• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Leftist Activists Demand New York Museum Remove Teddy Roosevelt Statue

SonOfDaedalus said:
What has begun is the spamming of this forum with stories of statue protests.
Click to expand...

That's a real knee slapper right there!! LOL

We've seen countless stories of DJT putting ketchup on his steak, or having two scoops of ice cream, and of course the old standby, Russia, Russia, Russia, for weeks that some people have stopped posting on this forum because it has got boring as hell around here.

Finally something comes along to kick around and you complain about it? ROTFLMAO
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
What has begun is the spamming of this forum with stories of statue protests.

Do you have any idea how long people have been protesting statues of controversial historical figures?

Why don't you just ask the liberals here what they think about Teddy Roosevelt statues?

I'm liberal and Black and I don't care about Teddy Roosevelt. Everyone was racists back then. I do care about statues of confederates because they fought against my freedom. You don't care because it wasn't your freedom at stake.

The one president who is so vile that he shouldn't be honored is Andrew Jackson...but maybe Donald J. Trump will be the second.

And removing statues is not erasing history. There are museums and books. Statues are people from the past that we honor today. We don't honor the Confederacy today.
Click to expand...

That's funny, you don't point out the redundant thread, after thread, after thread, every time Trump puts ketchup on a steak or some such nonsense as spamming. Hypocrisy much?

Why are statues all of a sudden a priority for libs? Why wasn't this issue a problem during O'Bama's tenure? :roll:
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Do you have any idea how long people have been protesting statues of controversial historical figures?
Click to expand...
How long they have been protesting is irrelevant.
That they are taking them down is what is relevant.


SonOfDaedalus said:
I do care about statues of confederates because they fought against my freedom. You don't care because it wasn't your freedom at stake.
Click to expand...
They did not fight against your freedom, so stop absurdly taking historical actions personally when they clearly are not.
Heck, it is unlikely that anyone at the time even conceived of your upcoming existence.


SonOfDaedalus said:
And removing statues is not erasing history.
Click to expand...
In part, it is.
 
countryboy said:
Why wasn't this issue a problem during O'Bama's tenure? :roll:
Click to expand...
That is a hell of a question.
I wonder if anyone on the left can honestly answer it.
 
Excon said:
That is a hell of a question.
I wonder if anyone on the left can honestly answer it.
Click to expand...

I would suggest they can't, because it appears responses and reactions first require appeals to emotion and manipulation.

The string pullers have shifted to these new windmills in order to bring about more chaos and derision among the people.

The question becomes, when will people wake up to this fact?
 
countryboy said:
Why are statues all of a sudden a priority for libs? Why wasn't this issue a problem during O'Bama's tenure? :roll:
Click to expand...

Because they didn't get their way this go around and they feel compelled to show their ass.
 
Excon said:
That is a hell of a question.
I wonder if anyone on the left can honestly answer it.
Click to expand...

There are precious few on the left who can answer ANY question honestly.
 
Lincoln's understand evolved and he freed the slaves

Spencer's understanding has devolved and he would racially cleanse America of color.
 
So 200 idiots demanded that a TR statue be removed. It's a free country. They can demand whatever they want. BFD.

And since TR was at the forefront of the Progressive Movement I have a hard time believing the the mainstream left - as opposed to SJW idiots - will ever get on a "remove the TR statue" bandwagon.
 
Excon said:
Typical nonsense.
Nothing indicates I do not know who to spell the word to, too or even two.
Next time if you want to acknowledge a typo just include [sic] when you quote it. Duh!


Pointing out that your question is irrelevant is not dodging.
You asking the irrelevant question to begin with is.



Nonsensical speculative bs used to dodge your being wrong in asking the question in the first place.


Exactly why your question will not be addressed other than to point out it is irrelevant.
At least you understand the concept.



And you still do not get it.
Again.
It does not matter if they have the right ot ask or not, it is the fact that they demanded it be removed that is the issue. Not whether they have the right ot[SUP][sic][/SUP] do so or not.​

If you can not get that straight there is no point to any further until you do.
Click to expand...

