|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 0/368 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Right Side of the News | |||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
marc9000 writes: As has been pointed out, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Is there a timeline when THEIR memorials come down? Is that future time a secret, of does it happen at the whim of some future gangs of angry Democrats? I think that the fact that they are being honoured for other achievements puts their statues in a better light. For now. What keeps it from changing later? One of the more notable moments of the recent State of the Union speech by Trump was when he said "The U.S. will never become a socialist country". In the mostly fanfare nature of State of the Union speeches, any vague, honeyed statement by the president always gets polite applause from the vice president, and speaker of the house seated behind him. In that case, Pelosi sat silent. It wasn't just her personally who sat silent, she was representing millions of her constituents with that action. Her and those millions don't have any more respect for Washington and Jefferson than they do for Lee. Mural of George Washington May Be Removed Because It 'Traumatizes Students'
quote: Do you agree with this?
That certainly wasn’t your original point. And I don’t think you believe it. Trump’s wall is certainly a change that is creating conflict - but I bet you are all for it. Trump's wall isn't a "change". We've always had a southern border. It's merely a method for increasing security in an increasingly insecure area.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
I'm not sure what Marc was trying to say here, or why he was trying to say it. That both North and South were racist before, during and after the Civil War is not in doubt, but it was only the South that insisted on maintaining slavery, and only the South that after the war did all they could to keep blacks enslaved (in effect if not in reality) to the extent possible. --Percy The only reasons I'm seeing for removing Lee's statues is because he was "racist". I don't know of any evidence that Lee himself supported the maintaining of slavery after he surrendered the South's position. But for business owners in the North, decades after the war to refuse service to any black person, doesn't show me any less racism than anything Lee ever promoted, yet there is no call to get even with them or their descendants. Why target Lee, why now?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: I would hope the value of their actual achievements. But I don’t think we should be dictating to future generations what they should do about monuments in their country.
quote: And how exactly is that relevant ? Especially given that the US idea of “socialism” seems to be normal in Western Europe, even when Right Wing parties are in power ?
quote: I certainly don’t think that glorifying either slavery or the appalling treatment of the pre-Colombian inhabitants of America is appropriate. The mural might well be better moved to another setting where these issues can be discussed and explained.
quote: It is erecting barriers where none existed, and I think that people who will have access to their own land and the river restricted are likely to find it an unwelcome change. But if you want an even bigger example, the secession of the Confederacy was another big change that lead to massive conflict. The establishment of the state of Israel is another. And really, doesn’t the whole idea amount to violent thugs being able to veto any initiative through the threat of violence? That is not something any civilised person would want.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
They can't and don't vote in state or Federal elections. If you want to argue otherwise, include evidence. Your wish is my command. House votes to support illegal immigrant voting in local elections - Washington Times You simply can't mask today's Democrats intention to recruit immigrant's votes.
And let's see the statistics on literacy in their native language, an on "other problems". They have no special rights in the U.S. concerning their "native language".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: And because he fought to preserve slavery - and that is the main thing he is remembered for. Hardly something to celebrate, I think.
quote: He is on record as saying that slavery should be continued indefinitely and I have yet to see evidence that his opinion changed. Moreover he was in favour of denying Blacks the right to vote even after surrender.
quote: I think it shows less racism than saying that they should be denied the right to vote.
quote: There is no call to “get even” with Lee or his descendants either. He’s just seen as a figure who doesn’t deserve the honour of a statue in a prominent public place. I don’t note any calls to preserve statues of racist Northern business owners who are notable mainly for their racism. Do you ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
The main difference is that sanctuary cities are not violating Federal or any law. They are refusing, as is their right and duty, to enforce Federal law for the agencies responsible for the enforcement. Then why are they denied the right and duty to refuse to enforce unfunded government mandates of auto emissions testing which will certainly harm their economies?
Do you really believe that this administration would not act if they were really violating Feder law? Exactly what Federal law do you think they are violating? Error 404
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
School board elections are not state or Federal elections, Marc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
marc9000 writes: One of the more notable moments of the recent State of the Union speech by Trump was when he said "The U.S. will never become a socialist country". In the mostly fanfare nature of State of the Union speeches, any vague, honeyed statement by the president always gets polite applause from the vice president, and speaker of the house seated behind him. In that case, Pelosi sat silent. And how exactly is that relevant ? Especially given that the US idea of “socialism” seems to be normal in Western Europe, even when Right Wing parties are in power ? It's relevant because Washington and Jefferson WERE NOT socialists. And they did dictate a LOT of things to future generations. In order to reduce to irrelevance who they were and what they did, their monuments and references must be scaled way back. Gotta get lesser historic figures like Lee out of the way first.
I certainly don’t think that glorifying either slavery or the appalling treatment of the pre-Colombian inhabitants of America is appropriate. That wasn't the question.
The mural might well be better moved to another setting where these issues can be discussed and explained. Moved to another setting, discussed and explained, then removed from there? Incrementalism is alive and well in liberal thinking.
It is erecting barriers where none existed, and I think that people who will have access to their own land and the river restricted are likely to find it an unwelcome change. The line that divides two countries, both of which have rules about those who attempt to cross it, is a barrier. If a poll were taken among land owners at the border, I think it would be pretty lopsided, concerning who favors, or doesn't favor, more border security including the wall.
But if you want an even bigger example, the secession of the Confederacy was another big change that lead to massive conflict. That was the second big change, the first was the north meddling in something that wasn't their business. The north not recognizing state's rights.
And really, doesn’t the whole idea amount to violent thugs being able to veto any initiative through the threat of violence? Like northern troops with guns refusing to leave Fort Sumter, a place deep in southern territory?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
And because he fought to preserve slavery - and that is the main thing he is remembered for. Hardly something to celebrate, I think. But he seems to have been remembered differently when the statue was erected. What changed? His actual actions, or our memories?
He is on record as saying that slavery should be continued indefinitely and I have yet to see evidence that his opinion changed. After the war was over? If so, reference please.
Moreover he was in favour of denying Blacks the right to vote even after surrender. As were many northerners - who really thought that blacks in the late 1800's were informed enough to vote, considering the short length of time they'd been here and their lack of education?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
School board elections are not state or Federal elections, Marc. Just like no smoking laws on airline flights of 2 hours or less wasn't a total smoking ban on all airline flights. It took 12 more years to get the total ban. Democrats love incrementalism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
So you think people should be able to smoke on flights? Also, please show there is any move to allow non-citizens to vote in federal elections. If you have nothing than your argument is worthless.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: OK it’s just an excuse for your conspiracy theory crap. What a surprise.
quote: By which you mean you don’t want those aspects to be considered at all. Unfortunately for you they are very relevant to the question.
quote: I am not suggesting that.
quote: In other words you just assume that the people who will be inconvenienced will support the change.
quote: You are really coming out as a supporter of slavery now. While the Confederacy used “States Rights” rhetoric when it was convenient it hardly seemed to apply when those rights got in the way of slavery. If an escaped slave is in a free State’s jurisdiction it seems to me that it is that State’s business what they do about him or her. But the slave States insisted on having their way there. And they did.
quote: I certainly don’t mean people defending themselves from aggression, so no. But since you consider that sufficient “conflict” it seems that you agree that the secession of the Confederate States was wrong by the principle you invoked.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Was he ? We are talking about a society that was erecting mass-produced Confederate monuments in the 1950’s and 1960’s in opposition to the Civil Rights movement. Support for White Supremacy is not a new thing and it was certainly the motive for erecting many of the monuments concerned. If you think there were motives for this one unconnected with Lee being a Confederate general it’s up to you to produce evidence.
quote: He expressed the opinion before the war - in the letter previously quoted. If you have evidence that his opinion changed at the end of the war you should produce references.
quote: The 15th Amendment passed in 1870 and guaranteed the right to vote. So it seems that your view was hardly dominant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: In other words they aren’t violating any Federal law. Tell me Marc, do you not bother to properly read your sources or do you just bluff and hope that nobody else will read them ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
That's allowing local communities to let undocumented immigrants to vote in LOCAL elections. Allowing them to vote in state or Federal elections would be prima facie unconstitutional.
I specified state or Federal elections for a reason. Fail.
Of course right wingers are big fans of local control, except when the locals don't do what the right wingers want them to. BTW you neglected to specify "other problems". You obviously mentioned literacy to slur them as poorly educated. Literacy in their native language belies that. Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024