk. People who show up at white supremacist rallies... heh... well they are white supremacists. Again I'm not a fan of BLM either but you're comparing someone like Colin Kaepernik to a Nazi.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Tom

He sure is. Right here with you.

Do you know what these stinking racists did over the years?
They voted Robert Byrd into office multiple times.
the named road, building, bridges after him, to glorify the KKK, a racist organization THEY themselves founded to deny Blacks their rights.

We have to do all we can do to stamp out what is left of this racist, murdering group.....democrats.

Deny that, Sparky.

btw, when do you guys start renaming the Byrd stuff?

This has nothing to do with racism or neo-nazis of the KKK and only an outright idiot believes it is.

I got two of them on my list so far.....

Did you have a point? Did Dan vote for Byrd?

I'm pretty sure it has to do with Nazis and the KKK. At my last tally score was Nazis - 1 Counterprotesters - 0

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

And that's totally your prerogative.

However, I'm going to disagree with any attempt at equivalence. I know there are bad apples in every bunch but I think a lot of people who showed up at black rights rallies across the country are not violent. I would venture to say the majority, or at least a large percentage, of them are "dreamers" in the MLK ilk. People who show up at white supremacist rallies... heh... well they are white supremacists. Again I'm not a fan of BLM either but you're comparing someone like Colin Kaepernik to a Nazi.

Whatever you say, E-traveller....BTW, from right where I live in Charlotte:

YouTube (Short URL)

Here's another peaceful THUG:

YouTube (Short URL)

[Tom]

I'm pretty sure it has to do with Nazis and the KKK.

And you would be wrong.
Not for the first time.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

And that's totally your prerogative.

However, I'm going to disagree with any attempt at equivalence. I know there are bad apples in every bunch but I think a lot of people who showed up at black rights rallies across the country are not violent. I would venture to say the majority, or at least a large percentage, of them are "dreamers" in the MLK ilk. People who show up at white supremacist rallies... heh... well they are white supremacists. Again I'm not a fan of BLM either but you're comparing someone like Colin Kaepernik to a Nazi.

Exactly where did I compare Colin Kaepernick to a Nazi?

He's just a mediocre quarterback with a flawed understanding of reality.

Of course there are decent people protesting against police brutality, neo nazis etc.. in the same way there are decent people against wide open borders for economic and other legitimate reasons. They aren't all Nazis either.

If it makes some people feel better to think that there are degrees of scumbag, they are certainly entitled to that view. I think once you are a scumbag, it's pretty irrelevant just how scummy you are. Trouble has specifically followed both BLM and Antifa because they are NOT the good guys. They are the flip side of a deranged coin.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Whatever you say, E-traveller....BTW, from right where I live in Charlotte:

https://youtu.be/PJm4Bor-kYc

Here's another peaceful THUG:

https://youtu.be/pOdXXVhY_Nk

Apparently comprehension isn't your strong suit. I literally said there are bad apples in the black rights movement... however... I refuse to believe those images represent the majority of black rights protestors. The photos of saod evemts would back me up on this. You're looking only for things that fit your narrative.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Exactly where did I compare Colin Kaepernick to a Nazi?

He's just a mediocre quarterback with a flawed understanding of reality.

Of course there are decent people protesting against police brutality, neo nazis etc.. in the same way there are decent people against wide open borders for economic and other legitimate reasons. They aren't all Nazis either.

If it makes some people feel better to think that there are degrees of scumbag, they are certainly entitled to that view. I think once you are a scumbag, it's pretty irrelevant just how scummy you are. Trouble has specifically followed both BLM and Antifa because they are NOT the good guys.

By your estimation are there "decent people" attending white supremacist rallies?

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Apparently comprehension isn't your strong suit. I literally said there are bad apples in the black rights movement... however... I refuse to believe those images represent the majority of black rights protestors. The photos of saod evemts would back me up on this. You're looking only for things that fit your narrative.

Again, whatever you say E-traveller......You're fooling no one but yourself, the evidence speaks for itself, whether it's CNN or Fox News, the events and images in MY city don't lie.....