Casca XV said:
No the dodge and distraction is your #2 post a distinction with out a difference.
Click to expand...

None of you whom I quoted get it. None of you. It is becoming increasingly clear that y'all do not believe in some people's right to petition the government--a problem in its own right. But wait, it gets better: The Far-Right wants to talk about the free speech issues surrounding these Neo-Nazi marches, and literally the same amendment that gives that free speech gives the right to petition the government. You did read the rest of the amendment, right?

Chillfolks said:
They have the right to ask for its removal. They have the right to PEACEfully assemble and protest the statue if they so desire. They have the right to petition the locality for an election or run candidates to council if that's how their city works to decide its fate. But no I dont think they do not have a right to demand its removal. It may all come down to hair splitting on the definition of "demand"
Click to expand...

trouble13 said:
They nor does anyone have the right to demand anything. They are free to ask and make a persuasive argument to convince others. This nonsense of demanding things or else is something that needs to stop.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

DamnYankee said:
You "want?" Who are you to demand anything? That's the problem with you leftist, you think you are owed something for nothing. As I said, it doesn't matter if they have a right or not, they will force others to comply with their demands. What do you think now?
Click to expand...

What the **** are you three talking about? They have EVERY right to demand that the statue come down. Whether or not the city of New York has to agree is irrelevant to my point. If you don't believe in that right, then you don't believe in the First Amendment, and you need to stop blathering about free speech. Your pick-and-choose mentality is alarming. Y'all do not believe in the entire First Amendment, just the part that suits your narrative.

Also, while we're at it, I haven't discussed freedom of religion or the fact that it doesn't just apply to Christians. That's also something the Right struggles with. Again, right there in the First Amendment. Again, if y'all love that amendment so much, then you need to read the whole damn amendment, not just the part that suits your narrative.
 
Phys251 said:
None of you whom I quoted get it. None of you. It is becoming increasingly clear that y'all do not believe in some people's right to petition the government--a problem in its own right. But wait, it gets better: The Far-Right wants to talk about the free speech issues surrounding these Neo-Nazi marches, and literally the same amendment that gives that free speech gives the right to petition the government. You did read the rest of the amendment, right?







What the **** are you three talking about? They have EVERY right to demand that the statue come down. Whether or not the city of New York has to agree is irrelevant to my point. If you don't believe in that right, then you don't believe in the First Amendment, and you need to stop blathering about free speech. Your pick-and-choose mentality is alarming. Y'all do not believe in the entire First Amendment, just the part that suits your narrative.

Also, while we're at it, I haven't discussed freedom of religion or the fact that it doesn't just apply to Christians. That's also something the Right struggles with. Again, right there in the First Amendment. Again, if y'all love that amendment so much, then you need to read the whole damn amendment, not just the part that suits your narrative.
Click to expand...
Demand all you want, its been working out so well so far.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Demand all you want, its been working out so well so far.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So you agree that I have the right to make demands of my government, so long as I do so without any threat of violence?
 
countryboy said:
That's funny, you don't point out the redundant thread, after thread, after thread, every time Trump puts ketchup on a steak or some such nonsense as spamming. Hypocrisy much?

Why are statues all of a sudden a priority for libs? Why wasn't this issue a problem during O'Bama's tenure? :roll:
Click to expand...

They're not. Why ask such silly questions?
 
Phys251 said:
So you agree that I have the right to make demands of my government, so long as I do so without any threat of violence?
Click to expand...

that's pretty much exactly what I said.

Chillfolks said:
They have the right to ask for its removal. They have the right to PEACEfully assemble and protest the statue if they so desire. They have the right to petition the locality for an election or run candidates to council if that's how their city works to decide its fate. But no I dont think they do not have a right to demand its removal. It may all come down to hair splitting on the definition of "demand"
Click to expand...


It comes down to how you define "Demand". You just either didn't see that or choose to ignore it before you lectured on and on about what your view of the first is.
 
