American Monuments being taken down..... - General Discussion Discussion

[–] BiffGG (662) 7 years ago

Specifically, pro Confederate antebellum or Civil War figures or ones put up afterward as a tribute to those previously mentioned figures should be taken down. Now when you get to Jefferson and Washington then it gets quite a bit more murky. Not good that they were slave owners but who knows what course of action they would have settled upon if mother England had never allowed slavery in her North American colonies. Should pictures of Elizabeth I, James I, Charles I, Mary, and right down the line be taken down in any museums in the US as they did nothing to prevent slavery from taking root in the colonies? Keep in mind that bondage such as what was seen in the South was ending in the mother country during the early days of colonial establishment. Also, keep in mind that the economic system we see today did not quickly take root in place of slavery back during the 17th Century. Many people including the Irish were forced into working systems that only shed the most harshest aspects of slavery but provided virtually no freedoms.

reply

[–] MinaVladimir (4077) 7 years ago

Well, I'm glad taking down monuments isn't a thing that is debated only where I live. This thread brings things in perspective, so thanks for that MissMargo.

This exact thing is a "hot" topic here as well. Especially about two monuments in particular /in my understanding/. All /I think/ of the Stalin and Lenin and choose-your-own-dictator monuments were taken down years ago. But the one of the Soviet Army still remains... And boy is it a point of argument! But it has become a kind of place for civil protest /some people really like to paint over it, and Russia really likes to complain about it/, which is cool. So, it is a point of not only historical debate, but current events as well. And all the kids like to skate there, so that's a whole other "clash" of eras.

But we do have a Museum of Socialist Art, that houses some of the removed monuments, so "the memory remains" and all that.

reply

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 7 years ago

"Well, I'm glad taking down monuments isn't a thing that is debated only where I live. This thread brings things in perspective,"

It certainly does. It gives one food for thought.
I don't want to back peddle but I do understand why people want these statues taken down. I am getting a better understanding from this thread,

reply

[–] MinaVladimir (4077) 7 years ago

It highly depends on the intent of the statue I think. If it glorifies a person that's done or stood for terrible things I don't think they have a place in public spaces. As I mentioned Lenin and Stalin used to be revered figures /at least publicly/, but as society changes, so does the need for these specific statues. We grow, we learn, we gain filler understanding of the character of some of these people and their actions. We won't forget them, I don't think, but we don't need to put them on a literal piedestal in order to remember.

reply

[–] arvin g borkar (2854) 7 years ago

Got dang it Mina, do you want the monuments taken down or not? lol

reply

[–] MinaVladimir (4077) 7 years ago

For the one that I mentioned in my first comment, no, I don't want for it to be taken down, since it still brings to light relevant issues /as I said, it is used for civil protest/. As for others, read my reply to MissMargo above.

reply

[–] arvin g borkar (2854) 7 years ago

Yeah I had to look back and deduce that you did not. Got it!

reply

[–] Barclays (960) 7 years ago

This is an attack on America by a bunch of assholea. I think that the people who don't like American monuments should leave America. We don't go to other countries and protest their stupid monuments.

reply

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

Robt E Lee was not a US general or a US hero. Confederates were fighting AGAINST the United States of America.
Do not try to wave the "American' label around to describe enemies of America.

reply

[–] napsdufroid (2077) 7 years ago

Oh, you're still American this week, "barclays?"

"This is an attack on America ..."

--Actually, no it isn't. At all.

reply

[–] Gubbio (3893) 7 years ago

What do you think of this? Do you think that this is right or wrong?

Political Correctness has run amuck. People are just looking for something to be offended by.

"Symbols of hate?" Why was no one offended during Obama's 8 years -- and all the years before that? Why is this coming up now?

"Columbus a Symbol of hate?" I've always hated what the Europeans did to the Native Americans. But, Columbus was only doing what was "normal" in his time. We can't apply 2017 standards to times in the past.

Why doesn't everyone just get over themselves and concentrate on the REAL PROBLEMS of the day?

We really don't need this self-inflicted drama and finger pointing. I'm sick of it!

reply

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 7 years ago

Much of what you say was my first reaction to it. I also had this sense of history being swept under the rug in the name of Political Correctness. I still don't see the necessity of taking down these statues. From what I understand from watching the PBS News Hour, it is costing a great deal of money to have them removed as well.

"Why doesn't everyone just get over themselves and concentrate on the REAL PROBLEMS of the day?"

AMEN!

reply

[–] sleepingtiger (712) 7 years ago

MissMargoChanning:

Once again, no history is being "swept away" here, and it has nothing to do with "political correctness". It has more to do with the fact that people need to stop pretending that the Confederate were heroes, because they never were---plain and damn simple--they were fckg traitors. The myth of them being heroes has only been kept alive to try and preserve any justifications for white supremacy. Read the articles I posted, in which there are some very good cases made for removing these statues.

"Why doesn't everyone just get over themselves and concentrate on the REAL PROBLEMS of the day?"

You need to ask that same damn question to all those neo-nazi white supremacist thugs who came from all over the country to protest the removal of a statue in some little Southern town probably half of them weren't even from; to loudly threaten anyone who challenged them in any way,and with weapons; and who acted like just being white gave them the fckg right to do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted. What bothered them so damn much about a simple statue that they had to do what they did? Ask THEM that. Ask them why these statues are such a big damn deal to THEM. Tell THEM to get the fck over themselves, and that they're aren't superior to anyone on earth simply because they're white. They're the ones who started all that s*** to begin with. Tell them to fckg grow up and find some real problems to deal with. On top of that, tell Southerners that they lost the damn Civil War and to get the hell over th,too.

BTW, Stonewall Jackson's great-great-grandsons want his statue to go,too.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/08/stonewall_jackson_s_grandsons_the_monuments_must_go.html

In fact, some of Lee's, Jackson's, and Jefferson Davis's descendants made it clear that the statues should be taken down and put in a museum--they don't have a problem with it at all:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/08

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

"Why was no one offended during Obama's 8 years -- and all the years before that?"

You can't be serious. You think no one was offended until now? This isn't looking for something to be offended by, it IS offencive, and I'm not speaking about all of the memorials, but some of them -- those espousing white supremacy.

It may not be a real problem for you, but racism is still a problem, and these are symbols of it. I'm certain you'd feel very differently if you were AA, and lived in the South.

reply

[–] Gubbio (3893) 7 years ago

I'm certain you'd feel very differently if you were AA, and lived in the South.

You don't know me, so you can't be "certain" of anything.

