Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
No need to be insulting fella , thought it was the liberals who are easily offended snowflakes .

The likes of me ? You have absolutely no idea of who I am , I certainly don’t have a vote about whether to take down confederate statues I do have an opinion though .
What you going on about then? Say it or shut up:) weird
 
To be fair to Yoda there is a valid comparison there, it's just from different ends of the political spectrum.

- ISIS destroyed historical remnants of a time counter to what they believe in.

- Anti-confederates wish to destroy historical remnants of a time counter to what they believe in.

I think there is a massive difference to be honest with you but I’ll take your point . I do think there is a huge difference in a violently oppressive religious regime bulldozing a temple from 2bc and a legislative removing a statue erected 50 years after the end of a civil war .
 
here's an idea. How about moving statues of slave owners who fought for the right to own humans, to special museums where we can bring our kids to show them what we must never do.
Like the Liverpool museum haha. And I found it a very melancholy place.
 
Did the representation of colours, on this flag support slavery? did all the men who went to civil war with the union(am I correct “Union”) fight to the death in a bloody conflict to support a flag that only meant “ we support slavery”? No it’s deeper than that.
No the Union is the North who fought against slavery. Obviously it is impossible to tell if every man supported slavery. However a good way to see that it was absolutely a reason that many fought for is to read the secession documents from each state. They don't really hide that continuing slavery was something they wanted to fight for
 
To be fair to Yoda there is a valid comparison there, it's just from different ends of the political spectrum.

- ISIS destroyed historical remnants of a time counter to what they believe in.

- Anti-confederates wish to destroy historical remnants of a time counter to what they believe in.
This is not true. A historical remnant would be something like a battlefield or the house where Lee surrendered to Grant. A statue of Lee is not the same thing
 
To be fair to Yoda there is a valid comparison there, it's just from different ends of the political spectrum.

- ISIS destroyed historical remnants of a time counter to what they believe in.

- Anti-confederates wish to destroy historical remnants of a time counter to what they believe in.
Rather have a more conservative rep supporting my argument, but I suppose you’re the best backup I’ve got:)
 
are you for real??? I asked you if forward thinking students upset you and you accuse me of deflecting?

Putting these statues in a museum is the obvious compromise by the way.
You never answered the Question, just came back with your own question
 
No the Union is the North who fought against slavery. Obviously it is impossible to tell if every man supported slavery. However a good way to see that it was absolutely a reason that many fought for is to read the secession documents from each state. They don't really hide that continuing slavery was something they wanted to fight for

TBH the biggest indicator of whether they supported slavery or not is what they did after they'd lost - ie: pretend that they hadn't, enforce segregation - often at the end of a rope - and spend the next hundred years making it illegal to even marry outside of ones race.
 
They are pretty upfront about what they're afraid of:

I’m A Conservative, And I Went To An Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Rally
http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/23/conservative-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-rally/

"On Saturday evening, Democratic congressional candidate Cori Bush held a rally in celebration of her birthday. Bush, who is running in the Aug. 7 primary against seven-term incumbent William “Lacy” Clay Jr. in Missouri’s First Congressional District (St. Louis), brought in some star power for the event: Democratic socialist and Bronx native Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Over the years, I have attended my share of political events: tea party protests, a Rick Perry speech on tax cuts, a Ted Cruz rally, and even a speech given by President Donald Trump earlier this year. But nothing prepared me for the stark difference in tone.

Bush’s rally packed a few hundred friends and activists into a bar called the Ready Room in St. Louis, and almost from the moment I walked through the door, I was surrounded by a group of women who were discussing over drinks the reasons they had gotten involved in politics — the two things they all had in common were anger and fear. One even said, “I just couldn’t stand being angry and afraid all the time.

As the rally kicked off, a series of invited guests took the stage, each sharing the reasons that they supported Bush. Several mentioned the Ferguson protests — which began after police officer Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown on Aug. 9, 2014 — and recalled being tear-gassed and arrested alongside Bush.

Others invoked the “Israeli occupation of Palestine” while still others told stories of “woke” grandchildren who asked over pancakes whether ICE was going to come and arrest them.

One even praised the strength and dedication of convicted cop-killer Assata Shakur — while Ocasio-Cortez (who was waiting in the wings) and Bush nodded along.

But then Ocasio-Cortez spoke, followed by Bush, and I saw something truly terrifying. I saw just how easy it would be, were I less involved and less certain of our nation’s founding and its history, to fall for the populist lines they were shouting from that stage.

I saw how easy it would be, as a parent, to accept the idea that my children deserve healthcare and education.

I saw how easy it would be, as someone who has struggled to make ends meet, to accept the idea that a “living wage” was a human right.

Above all, I saw how easy it would be to accept the notion that it was the government’s job to make sure that those things were provided."

any excuse to post this again:

 
I think there is a massive difference to be honest with you but I’ll take your point . I do think there is a huge difference in a violently oppressive religious regime bulldozing a temple from 2bc and a legislative removing a statue erected 50 years after the end of a civil war .

Aye, the similarities are more at that profound level of countering core-beliefs of a bygone time by destroying prominent historical monuments.

The differences become more acute the more you look into the detail, cultural historians for example (politically-neutral) would only want to save the 2000-year old temples, for they represent a story partly untold. They wouldn't be interested in the statues, for they represent a story already well known.
 
TBH the biggest indicator of whether they supported slavery or not is what they did after they'd lost - ie: pretend that they hadn't, enforce segregation - often at the end of a rope - and spend the next hundred years making it illegal to even marry outside of ones race.
And force a certain race to drink out of separate water fountains, go to separate restrooms, go to separate schools, sit at the back of the bus, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc

and this was STILL happening in the 1960s

Absolutely mind-blowing
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top