Casca XV said:
It has Begun, As President Trump asked "Where will it end?" Just think TR was never slave owner, but George Washington was, and by today's standards Abe Lincoln was a worse racist than Richard Spencer.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...azvini&usg=AFQjCNHyh_a5vuWZ8QDJFcCnlFo7Kx4uUA
Click to expand...

Perhaps the only solution is to tear down all statues, take down all monuments making this country a statueless and monument less country. Then we can abolish all Federal Holidays, the non-religious might take offense at Christmas, the British when visiting the 4th of July, almost everyone at Columbus, Civilians may be offended at honoring veterans on Veterans day or remember those who died for our freedoms on Memorial day and so on.
 
Chillfolks said:
that's pretty much exactly what I said.
Click to expand...

Good. Glad to see that you accept the entire First Amendment and not just the parts that suit your narrative. Unfortunately, not everyone who has attempted to critique my views shares that perspective.

It comes down to how you define "Demand". You just either didn't see that or choose to ignore it before you lectured on and on about what your view of the first is.
Click to expand...

I'm going to need some clarification on that. If I march down to my local town hall, stand in front, and cry out, "I demand that this government do X!" Are you suggesting that that alone likely runs afoul of 1A? I'm not talking about a threat of violence or some weird twist that would go beyond 1A rights. In general, would doing that and that alone likely run afoul of the 1A?
 
Phys251 said:
So you agree that I have the right to make demands of my government, so long as I do so without any threat of violence?
Click to expand...
yes I do, so long as you do not threaten others. I would argue its not only your right but your responsibility to fight for your convictions.


However, Just because some people agree on a particular momument or not, a family should not feel threatened or be prevented from visiting said momument. I support peaceful dissent and discourse not these mob scenes that have been taking place. Dont interfere with my right to visit these monuments and I wont intefere with your right to complaine about them existing. In truth I might even join you in your complaint. Im opposed to glorifing war heros in general.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Perotista said:
Perhaps the only solution is to tear down all statues, take down all monuments making this country a statueless and monument less country. Then we can abolish all Federal Holidays, the non-religious might take offense at Christmas, the British when visiting the 4th of July, almost everyone at Columbus, Civilians may be offended at honoring veterans on Veterans day or remember those who died for our freedoms on Memorial day and so on.
Click to expand...
That seems to be the general goal of socialism. Make everything the same. Make everyone equaly miserable to serve the greater whole.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
yes I do, so long as you do not threaten others. I would argue its not only your right but your responsibility to fight for your convictions.
Click to expand...

Good, it is settled then. Let's see if my other dissenters come to the same realization.

However, Just because some people agree on a particular momument or not, a family should not feel threatened or be prevented from visiting said momument. I support peaceful dissent and discourse not these mob scenes that have been taking place. Dont interfere with my right to visit these monuments and I wont intefere with your right to complaine about them existing. In truth I might even join you in your complaint. Im opposed to glorifing war heros in general.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Now, now, you were doing well. Then you just had to go there. What you're failing to recognize is, Neo-Nazi rallies are designed to be provocative. They're designed to stifle peaceful dialogue and to provoke their opponents, whom they feel are enemies, into violence. That was the failure of Antifa: they let themselves get sucked into a tit-for-tat approach to the petty, throw-fists-but-not-cars violence. Then the Neo-Nazis get to incorporate that into their propaganda. That's part of why Antifa needs to learn to channel their frustration through nonviolent means.
 
Phys251 said:
Good. Glad to see that you accept the entire First Amendment and not just the parts that suit your narrative. Unfortunately, not everyone who has attempted to critique my views shares that perspective.



I'm going to need some clarification on that. If I march down to my local town hall, stand in front, and cry out, "I demand that this government do X!" Are you suggesting that that alone likely runs afoul of 1A? I'm not talking about a threat of violence or some weird twist that would go beyond 1A rights. In general, would doing that and that alone likely run afoul of the 1A?
Click to expand...
To me "Demand" implies a threat of force or violence.