Everyone is over-reacting in the name of something to bitch about.

That's my opinion, and you're not going to change my mind.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

The fact that you think "no one was offended during Obama's 8 years" tells me a lot about you, so yes, I can be certain of some things. If you knew anything about history within the States, you'd know that *plenty* were offended not only during Obama's 8 years of presidency, but for many decades before that. You chose to ignore this.

Everyone is overreacting in your opinion. Many others disagree with you, and for good reason. Yes, I realise I'm not going to change your mind, which is already set in stone -- no other information need apply. There is no reasoning with the unreasonable. Your only concern, apparently, is what concerns you personally.

reply

[–] napsdufroid (2077) 7 years ago

(applause)

reply

[–] Stratego (29717) 7 years ago

I love history, so I'm definitely against erasing or rewriting it. But what annoys me the most is that the same people who want to take those statues down, still want to keep reminding people of slavery, even holding some responsible. You either remove every single trace of it and move on or you accept all of it. Not sure why it can only be referred to on their terms. Someone else made another good point, why was this never an issue when Obama was in office?

reply

[–] db20db (16601) 7 years ago

Definitely some good points. And what about the National Museum of African American History and Culture ? I'm sure it contains plenty of deliberate reminders.

reply

[–] Stratego (29717) 7 years ago

Like I said, only on their terms. No doubt they're okay with symbols in public of those who were on the right side of history, even though you'd expect a reminder like that to be painful as well.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

I love history, so I'm definitely against erasing or rewriting it. But what annoys me the most is that the same people who want to take those statues down, still want to keep reminding people

There seems to be a real confusion here. Your notion of "erasing or rewriting" history is not what's going on. That's why your interpretation stands in contradiction to "keep reminding people."

Statues are not history. They are symbols. Removing statues does not erase or rewrite anything.

=)

reply

[–] Stratego (29717) 7 years ago

Then why remove them? Symbols are very effective as reminders. Seems like a lovely idea to keep history alive instead of hiding it in history books. So no, no confusion on my side at all.:)

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

So you'd approve a statue with this inscription? Keep in mind this is an actual inscription on one of the statues in question:

" Erected in 1891, an inscription was added in 1932 which read, “United States troops took over the state government and reinstated the usurpers but the national election of November 1876 recognized white supremacy in the South and gave us our state.”"

Are you fine with that kind of "reminder" and the fact that it was put there in order to hate on non-whites???

reply

[–] Stratego (29717) 7 years ago

Well, I can't say I'm a fan of the idea behind the monument, but what a good opportunity to teach people about race relations. You could even add a new inscription, which they actually seem to have done already in the past.

Unlike a General Lee, I expect that eventually people will see no use for this monument anymore and it will be removed as part of a new landscaping project. But I think it's dangerous to remove it when people use it for their own political agenda. We shouldn't act like Nazis or the Taliban. It feels like the Iconoclastic Fury all over again.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

The statues in question were erected as propaganda. They are not historical monuments.

There are actual Civil War monuments, and they aren't in question. They will remain where they stand.

The ones we're talking about, which were put up for the express purpose of promoting white supremacy, and put up during civil rights eras, THOSE are the ones being removed.

These statues are basically burning crosses masquerading as war monuments. Removing them is completely different from what the Taliban did when they destroyed ancient, irreplaceable cultural artifacts. These status were mass-produced, cheap propaganda mostly put up by The Daughters Of The Confederation.

There is a reason, a good reason, why the only ones showing up in Charlottesville to defend the statue were white supremacists carrying torches and chanting epithets against Jews and non-whites, and making Nazi salutes.

Don't find yourself sympathizing with them just because of a misguided belief that these statues are legitimate historical monuments. They are propaganda, and all the defense from them of "erasing history" is also propaganda.

Hate doesn't get monuments. If there was a statue of a lynched black man, with an inscription of "whites are supreme," I'm sure you'd want that removed.

=)

reply

[–] Stratego (29717) 7 years ago

"The statues in question were erected as propaganda. They are not historical monuments."

That's not true. The statue of General Lee, for example, was a historical monument.

"There is a reason, a good reason, why the only ones showing up in Charlottesville to defend the statue were white supremacists carrying torches and chanting epithets against Jews and non-whites, and making Nazi salutes."

You think normal people are going to show up if neo-nazis and Antifa are going to protest? Let's not start a discussion about that. I don't care about what any of the protesters there had to say on either side.

If the majority of the population truly feels no need for these statues, then the democratic process will take care of them. Giving in to political organizations with their own agenda and protestors removing them on their own accord is just dangerous.

"Hate doesn't get monuments. If there was a statue of a lynched black man, with an inscription of "whites are supreme," I'm sure you'd want that removed."

I'm sure such a statue would've been removed a long time ago, there's no inscription that could put something like that in the right perspective.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

there's no inscription that could put something like that in the right perspective.

And yet, one of the statues has had a blatantly white supremacist incription since the 1930's, even mentioning white supremacy in literal terms.

Just sayin'

reply

[–] Stratego (29717) 7 years ago

Then we really disagree on the difference between a monument commemorating a coup and one that portrays the horrendous death of a human being.

By the way, since the inscription about white supremacy isn't even authentic, I see no problem with removing it from the monument. But I don't think it was necessary to remove the monument itself.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

The inscription is authentic, but not original to the statue or monument. It was put there 40-some years later, 80-some years ago.

There was a similar monument in New Orleans, with a similar inscription added in the same year (1932). The monument was to commemorate the Liberty Place Battle, a post-Civil War battle:

"In 1891, as the Democratic-controlled legislature passed laws that disenfranchised most black Americans, the government of the City of New Orleans erected the Liberty Monument to "commemorate the uprising" of 1874, in the city. The monument was prominently placed in the neutral ground (median) near the foot of Canal Street. In 1932, inscriptions were added to the monument which attested to the battle's role in establishing white supremacy.

By the late 20th century, after civil rights achievements, many residents, especially in the black and Italian American communities, objected to the monument as a symbol of racism. (During the 1891 Hennessy Affair, White League veterans had led a mob that lynched eleven Sicilian men in 1891.)

In 1965 the monument was dismantled and temporarily removed during major demolition and construction projects in the area. Already controversial, it was put back despite objections in 1970. It was subject to protests and vandalism with some regularity.

In 1974, the city government added a plaque at the foot of the monument; it acknowledged the history while officially distancing the city from the racist philosophy of previous generations.

In 1976 the NAACP Youth Council formally called for the monument's removal. Ku Klux Klan and other White nationalists used the monument as a rallying point."

As you can read for yourself, the later adding of another inscription didn't work.

reply

[–] Stratego (29717) 7 years ago

"The inscription is authentic, but not original to the statue or monument. It was put there 40-some years later, 80-some years ago."

That's what I meant. Not "authentic" in the sense of it being "real", but in the sense of it being "original".

"As you can read for yourself, the later adding of another inscription didn't work."

Work in what way? The dissolvement of the KKK? Ofcourse not. Neither will the removal of the monument. It only pisses them off more, I'm sure they found it mighty funny to use it as a rallying point, while the NAAC made such a fuss about it.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

Didn't work as in it remained a lightning rod for white supremacist groups, rather than an opportunity for teaching people about race relations, as you stated.

reply

[–] Stratego (29717) 7 years ago

Well, it shows that white supremacists stil exist, so I think it's an excellent example to teach people about the reality of race relations. And like I said, removing them will only add more fuel to the fire and give them a reason to victimize themselves. That's really appealing to some people out there. No doubt membership will rise.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

It was never in question that white supremacists still exist. We all[/i] already knew this, and knew it before this recent incident. It is not an excellent example to teach the reality of race relations, which was already known.

There have been racial hate groups (as well as other hate groups) out there for hundreds of years, doing similar things -- and worse. Removing the [i]monuments that serve as a lightning rod for them to rally around because they glorify their cause can only send a message to them that their cause is unwanted. Which, I assume you'd agree, is a positive message.

This is the way we humans work. If a way of behaving is rejected by the majority, most in the minority will eventually come to accept it. Not all, of course. There will always be fringe groups of all sorts.

Edit: Tried to fix the italics where I didn't want them, but apparently they can't be fixed. Oh well.

reply

[–] Stratego (29717) 7 years ago

And like I said, if the majority really feels no need for these statues anymore, the democratic process will take care of them. Giving in to pressure from political groups and people vandalizing statues is not a good idea.

reply

[–] sleepingtiger (712) 7 years ago

Stratego:

"You think normal people are going to show up if neo-nazis and Antifa are going to protest? Let's not start a discussion about that. I don't care about what any of the protesters there had to say on either side."

Whoa, let's get something straight here. To claim you don't care what the protestors on either side had to say is just being ignorant and not wanting to deal with the issue. (And that's such a "white-privileged" thing to say,anyway.) An innocent women was killed and 19 other people damn near were by a stupid-a** nazi-wanna-be fool who had been way into Nazism as a middle-schooler. So why the hell would you not want to deal with the issues around it,then? That makes no damn sense, and you're not even trying to see the bigger picture here. If those neo-nazi bastards hadn't shown up in Charlottesville raising all kinds of hell about these statues in the first damn place, there would never have BEEN an issue. And Antifa was only there to protect the counter-protestors, since the police didn't do their job and keep the two sides apart until they started fighting. In fact, the city of Charlottesville did NOT even want the neo-nazis to march there----they turned down their permit, and the neo-nazis had to go to court and get the permit back. The protestor who pulled down that statue in Durham, South Carolina ( I couldn't help but laugh my a** off when folks started kicking the hell out of that statue) was just this one young lady--who was, in fact, arrested for doing that.)

"Giving in to political organizations with their own agenda and protestors removing them on their own accord is just dangerous."

Very few people are removing these statues of there own accord. Also, it's trumpf who is perceived by these neo-nazi bastards as giving them a pat on the head for the s*** they pulled at Charlottesville--they think he basically pacified them, which is sick. And what "political organization" are you talking about? Antifa isn't one.

reply

[–] Stratego (29717) 7 years ago

Haha, no buddy, I'm not ignorant. I'm all ears for people looking for solutions through the democratic process. I can't believe anybody could be so lame as to defend Antifa. I've seen them at work here in Europe...NO THANKS.

Hey, and a permit is a permit. The counterprotesters had none. Just deal with it. I could just as well say nothing would've happened if they hadn't shown up. They were stupid enough to give those neo-nazis actual power.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

Oh and let me add something to my last post: Only one of the statues was actually toppled, and the person who started that was arrested, because that was illegal.

The rest of them are being removed through the normal channels because they're just plain unpopular, and those statues have only stuck around this long because there was no movement to have them removed.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

I don't mean to be rude, by the "why was this never an issue when Obama was in office?" question is stupid. It's been an issue for many, many decades.

reply

[–] Stratego (29717) 7 years ago

No, it's not stupid. Sure, there were also people who opposed it previously, but it was never as politicised as it is now.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

It has always been politicised. It's actually shocking to me that anyone could think otherwise.

This is what the other poster actually wrote: "Why was no one offended during Obama's 8 years -- and all the years before that?"

Sorry, but to think no one was offended during Obama's presidency, or any of the other presidents' terms that preceded him, is, well, not smart.

reply

[–] Stratego (29717) 7 years ago

Not AS politicised. It's actually shocking to me that anyone could think that right now it hasn't risen up the political agenda...

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

It has always been highly politicised. The erecting of the statue of General Lee, in Washington DC, way back in 1909, was highly politicised. It was quieted at the time in an effort to smooth over the divisiveness that existed then, and now, but was obviously worse in 1909, due to the aftermath of the Civil War.

As but one example, in late 2015 (during, I remind you, Obama's presidency), 4 similar monuments/statues were called to be removed in Louisiana:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/new-orleans-remove-confederate-monuments/421059/

The difference is no one was killed, no white supremacist or neo-Nazi protesting killed anyone. Of course that would cause more news coverage! How would it not? You're confusing politicism with news coverage, and why the news coverage was so high in the most recent event, but not in 2015, or any of the prior calls for the removal of similar monuments or statues.

If you truly are a lover of history, what I've posted to you here and in my post earlier today, will be of interest to you.

reply

[–] Stratego (29717) 7 years ago

I honestly don't know what to say. Ofcourse it has become more politicised, it has never been discussed so much on a national and even international level with people making a stand one way or the other. News coverage plays a huge part in people becoming more politically active over this issue. And this was already the case before Charlottesville, so I wouldn't connect it all to that. The discussion did start in 2015 under Obama, conveniently not long before the presidential campaign started.

It could very well have been a hot button issue as well in 1909, but that's a whole different era.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

Of course news coverage plays a big part. But in this instance, unlike the many previous similar instances, someone was killed. Do you truly not understand why it has therefore been more heavily covered by the news? Come on. Use your head!

The discussion did not start in 2015, it has been a subject of discussion for many decades -- even a century and more -- long before this! If you truly do love history, and therefore are versed in it, you'd know this. I don't expect everyone who loves history to know every aspect or instance of it. God knows I don't, and I too love history. This thread alone has caused me to learn far more about slavery in general, in the colonies, in the States, and up until now than I ever knew.

It seems obvious to me you're a right-wing Trump supporter, and that's fine. You have every right to support whomever you want to, and feel however you feel. But don't try to spin this to advantage your own political agenda, while accusing others of doing the same.

This has been a hot button issue not only in 1909, but for decades before and for decades afterwards, up until today.

reply

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 7 years ago

"The discussion did not start in 2015, it has been a subject of discussion for many decades -- even a century and more -- long before this! If you truly do love history, and therefore are versed in it, you'd know this. I don't expect everyone who loves history to know every aspect or instance of it. God knows I don't, and I too love history. This thread alone has caused me to learn far more about slavery in general, in the colonies, in the States, and up until now than I ever knew."

"It seems obvious to me you're a right-wing Trump supporter, and that's fine. You have every right to support whomever you want to, and feel however you feel. But don't try to spin this to advantage your own political agenda, while accusing others of doing the same."

Does this thread and my views make me a right wing Trump supporter????
I think the statues should stay.
I can tell you now that I didn't vote for him. I have a number of problems with that man.
While I am a Democrat, I didn't vote for Hillary either.
This is the first election in years where I didn't vote at all! WHY? Because I felt that both choices were dangerous!

I did not start this thread in order to start arguments. I hesitated when bringing it up because it is a controversial subject at this time!

I said from the beginning that I respect ALL views. I'd like to think that everyone here will respect each person even if they don't agree with each other.
I have learned a great deal here from you and others. It has given me many ideas to think over.
I may not agree with everyone, but I can respect the way they feel.
Isn't it about time that we all learn that in order to bring people together????

Let's not get carried away and be cruel. i am starting to see people calling others names. That's not right.

I am beginning to think that this thread was a huge mistake!
Next one I start will contain more fluff!

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

No, it doesn't. IMO your original question was genuine, as were your original conclusions. Which, I remind you, I agreed with, before learning more about it. Unlike a few others, you were open to changing your mind, based on whatever your learned from those who had different opinions, and offered different information. That I respect. I was in a similar position before having looked into all sides of this unfortunate and awful situation, and thanks to you am *far* more educated in it.

What I'm seeing is Stratego, and another, who are using this issue -- which is *not* new -- to discount it and attribute it to some new political phenomenon, specifically against Trump. YOU did not do this.

To say or imply that there are those who are -- justifiably and demonstrably -- offended by some of these monuments are all solely driven by current politics as a means to further their current political agenda is absurd, given how long this has been a subject of contention.

Could anyone, with an objective and clear-sighted mind, think otherwise? I don't see how. History has and still is speaking.

Do you think *all* of the statues and memorials should stay? Personally, I have no objection to those that were intended as memorials to the dead, who died -- North or South -- in the causes they believed in. It was a tragic, extremely sad war, and my heart goes out to all of the soldiers, and their families, regardless of which side they were on. They all thought, to whatever degree, they were fighting on "the right" side.

"I may not agree with everyone, but I can respect the way they feel.
Isn't it about time that we all learn that in order to bring people together????"

Yes, it certainly is. I don't think I've been cruel anywhere in this thread, or insulting or disrespectuful.

reply

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 7 years ago

" Personally, I have no objection to those that were intended as memorials to the dead, who died -- North or South -- in the causes they believed in. It was a tragic, extremely sad war, and my heart goes out to all of the soldiers, and their families, regardless of which side they were on. They all thought, to whatever degree, they were fighting on "the right" side."

This is how I feel about it. I still have much to think about as far as the statues go.
You have not been cruel at all. I'm glad that you, and hopefully others have learned a few things due to this thread. I know that I have.
I have seen some fury here and some name calling too.... That is uncalled for.
Anyway, I believe the next topic I come up with will be of a lighter variety. SMILE!

reply

[–] Stratego (29717) 7 years ago

No need to badmouth me. It goes against your claim that you're not disrespectful to anyone. I haven't called you an Antifa member either, even though you come across as too radical for my tastes.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

Where have I badmouthed you?

reply

[–] Stratego (29717) 7 years ago

You accuse me, to my face and in a conversation with another poster, of using this issue for my own political agenda in support of Trump. I did no such thing. I simply repeated an observation, which I still consider to be fair. I didn't say it was against Trump. I personally feel that this is an issue used by different political factions. A symptom of a general power struggle. You could've asked me more about it, instead of making childish assumptions.

reply

[–] arvin g borkar (2854) 7 years ago

She is bad mouthing me about my ideas. It is normal that some of the people on here are A wall (no idea how to actually spell that word).

reply

[–] arvin g borkar (2854) 7 years ago

Actually, your opinion is needed on one of my threads. You will not be badmouthed and I will take your suggestions as well as mine to make this site better.

In words of T-800 in Terminator "Come to my thread if you want to live!"

https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/58bae7abad975500114fc62b/Member-Trending-Section

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

Oh for god's sake, grow up, Arvin. You tried this tactic before with Dazed and one or more others who disagreed with you. This topic has *nothing* to do with yours, nor did the other you tried this with.

It's silly to try to try to recruit someone who's in disagreement with someone on one topic to agree on another that has nothing whatsoever to do with it, and on top of it, a topic in which you've expressed no opinion, let alone one that coincides with the other poster.

reply

[–] arvin g borkar (2854) 7 years ago

LOL..

I love that.

So where are these guidelines?

Should I be fined for:

1.) Trying a "tactic" that Catbooks deems as inappropriate
2.) Replying off topic on a topic
3.) Trying to recruit someone that disagrees for their own gain
4.)Not expressing an opinion before being able to post something tangential

Dang, Catbooks, I would say that if you suggested even a remote amount of regulation, things may change around here.

Kind of what I have been trying to do, but you are so opposed. LOL

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

Unlike you, I'm not trying to impose any kind of regulations or control over others. What I've said is merely common sense -- something with which you appear to be regularly lacking.

reply

[–] arvin g borkar (2854) 7 years ago

Some people need regulation to see common sense catbooks. ;)

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

Arvin, you've alienated virtually everyone on this board in the past few months, with the exception of Croft. No one else is willing to put up with you, and it's a result of your own behaviour.

I'm done with you.

reply

[–] arvin g borkar (2854) 7 years ago

And what does that tell you? Croft is AWESOME!!!

reply

[–] napsdufroid (2077) 7 years ago

Perfect self-description, arvin. Let us know when you're even withing viewing distance of common sense.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

It was *you* who said this was about a political agenda, not I.

The other poster, with whom you said you agreed and had a good point, asked why were people offended now, instead of during Obama's administration or those before it, implying the only reason it was an issue now was because of the current administration and it had not been an issue before this. Which is patently, demonstrably false.

Regardless, that was not badmouthing you. However, if you wish to view it that way, there's nothing I can do about it.

reply

[–] Stratego (29717) 7 years ago

I never said it was a political agenda against Trump, however. And I said the poster made a good point, I used my own words. Personally, I didn't take their words to literally mean that there was no one who claimed they felt offended.

"However, if you wish to view it that way, there's nothing I can do about it"

Yeah, that's basically what I say to those who are against those statues. If you choose to feel offended, that's not my problem...

reply

[–] arvin g borkar (2854) 7 years ago

Catbooks, I believe is dead Conservative. I have met many in my life and she fits the bill. She hates change and she will shut you down if YOU do not fit HER agenda.

reply

[–] kspkap (13299) 7 years ago

Oh Arvin, I'm going to repeat what Cat said "Grow up". You read like a whiny mouth 12 year old. I've known Cat a long time (we've had some heated disagreements) so we would back off for awhile, but "shut you down if YOU do not fit HER agenda"? Never! She enjoys a rational debate as any one with intelligence would. Conservative? I would say more of an Independent. She's well read and dogged in her beliefs, but is open to change of thought with provable sources. As far as me, I'm definitely one of those Conservatives you fear. You read like a Socialist...a Bernie Sanders groupie.

reply

[–] arvin g borkar (2854) 7 years ago

I would know how long you and her know each other. Look at my reply and post count. From the beginning, I saw behavioral changes from like 3-4 females on here and you guys are almost all illogical in what your expectations of this website are.

That's fine, I can agree to disagree. What I cannot stand is when you guys comment on a thread (mine included), which you have the freedom to do (not really so as the first amendment applies more between you and the government); however, you make outlandish statements like "Why should anyone care?", "No one cares" etc.

I do not know who you are trying to convince. I have my opinions of Catbooks so far and I know she is a far cry from what you write. Additionally, Stratego has experienced the same thing..two for two. I have seen it on here.

There are two others, whose names I will not mention, and I get private messages from others, who I have made friends with on here, that confirm my attitude from what you have all done on my threads.

You guys can group up all you want, but I can see through it easily. Easily....

Nothing will change that!

You think I am acting young? You guys are all in your 50s and 60s and it amazes me that once I know your ages I am shocked to find that your mentalities do not match up. I have nothing to feel ashamed about because I am younger. You guys/gals have to prove to ME that you guys can be the bigger people and you fail time and time again.

reply

[–] napsdufroid (2077) 7 years ago

You've proven time and time again you're a spoiled child, arvin. You can't even admit you're wrong when the proof is put under your nose. To put it bluntly, the majority don;t like your idiotic demands, but you refuse to stop pushing them.

YOU have to prove to everyone else you can act like a grown-up instead of the spoiled entitled asshole you are. Yeah, I said it.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

Then what political agenda did you mean? Seriously, I'd like to know. Or, maybe you didn't mean any specific agenda. I don't know.

If you've read my (many) posts on this thread, you'd have to know by now my aim is to get at the truth, whatever that may be. I've taken the very unpopular stance of trying to understand the Southern position in this mess on the topic of slavery, and no longer subscribe to what I was taught repeatedly in school, which was that the North were the "good guys" and the South the "bad guys." I now realise it was *far* more complicated, and not without a good amount of hypocrisy on the part of the North.

Yes, you used your own words, but the other poster specifically said they questioned that no one had been offended by these monuments up until now, when clearly that's far from the truth. You then said it was a good question, and rephrased that it had only suddenly become politicised, which isn't true either, as I proved to you.

If you can't see why monuments that glorify white supremacy are offencive, and that people are only choosing to be offended by them, there's nothing I can say to you.

reply

[–] Stratego (29717) 7 years ago

Again, I said it wasn't AS politicised. And I still stand by that.

With political agenda I mean the policies any politician or political organization pursues and their motives for doing so.

And if someone says things about someone that aren't true, that's badmouthing. I'm sorry if you don't get that. It was entirely possible to continue the discussion without such accusations.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

Okay, AS politicised. And as I said to you in response to that, it's because someone was *killed* this time. That combined with race relations here having heated up again within the past 5-10 years. I stand by this.

It depends on what someone says as to if it's badmouthing or not. I thought what I said was true, else I wouldn't have said it, and I did not insult you, which *would* be badmouthing.

reply

[–] Stratego (29717) 7 years ago

And I also said it was already heavily politicised before Charlottesville, from 2015 onwards.

I have no idea why you would think it was true, because I never did anything to suggest it. If you go on and tell the same thing to someone else as well, it's badmouthing.

I feel like I'm on trial here, which isn't what I signed up for. As someone who loves history and art I simply expressed my disagreement with censoring them in public spaces, especially if it's the result of political pressure, which I still believe has increased in recent years.

reply

[–] Stratego (29717) 7 years ago

I didn't reply to this thread to start any arguments either. I just wanted to share my opinion as someone who sees historical value in most of these monuments. I didn't expect to be attacked from all sides forcing me to discuss political views while I was never even interested in that.

reply

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 7 years ago

Good to know!

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

It was you who brought up this being a result of someone's political agenda, and that this was more highly politicised (in your opinion) than ever before. No one forced you to discuss anything.

reply

[–] Stratego (29717) 7 years ago

Never said I didn't bring it up, but my only point was to express my view that this discussion has been hijacked.

I absolutely feel attacked for my opinion, suddenly people jumped on me turning this in a discussion about my and other people's political views. I don't like the suggestion that I support white supremacist views and, yes, I feel forced to defend myself against that.

reply

[–] Stratego (29717) 7 years ago

Wow wow, hold it there, buddy, I'm not even American. I couldn't be a Trump supporter even if I wanted to. The political spectrum in Europe is totally different than in the US. I think my political views are none of your business, although I can assure you that in no way do I support or sympathize with neo-Nazis or white-supremacists. I don't have to be a right-wing extremist to feel strongly about free speech and censorship.

Ofcourse the death in Charlottesville gave the issue more news coverage, but the coverage was already heavy before that. I would not call it a hot button issue on a national level before 2015. I think you have to be pretty naive to not understand that there are times that a social issue becomes more politicised than usual. And in this case I think all sides are responsible for that.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

You could be a Trump supporter, and right wing, even if you're not an American. The two are not mutually exclusive, as you must know.

Likewise, I or anyone else, could be a supporter of the leader of any other country, without living in or being a citizen of that country. I never said your political views, other than what you yourself have expressed in this thread, were any of my business.

This issue is not about free speech or censorship, but I'm happy to hear you in no way support or sympathise with white supremacists or neo-Nazis.

I am a citizen of the States, born and bred here of one American parent and the other British. I'd say I'm in a much better position to know the history and political climate here than you, over many years. I've witnessed racism here over these years, and naturally am sympathetic to it, although I am not African American nor have any ancestors who were enslaved.

Earlier you posted this: "Like I said, only on their terms. No doubt they're okay with symbols in public of those who were on the right side of history, even though you'd expect a reminder like that to be painful as well." Their and they referring to African Americans. You can't empathise enough to see that there's a huge difference between a memorial that supports the horrible treatment of their ancestors and symbols that serve as reminders to never repeat this again, such as signs from the Jim Crow era and similar? Why would symbols depicting or representing those who were brave and empathetic enough to stand up to what was right inspire anything except hope, and knowledge that not *everyone* is self-interested? Why would that be painful??

reply

[–] Stratego (29717) 7 years ago

I see no point in supporting a foreign politician, but oh well.

We have a colonial past here in Europe. The discussion is not unknown to us.

Hm, I think it says more about you than me that you think "they" refers to African-Americans. I thought it was obvious it referred to those who support taking those statues down, be they white, black, Asian or whatever. If a General Lee statue is painful because it reminds of slavery, then it seems that any other statue that reminds of slavery would be painful as well. It's a position I simply don't get. I have no problem with statues commemorating German war heroes even though family of mine died in WW II. No, I simply don't get it and honestly, I see no point in trying to get it.

Oh yeah, I'm sure you're also glad to hear I don't sympathize or support Antifa in any way...

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

This was the post to which you responded "Like I said, only on their terms. No doubt they're okay with symbols in public of those who were on the right side of history, even though you'd expect a reminder like that to be painful as well':

"And what about the National Museum of African American History and Culture ? I'm sure it contains plenty of deliberate reminders."

Who do you supposed founded and runs the National Museum of African American History and Culture?

I've not posted about, let alone badmouthed you, to anyone. The only person I've posted about is the poster who said what she or he said about no one being offended about this during Obama or anyone else's prior administration.

Personally, I have no problem with a statue of General Lee, or any other statue or monument that's solely to commemorate the lives that were lost.

Were I Jewish, and frankly even not, I'd find a statue glorifying Hitler, or the Nazis, offencive. I'd like to think anyone with any human decency would feel the same.

Until now, I knew nothing about Antifa. Even so, I know little, although I sympathize with their positions, but not their means.

reply

[–] Stratego (29717) 7 years ago

And I started that post with a referral to my earlier post in which "their terms" referred to those wanting those statues to be taken down. It seemed pretty clear to me.

You told the other poster I used this issue for my political agenda in support of Trump, which is not true. I didn't even bring up Trump. I consider that badmouthing.

I wouldn't compare General Lee with Hitler.

Let me, reluctantly, share something more personal. I've lost family members I knew personally in the Bosnian war. Now where they live there is a plaque commemorating Bosnian Serb police officers who were also killed in the war. I'm sure my Bosnian family isn't really too fond of that, but I actually understand the need for such a memorial. It's tragic for their families, even though they're not considered to have been on the right side of history. So yeah, I don't have any empathy for those who still complain about painful reminders of slavery. If you face racism, then deal with that issue. I doubt that many modern racists are actually in any way inspired by those statues.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

Well, obviously it wasn't clear to me.

If you dislike Trump, then you'd consider it badmouthing. Otherwise, not.

I already told you I had no objection to the General Lee statues or monuments, so obviously I was not comparing him with Hitler.

This is getting tedious, is going nowhere, and is serving neither of us. So I'm going to stop and will end with saying I'm sorry for your loss of your family members. That must have been awful for you and your family.

reply

[–] Stratego (29717) 7 years ago

My like or dislike for Trump has nothing to do with your accusation that I use this issue for my own political agenda in support of him. I have no agenda, just an opinion.

Well, besides the one monument in New Orleans, most of the statues don't seem to be dedicated to white supremacy. So I don't really see a huge problem.

Yes, thank you, it was and still is awful for my family. But we just don't go around feeling offended by symbols, we just go on with our lives since there are bigger concerns in the world.

Yes, it's best to end the discussion. I don't want the atmospehere on this site ti become tense and unpleasant. Have a nice day.

reply

[–] kspkap (13299) 7 years ago

Cat, I can honestly say I do not sympathize with Antifa, They are nothing but anarchist thugs. They constantly shut down speakers who happen to be of conservative thought. They are the masked rioters who travel across the country, burning, looting, destroying anything of which they don't agree. Berkeley is an example. They are at war with law and order. LE is an obstacle in their way so they turn on them by hurling whatever they can at our police. They have no compunction about maiming the ones wearing the blue uniform. As I wrote earlier, Antifa is a misnomer. They are the ones behaving like fascists! In fact they remind me of the Hitler Youth without the brown shirts.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

Ksp, as I said, I know very little about Antifa, and what I do know is only what I read yesterday on Wikipedia. I read they're against racism and fascism, as am I, so naturally I am sympathetic to those two issues. But I didn't like what I read about their means, and do not agree with it.

reply

[–] kspkap (13299) 7 years ago

They have now attacked a small peaceful Trump rally in Berkeley. Wearing their black garb with faces covered again showed their fascist ways. Shades of Hitler Youth! Antifa is a gang of thugs.

reply

[–] sleepingtiger (712) 7 years ago

missmargochanning:

The statues are going into museums when they come down---nothing wrong with that at all. And the reason they should come down is that, frankly, the Confederate soldiers were nothing but some damn traitors,flat-out. They put their own need for greed and to have their own enslaved labor ahead of this country, and were willing to literally tear it apart for their own selfish and economic reasons. So why should anything celebrating them remain up? Also, those statues were not actually put up until the 1920's, when black people coming back from fighting in World War I started demanding to have basic rights (which they had already fought for) such as the right to vote (in the South,especially) among other things. They were only put up to intimidate black people in the South to remind them who was still in charge, or some such s***. And interestingly enough as it turns out, Robert E. Lee (the Confederate general himself) actually said that monuments to the Confederacy should NOT be put up, because he felt that it would not help people heal from the Civil War---he had several requests that statues be put up in his honor, and he turned them all down. Here's a couple of really articles about that:

http://time.com/4903671/charlottesville-robert-lee-confederate-monuments-history/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-confederate-statue-slipperyslope-20170816-column.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/robert-e-lee-opposed-confederate-monuments-2017-8

A black descendant of Robert E. Lee (hmmm, that's interesting but not surprising,lol) explains why the statues of her great-great-great-great-uncle need to be taken down, and the reasons why:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/08/15/im-black-robert-e-lee-is-my-ancestor-his-statues-cant-come-down-soon-enough/?utm_term=.b9af4d1fc241

reply

[–] sleepingtiger (712) 7 years ago

missmargochanning:

So those neo-nazi bastards whining some stupid bull**** about history supposedly being taken away are full of s***. Apparently they didn't bother to do their research, or they would have already known that Lee himself didn't give a damn about any statues or monuments. He even chose not to be buried in his own Confederate uniform, as one of the articles states. I ain't saying he was a good guy----he was a cruel slave-owning bastard too, and supported slavery,of course. But apparently, even he realized that on some level that he was on the wrong side of history. These neo-nazi-white supremacists MFs were only using the statue issue as an excuse to broadcast their tired-a**, stupid-a**, backwards-a**, lame-a** messages of hate and racism, that's all. I love how some of them have gotten named and shamed on Twitter, and called out about the racist bull**** they pulled at Charlottesville. These were nothing but a bunch of arrogant,entitled white racist male punks throwing a fit just because they perceive just a tiny-a** smidgen of their white privilege supposedly being taken from them--just because they can't stand the fact that white men are no longer on a damn pedestal for everyone anymore. White men still run most of this country, so exactly what the fck are they even complaining about? trumpf's spewing of all that racist bull**** during the campaign has now made some racists think they can get away with being racist a**holes and that their s*** out on their neighbors of color just to make themselves feel all superior, which is stupid, counterproductive, and just plain fckg disgusting.

reply

[–] kspkap (13299) 7 years ago

@sleeping tiger

As per you: "These were nothing but a bunch of arrogant,entitled white racist (change to "fascist") (insert "masked Antifa" which is a misnomer) male punks throwing a fit just because they perceive just a tiny-a** smidgen of their white privilege (insert "of stopping free speech") supposedly being taken from them-"

See, words do matter. Change a few and you describe the Antifa thugs from Berkeley and Charlottesville.

reply

[–] kspkap (13299) 7 years ago

I think you best read your Colonial/American history a little bit more. The NORTH, I repeat the NORTH was the first to bring slavery...not the Confederacy.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

Actually it was the British, but later it was the North who brought the majority of the slaves here, and made a LOT of money selling them. Those that didn't die under the horrific and inhumane conditions on the journey back, that is.

reply

[–] kspkap (13299) 7 years ago

I suppose we could equate Jamestown (which was in the North) with the British; after all the Colony consisted of British citizens.

"Slavery in America began when the first African slaves were brought to the North American colony of Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619, to aid in the production of such lucrative crops as tobacco."

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

I agree completely. It is vandalism pure and simple. Also, where does it stop? Washington and Jefferson owned slaves. Are we supposed to tear down the Washington and Jefferson Memorials.

It's right out of 1984. Of course in 1984 it was the Totalitarian Government which was

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

It's vandalism and thuggery. It's also a tool of totalitarian governments, which makes it dangerous. They erase and destroy the history which you don't like. It's like in the book and movie 1984 where the protagonist Winston Smith worked for the totalitarian government erasing history.

First it was removing Confederate Flags from southern State Houses. Now it's vandalizing and or removing statues. Where does it end? Are we going to tear down the Washington and Jefferson Memorials because they were slave owners? The answer of course is it will never end. The Fanatical Left is never satisfied. You give in on one thing, they'll ask for another, and then another. It never ends.

We as a nation must stand up to these thugs, and enforce the rule of law.

😎

"That bad, huh?"

reply

[–] sleepingtiger (712) 7 years ago

MovieManCIn2:
Read the articles I posted above (do the cut-and-paste thing.) They explain very plainly why the statues should come down. BTW, you need to keep in mind that it wasn't the left raising all this hell about the statues, it was those white supremacists at Charlottesville who started all that bull**** about opposing the statues. And it's the people of the towns and cities where these statues are that are asked to vote on whether said statues should be taken down or not. Nobody is forcing them to, and not everyone is going to agree on taking them down---plain and simple, they have choices in the matter. You are exaggerating and blowing things WAY the hell up out of proportion here. This dosen't have jack to do with 1984. Also, the statues in Charlottesville are going to be put in a museum, so no one is actually erasing any damn history here. Get that straight right now.

And let's get this straight too---the only "thugs" at that rally were the white supremacists-wanna-be neo-nazi bastards who brought guns and other weapons, and flat-out threatened to hurt anyone who opposed them. And they were the first to charge the other side and start beating the hell up out of counter-protestors. I can't believe that just because of some dumb s*** trumpf says, people are even trying to claim that "there were good people and bad people on either side"--that's some bull****. Especially when anyone who knows that the neo-nazi and white supremacists have a VERY long history of going up into neighborhoods where nobody wants to see their sorry a**** and using their free speech right as an excuse to start some s***, like beating people up (especially people of color) and in some cases, murdering them (like this crazy white wanna-be Nazi who came to New York specifically to kill a non-white person, and stabbed to death the first black man he ran into (his sorry ass is locked up/in jail now.) So don't even try to defend those racist bastards, because there's no defense for them

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

Sleepy,
White Supremacists and Nazis (both of whom are idiots and thugs) wanted to protect the monument, not take it down. Then Antifa (more idiots and thugs) engaged them in a riot because the Governor, the Mayor and the Police abdicated their responsibility to keep the peace, and basically just let these two groups of idiots bash each other.

And like the Nazis and WS, Antifa has a history of rioting, burning and trying to shut down free speech of anyone they oppose. And they showed up armed to the teeth also

reply

[–] kspkap (13299) 7 years ago

@Movieman

You nailed it! Good reply!

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

Thanks, kspkap!

😎

reply

[–] kspkap (13299) 7 years ago

@sleepingtiger
You are correct; neo-nazis are pond scum. But, and this is a big but, if the anti protesters had stayed away the neo-nazis would have had their ridiculous march and went on their way. Remember Skokie, IL? The idiots marched there without incident. The anti protesters poured fuel on the fire. Trump was correct...both were at fault. It takes two opposing views to make war. Just let them do their silly antics. Do you think those stupid Black Lives Matter marches would have turned violent if a large group of those opposing them would have interfered? At least the neo-nazis weren't calling for cops to be murdered.

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

Amen! A great reply, kspkap!

😎

reply

[–] croft_alice (12180) 7 years ago

I second that.

reply

[–] kspkap (13299) 7 years ago

"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it." And to all of you who want the statues taken down, what pray tell is your suggestion of what to do with "Beauvoir", Jefferson Davis's house in Biloxi, MS? It is a historical landmark. There is a cemetery in back. "Veteran's Cemetery. Walking from the rear of Beauvoir House, past the lagoon to the northwestern part of the property, visitors come to the Beauvoir Confederate Cemetery, which contains 771 graves of Confederate veterans and their wives." Do we raze the house? After all he was the President of the Confederacy! Do we dig up those damn Southerns and fill in the graves? After all they were white trash! Odd thing though if you know your history there were blacks who fought along side the Southern trash...and not because they were forced to do so.

Some interesting reading:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/free-blacks-lived-in-the-north-right/

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

Great response, kspkap! The next thing these morons will want to do is tear down the Washington and Jefferson Monuments because those men were slave owners. The Lefty Loons are never satisfied. It all started with taking down Confederate flags over State Houses. Now it's vandalizing and/or tearing down monuments. In Baltimore they vandalized a statue of Christopher Columbus which had stood for over 200 years. It never ends. What will be next?

😎

"Fruitcake anyone?"

reply

[–] kspkap (13299) 7 years ago

The Liberty Bell? After all we are told daily not everyone is liberated. Sigh....

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

Yep! That will be on their list at some point. They're anarchists who hate this country. They want to tear it down.

I was listening to the Dave Ramsey show the other night, and he was interviewing an Irish Immigrant who is a real estate tycoon and millionaire, who arrived in this country with $92 in his pocket. He told Ramsey that the only people who don't realize what a great country this is, are the people who live here.

😎

"That bad, huh?"

reply

[–] kspkap (13299) 7 years ago

@movieman

The Irish Immigrant is correct. BTW, when it comes to Antifa with their damn masks rioting, looting, destroying property because they can get away with it need to be corralled and jailed. And...if they hurl harmful items at law enforcement they deserve to be shot!!

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

I agree with all of that except the shooting part. They should be subdued, arrested and prosecuted.

😎

reply

[–] kspkap (13299) 7 years ago

That is why I wrote harmful. Antifa is engaging in a war with police. Every time there is an uprising by these thugs police are hurt. Some seriously. When bricks, bottles, items which can cause great harm or death are hurled at LE the perpetrators deserve to be shot! It's no different if it were you or me defending ourself. Why should they have to tolerate harmful assaults by the thugs. If I remember correctly a cop lost an eye during a riot.

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

I appreciate and share your passion and understand your logic. As to bricks, bottles etc. that's why riot police usually carry shields.

😎

reply

[–] kspkap (13299) 7 years ago

Those shields have not given them complete protection. Think about it, a hand needed for better riot control is being used to carry a shield. Personally I would hope that hand carry a weapon! Better times for police are coming again. Pres. Trump just undid the stupid executive order by King Obama. After the Ferguson riots King Obama rescinded the policy of LE being able to purchase military type gear. The folks felt besieged. Too militaristic. Can we now say Hallelujah!

BTW, another Democrat mayor (Houston) again failed to do the wise thing regarding Hurricane Harvey. He like the one in New Orleans didn't appreciate being told what to do, so he didn't call for a mandatory evacuation.

http://ktla.com/2017/08/27/houston-mayor-defends-his-decision-to-not-order-evacuations-ahead-of-harvey/

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

You make excellent points, kspkap, and I'm on your side, and the police's. Thank goodness Trump is president!

As to Democrat mayors, are you surprised when they do something stupid?

😎

reply

[–] kspkap (13299) 7 years ago

Nope, not a bit!

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

😎

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

MovieMan, no one has flamed or named-called those who are on the right. Please extend the same courtesy to those on the left. No need to call anyone a moron or a "lefty loon."

Thanks.

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

Oh Cat, you lead such a sheltered life. I have been called every name in the book, both obscene and non, by the Loons on the Left.

😎

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

Does that justify you in calling others names, when no names were used towards you and others on the right?

The ultimate question is do you want to have a rational, civilised, respectful discussion, or not? If you do, don't name-call others who happen to believe differently than you do. If you don't, well, you're part of the problem.

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

You're not paying attention, Cat. Check out sleepingtiger's post above.

😎

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

I am indeed paying attention, MovieMan.

SleepingTiger has only recently posted on this thread, and has not name-called anyone on the right, except perhaps those who are white supremacists or neo-Nazis, which you yourself have spoken out against.

Again, no one has flamed or named-called those who are on the right. Please extend the same courtesy to those on the left. No need to call anyone a moron or a "lefty loon." Nothing is ever served or furthered by this behavior; regardless of where one's sympathies lie.

Please stop.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

Thanks, Dazed.

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

I will when they do.

😎

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

YOU are the only one on this thread who has name-called and disrespected anyone. Don't give me that "I will when you do" carp. That's just an excuse for bad behavior.

People, whether on the right or the left, are individuals, with varying opinions, and all are worthy of respect, EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE. Just because someone on the side you're opposed to at one point name-called and disrespected you, does NOT give you the right to do the same to others, who had nothing to do with it.

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

Wrong, Cat. And don't get your panties in a twist.

😎

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

All you're doing right now is proving you're an arse, with no self control.

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

And now you're name calling. Shame on you, Cat.

And you've proved you're like a dog with a bone. You just can't let anything go, and you absolutely HAVE to have the last word.

😎

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

And now you're name calling. Shame on you, Cat.

And you've proved you're like a dog with a bone. One you've started your crusade you just can't let anything go, and you absolutely HAVE to have the last word.

😎

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

Hardly a crusade, MovieMan.

I started out by asking you, politely and respectfully, to not flame or name-call those whose opinions are in opposition to yours. No one had done that in this thread, until you.

Your response to me was not only condescending, but you repeated an insult, when none were given to you or those who think as you do, in one measure or another.

I think both of our characters have been proven in this thread. I stand behind mine, WITHOUT needing to disrespect yours. I would, BTW, call anyone an arse -- right or left -- if they consistently behaved as you've done, despite a polite and respectful call for civility.

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

OK, a mini crusade. Talk to the hand. Your turn.

😎

reply