New Orleans removing confederate icons

[7437]

Ultra conservatives tend to be needle dicks.
I remember when that shit head of an actress Jennifer Lawrence said she cant vote republican because of issues dealing with women or whatever. Every comment about it was some moronic conservative saying how they will never watch another movie by her again.

How much of a haggot are you that you cut out your interests just because of your political party.

If i was her i would've spit in their face and said go watch Grand Tarino and fuck your mother.

As a liberal, Gran Torino was a great movie. Just because I disagree with Eastwood's politics doesnt mean I will not watch and enjoy his work. Your insult in the last paragraph is the exact same shit you are bitching about in the first paragraph.

 

[method115]

I honestly don't care about this either way. Get rid of them if it's going to make them feel better. Or don't get rid of them either that's fine to. I wont be bothered either way.

 

[lil billy]

If only they had removed these monuments before that "youth" tried to kidnap that blond girl, maybe that good Samaritan wouldn't have been shot. Removing the monuments will solve a lot of peoples problems, I'm sure

 

[Kana Li]

The South were traitors to the union so I do not think we should have an u things glorifying them. I doubt they have a bunch of George Washington stuff in the U.K.

That being said they are part of our history so move anything that you can into a historical setting of some type. You can change school names and such, but if a long standing monument cannot be moved I am against the destruction of that monument.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

History is a bore anyway.

It's where you're going, not where you've been.

 

[TSO]

What do you say warroom? Removal of left over confederate racist icons or pc attack on southern heritage?

this HTML class. Value is http://www.cnn.com/2

(CNN)Robert E. Lee, P.G.T. Beauregard and Jefferson Davis; your continued presence is a "nuisance," the mayor of New Orleans says. And it's time for you to go.

Your statues, that is, if the city council agrees with him and votes to have the Civil War monuments removed -- in the vein of the national trend to remove the Confederate Battle Flag.

The flag of traitors, the flag of an enemy state, the flag that not a single human alive could have marched under. It's just dumb people waving the flag of stupidity with pride.

And it's a new phenomena.

 

[UpaLoompa]

History is a bore anyway.

It's where you're going, not where you've been.

I'd argue that statues celebrating Confederate icons and iconography is actually the historically ignorant position. Removing such celebrations is the historically honest position.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I'd argue that statues celebrating Confederate icons and iconography is actually the historically ignorant position. Removing such celebrations is the historically honest position.

Go ahead. If you can relate it to the post you quoted too then all the better.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Go ahead. If you can relate it to the post you quoted too then all the better.

Are you pretending that your comment wasn't getting at the oft repeated sentiment that these sorts of monuments are hiding history?

As for my comment, statues of confederate figures are celebrating the actions of those individuals while divorcing their actions from their context, i.e. that they were fighting for the preservation of slavery. This wraps in with the "lost cause" revisionist history that still is widely taught (in the south and elsewhere): That the primary issue that led to the civil war was not slavery. Lost cause revisionist history is not supported by primary materials. That Bedford Forrest, Lee etc. were fighting for noble ideals is historically false.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Are you pretending that your comment wasn't getting at the oft repeated sentiment that these sorts of monuments are hiding history?

Are you "pretending" to know better what I meant with my words than I do? Since you're confused I'll break it down. Hopefully you'll do better than the poster in the National Debt thread who insisted on ascribing his meaning to what I said rather than accepting any clarification to the contrary.

"History is a bore" = I find history disinteresting.
"It's where you're going, not where you've been." = What you do in the future is far more important than basking in past glories or wallowing in past failures.


As for the sentiment you're speaking of, I really don't give a fuck. Sorry, but that's as bluntly as I can put it. I will mention one thing I saw in an earlier post of yours though. You referenced the South citing slavery as its reason for secession and then concluded that's the reason for the war. The war was fought by two sides and it could be they had separate reasoning. It's possible the North mainly wanted to preserve the union at the time and that's why they fought. If it were just about slavery then why force states back into the union? We didn't make states out of WWII foes. I don't really presume to know why exactly everyone who chose to fight did so. I'm just pointing out that the South's reasoning doesn't dictate the North's.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

I can tell you this, we've elected a whole bunch of traitors to political office. People that put their power and authority over the Constitution. At some point there may be another civil war. The people vs the government.

lol. i think the real issue is that people are just spoiled as shit and bored today. the truth is, the world is a safer place than it has ever been. we have a real problem with corruption and the gap between rich and poor in the US, but when havent we?

the would-be revolutionaries in the US today who talk about it all the time....the conspiracy nuts....the "militia" participants. they're still going to coldstone on the weekends. they're out during black friday. they're playing video games. these are not people who are TRULY about to fight the govt lol. and for what? it is fun to play pretend though eh?

 

[UpaLoompa]

Are you "pretending" to know better what I meant with my words than I do? Since you're confused I'll break it down. Hopefully you'll do better than the poster in the National Debt thread who insisted on ascribing his meaning to what I said rather than accepting any clarification to the contrary.

"History is a bore" = I find history disinteresting.
"It's where you're going, not where you've been." = What you do in the future is far more important than basking in past glories or wallowing in past failures.

I'm not pretending to know better what you meant, your post seemed to be implying a pretty common sentiment via sarcasm. If you're bored by history, that's fine but it makes your posting rather odd.

As for the sentiment you're speaking of, I really don't give a fuck. Sorry, but that's as bluntly as I can put it. I will mention one thing I saw in an earlier post of yours though. You referenced the South citing slavery as its reason for secession and then concluded that's the reason for the war. The war was fought by two sides and it could be they had separate reasoning. It's possible the North mainly wanted to preserve the union at the time and that's why they fought. If it were just about slavery then why force states back into the union? We didn't make states out of WWII foes. I don't really presume to know why exactly everyone who chose to fight did so. I'm just pointing out that the South's reasoning doesn't dictate the North's.

I never stated that the South's reasoning was the same as the North's. However, when talking about the confederate figures being honored for serving in the confederacy it is the South's motives that are relevant. Is there any reason to discuss why France and the UK supported who they did when discussing whether people like Lee or Forrest or whomever are being celebrated? No, of course not. That's just a useless distraction.

 

[JimmyFresno]

Personally, I'll stop when his disastrous mistakes are no longer playing a significant negative role in world affairs. So at least as long as ISIS exists and Iraq is a sectarian quagmire W will be coming up.

And mentioning Bush does what? Absolve all future administrations from drone bombing innocent children, because that's what George Bush would want?

Dems blame Junior, and Repubs blame Obama. The Great American Circle Jerk for President, every 4 years, forevermore.

America hasn't had a real President since Kennedy. Dig his headless ass up. I'll vote for him.

 

[Vitor CroCop]

History belongs in history books and museums.

Public parks and plazas are for celebrating great and admirable people and achievements.

There's no cause to celebrate people whose noteworthiness comes from fighting on the wrong side in one of America's ugliest chapters.

boom

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I'm not pretending to know better what you meant, your post seemed to be implying a pretty common sentiment via sarcasm. If you're bored by history, that's fine but it makes your posting rather odd.

Lots of times people include personal statements. The meat of the post was the 2nd statement. I'm saying that removing these monuments is no big deal. I'm also saying erecting monuments isn't too important either. The cynical part of me thinks war memorials are there to keep reverence high and questioning low so as to encourage dying for someone else's cause in the future.

I never stated that the South's reasoning was the same as the North's. However, when talking about the confederate figures being honored for serving in the confederacy it is the South's motives that are relevant. Is there any reason to discuss why France and the UK supported who they did when discussing whether people like Lee or Forrest or whomever are being celebrated? No, of course not. That's just a useless distraction.

As I recall you were using the South's stated reason to dismiss the proposition that the war was fought to preserve the union. We all agree on the South being motivated to preserve such an indefensible institution. In regards to the North though, would it have been acceptable if it were proposed that any states could leave who wanted to so long as they outlawed slavery?

 

[oldshadow]

Slavery was absolutely one of the reasons for the civil war. When Lincoln was elected the southern states decided to secede. The north refused to recognize the secession. The underlying tension of slavery, the secession and the election of Lincoln all heavily contributed to the civil war. You are correct that when Lincoln was elected he stated that he would not interfere with states already owning slaves. He ended up changing his position on that

Slavery was the main reason the south wanted independence. Lincoln wanted to hold the union together, mainly for economic reasons.

As far as traitors, the south was no more and no less traitors then the founding fathers.

That all said the north winning was the best thing for the U.S. and maybe for the world.

As far as the OP if the people support this fine, if not they will make the politicians pay.

 

[UpaLoompa]

As I recall you were using the South's stated reason to dismiss the proposition that the war was fought to preserve the union. We all agree on the South being motivated to preserve such an indefensible institution. In regards to the North though, would it have been acceptable if it were proposed that any states could leave who wanted to so long as they outlawed slavery?

We're talking about confederate "heroes".

 

[DeJulez]

As a liberal, Gran Torino was a great movie. Just because I disagree with Eastwood's politics doesnt mean I will not watch and enjoy his work. Your insult in the last paragraph is the exact same shit you are bitching about in the first paragraph.

Remember that cornball Asian gang.
K-pop looking Koreans in ponytails and a short fat one trying to lure the dullest kid from the far east to commit petty crimes for them.
The breakdancing gangs in Beat Street were scarier than those guys

That being said

They said they would never watch her movies again because of her views. I simply told them that if I was Jennifer Lawrence id tell them to go watch Gran Torino and fuck their mother.

I might've also said to spit in their face or somethin as well. In a polite way tho.

 

[ncordless]

I don't have a problem with memorials to the valor of the Confederate Army. There cause was among the worst anyone ever fought for, but even the men they fought and killed respected them. They stand as enduring testament to the obstinate idiocy of the American South. But if the South wants to be reminded of it, whatever floats their boats.

What gets me about the statutes in Nola though is that those confederate generals were never stationed there and left it to the Union from almost the very beginning of the war. That the statutes are there is revisionist history. Beauregard was from there at least so maybe his statute makes sense? But why Lee there?

 

[machidafan99]

That's fine but taking Dukes of Hazard off the air is too much. It was just a show shot on a hollywood lot.

You can't erase history.