In your example you can "ask" government to do x but demamding, like I say to me implies force. I demand government does X is almost always followed up with or I will do Y. That or I will do Y is when it's possible to run afoul of the first. So that's why I seldom use the term demand.

we agree on the principal of you have the right to protest, petition, and ask for change from government. We just run into logger heads about using the word demand.

Same side of argument using different terms. IMO especially on here if happens a lot when we try to talk over someone we disagree with verse to them
 
Chillfolks said:
To me "Demand" implies a threat of force or violence.

In your example you can "ask" government to do x but demamding, like I say to me implies force. I demand government does X is almost always followed up with or I will do Y. That or I will do Y is when it's possible to run afoul of the first. So that's why I seldom use the term demand.

we agree on the principal of you have the right to protest, petition, and ask for change from government. We just run into logger heads about using the word demand.

Same side of argument using different terms. IMO especially on here if happens a lot when we try to talk over someone we disagree with verse to them
Click to expand...

I think I get what you're saying. I think it would come down to how the word is used in practice, which is why I've asked for some clarification from some people here. If it's just a strengthening of the verb "ask," then yes, it's well within 1A. What the courts would care about would be something on the order of, "I demand that this government do X, or else I will do Y." All depends on what that Y is. But only a clear incitement of violence--and it would have to be for an immediate call to go out and commit actual acts--would trip the 1A circuit breakers.
 
Phys251 said:
Good, it is settled then. Let's see if my other dissenters come to the same realization.



Now, now, you were doing well. Then you just had to go there. What you're failing to recognize is, Neo-Nazi rallies are designed to be provocative. They're designed to stifle peaceful dialogue and to provoke their opponents, whom they feel are enemies, into violence. That was the failure of Antifa: they let themselves get sucked into a tit-for-tat approach to the petty, throw-fists-but-not-cars violence. Then the Neo-Nazis get to incorporate that into their propaganda. That's part of why Antifa needs to learn to channel their frustration through nonviolent means.
Click to expand...
Im not failing to recoginize anything your talking about. I dont support neo-nazis intimidating people nor do I support antifa protesters intimidating people. I agree with you that antifa was stupid for showing up like they did. They made themselves look bad in eyes of many when the smart play would of been to stand down and let the neo nazis look like the bunch of intolerant A-holes they are. By Antifa showing up it gives the impression that they were looking to pick a fight with the nazi group. As offensive as most of us find Nazis, we all cherish our freedom of unpopular speech. It was not a flattering look for Antifa and they unnecessarily offended people. Now instead of acknowledging the fau paux, the media is doubling down by accussing everyone who is critical of Antifas choice, of being nazi supporting racists who support genocide. Its not true and its outrageous offensive to be accussed of such. This is a huge fail for the left and I cant believe more people on the left dont get that.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Perotista said:
Perhaps the only solution is to tear down all statues, take down all monuments making this country a statueless and monument less country. Then we can abolish all Federal Holidays, the non-religious might take offense at Christmas, the British when visiting the 4th of July, almost everyone at Columbus, Civilians may be offended at honoring veterans on Veterans day or remember those who died for our freedoms on Memorial day and so on.
Click to expand...

There is a site called Orwell's 1984 warning.
 
Phys251 said:
None of you whom I quoted get it. None of you. It is becoming increasingly clear that y'all do not believe in some people's right to petition the government--a problem in its own right. But wait, it gets better: The Far-Right wants to talk about the free speech issues surrounding these Neo-Nazi marches, and literally the same amendment that gives that free speech gives the right to petition the government. You did read the rest of the amendment, right?
Click to expand...
As you quoted me, no, it is you do not get it, as you were already told.
We also have already been over your point here.

It isn't whether they have the right to ask or not, it is that they asked such in the first place. Why can you not comprehend that especially after being told multiple times? Huh?
It isn't about their right to ask demand. It is what they are demanding. It is stupid and reflective of moronic perpetually aggrieved thinking.


As I also already said.
If you can not get that straight there is no point to any further [discussion] until you do.​
So I guess we go no further because you can not grasp the argument and instead want to make irrelevant replies to it. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom