Charlottesville: Dems in Govt. may have set a trap for Unite-the-Right

[Grand Mal]

Best?

You think the leaders of the Confederacy should be honoured with statues in the hall of Congress? Their accomplishment deserves recognition by the US government?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

You deny removal of the statue perpetuated all of this. How blind.

You deny the responsibility of the person who enacted the violence. How irresponsible of you.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The violence started well before that idiot ran those people down. Thanks Antifa.

The violence started long before that. Thanks KKK.

You are demonstrating just how partisanship can cause someone to be incapable of seeing clearly, understanding responsibility, and putting ideology ahead of reason. Good job.

 

[joG]

You think the leaders of the Confederacy should be honoured with statues in the hall of Congress? Their accomplishment deserves recognition by the US government?

I think we in our history put the statue there. It thus is part of our heritage. That is the history of it and living with this visible embodiment of our history is the honest thing to do and removing instead of confronting it? I think that rather pathetic and obviously it is both intensely divisive and unnecessary. The fudging of history is also societally dubious.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I think we in our history put the statue there. It thus is part of our heritage. That is the history of it and living with this visible embodiment of our history is the honest thing to do and removing instead of confronting it? I think that rather pathetic and obviously it is both intensely divisive and unnecessary. The fudging of history is also societally dubious.

I've been giving this issue a lot of thought, lately. My position used to be that the monuments were about history, and removing them was denying history. After very careful consideration, I have altered my view. Those monuments are not just about history, they are CELEBRATING history. And the history that they are celebrating, right or wrong, is directly associated with slavery and oppression. One can call it southern heritage or whatever one wants to call it, and the Civil War was certainly about more than slavery, but denying that a major source of the Civil War was to propagate the continuation of that particular social and economic concept is foolish historical revisionism. Those monuments celebrate men, some very good men, who supported a cause that had it's roots in racial discrimination and enslaving and entire people. I have always been a "Civil War buff" and enjoy reading about the events and the people during that time period in history, but on the Union and on the Confederate side. But memorializing anything to do with the Confederacy is, in essence, memorializing a barbaric practice. Therefore, after much consideration on this matter, I agree with all of the monuments coming down. Consider whether or not one would support having a monument to Erwin Rommel as a symbol of German heritage. Rommel was not a terrible man and he was a great general. However, he completely supported Nazi ideology and fought in a war where he supported aggression and genocide. Does one memorialize someone who "wasn't terrible" but still supported something that was? I submit, "no".

And there are lots of things in history that are part of our heritage. But not all of them should be memorialized.

 

[WCH]

So we are supposed to quiver in fear of the potential actions of the white supremacists?

Would any of those groups been there had the City Council not voted to remove the statue? The answer is no.

BTW: Lee was against secession and slavery.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Would any of those groups been there had the City Council not voted to remove the statue? The answer is no.

Which is completely irrelevant. If no one had put up the monuments in the first place, none of this would have happened.

BTW: Lee was against secession and slavery.

True. But he still fought on the side of secession and slavery.

 

[WCH]

You think the leaders of the Confederacy should be honoured with statues in the hall of Congress? Their accomplishment deserves recognition by the US government?

What are you talking about?

 

[WCH]

You deny the responsibility of the person who enacted the violence. How irresponsible of you.

It was after the fact and a small fraction of all the violence that occurred.

As usual it was the politician who started the battle.

 

[WCH]

The violence started long before that. Thanks KKK.

You are demonstrating just how partisanship can cause someone to be incapable of seeing clearly, understanding responsibility, and putting ideology ahead of reason. Good job.

You mean those Democrats that hated the fact they lost? Hmmm...

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

You mean those Democrats that hated the fact they lost? Hmmm...

No, like you in this thread.

 

[WCH]

Which is completely irrelevant. If no one had put up the monuments in the first place, none of this would have happened.



True. But he still fought on the side of secession and slavery.

I see much of this as an attempt to deflect from what's really going on.

The former FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover, said of the Communist goals:

"Communists seek to advance the cause of communism by injecting themselves into racial situations and in exploiting them, (1) to intensify the frictions between Negroes and Whites to 'prove' that discrimination against the minorities is an inherent defect of the capitalistic system, (2) to foster domestic disunity by dividing Negroes and Whites into antagonistic, warring factions, (3) to undermine and destroy established authority, (4) to incite racial strife and riotous activity, and (6) to portray the Communist movement as the 'champion' of social protest and the only force capable of ameliorating the conditions of the Negro and the oppressed."

IMO, this is
coming to fruition. It has been extended to all minority groups.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

It was after the fact and a small fraction of all the violence that occurred.

Which doesn't alter who was responsible for the violence and the death of the person killed.

As usual it was the politician who started the battle.

Then blame the guy who put up the monuments to begin with. If they hadn't, none of this would have happened.

Do you see how silly and ridiculous your argument is, yet, or is your ideology preventing that from sinking in?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I see much of this as an attempt to deflect from what's really going on.

The former FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover, said of the Communist goals:

"Communists seek to advance the cause of communism by injecting themselves into racial situations and in exploiting them, (1) to intensify the frictions between Negroes and Whites to 'prove' that discrimination against the minorities is an inherent defect of the capitalistic system, (2) to foster domestic disunity by dividing Negroes and Whites into antagonistic, warring factions, (3) to undermine and destroy established authority, (4) to incite racial strife and riotous activity, and (6) to portray the Communist movement as the 'champion' of social protest and the only force capable of ameliorating the conditions of the Negro and the oppressed."

IMO, this is
coming to fruition. It has been extended to all minority groups.

This isn't the conspiracy theory forum. You do realize that when your ideology starts depending on wild suppositional conspiracy theories to make sense... it doesn't.

 

[WCH]

No, like you in this thread.

My ancestors were actually in the Clan. I'm as much against that sort crap as you.

 

[Quag]

That is an excellent point.

No it isnt

 

[Quag]

Wow 2 threads by the same guy dealing with the same CT BS

 

[WCH]

This isn't the conspiracy theory forum. You do realize that when your ideology starts depending on wild suppositional conspiracy theories to make sense... it doesn't.

That does sound the least bit familiar to you? Like what is happening TODAY.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

My ancestors were actually in the Clan. I'm as much against that sort crap as you.

My comment said nothing about you supporting the klan. I'm neither accusing you of that nor do I believe that you actually support those scumbags.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

That does sound the least bit familiar to you? Like what is happening TODAY.

Not at all. But conspiracy theorists are very good at spinning the meanings of things to fit their agenda. They define confirmation bias. Don't be a conspiracy theorist.

 

[WCH]

My comment said nothing about you supporting the klan. I'm neither accusing you of that nor do I believe that you actually support those scumbags.

You inferred my "ideology" supports such.

 

[cabse5]

It is possible, and details are starting to come out, that the Charlotteville riot may have been a Leftie designed setup:

John Hawkins' Right Wing News | Page not found




This doesn't at all mean that the deaths were intended, or forseen.

But, clearly, there was far more going on to create the conditions in which the tragic outcome occurred, than previously thought.



Will the MSM ever investigate the possibility? Or will they just shill for the Dems viewpoint ONLY?

Should those who setup a confrontation that became fatal be held accountable?

Can they be held accountable, legally, in any way other than voting against them and the Democratic Party?

-

IMO, not for prosecution because of the death of the girl by car, I'm afraid, but certainly for civil rights violations by antiFA - antiFirstAmendment counter-protestors. AntiFA is going to have a hard time explaining why they attempted to take away the alt-right, white supremacist protestors' civil rights to peaceably assemble and protest after a judge had ruled they had those rights in Charlottesville.

 

[WCH]

Not at all. But conspiracy theorists are very good at spinning the meanings of things to fit their agenda. They define confirmation bias. Don't be a conspiracy theorist.

So all this warring/rhetoric is simply happenstance? Who is paying to bus/fly these people into these protest arenas around the country? Why does the media exploit and politicize every movement?

IOWs who are the men behind the curtain?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

You inferred my "ideology" supports such.

Not at all. Here is the post that started the sequence. I placed in bold the pertinent point:

The violence started long before that. Thanks KKK.

You are demonstrating just how partisanship can cause someone to be incapable of seeing clearly, understanding responsibility, and putting ideology ahead of reason. Good job.

The part that I did not place in bold may be the part you are keying on. If I thought you were a KKK member, I have no issue with pointing it out. Same as to your ideology. I do not believe either is an accurate statement.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

So all this warring/rhetoric is simply happenstance? Who is paying to bus/fly these people into these protest arenas around the country? Why does the media exploit and politicize every movement?

IOWs who are the men behind the curtain?

People who support specific causes bring other like-minded people to protests or supports for those causes all the time. Happened on both sides of this issue in this circumstance. Back during Reconstruction, carpetbaggers were like this. During "Bloody Kansas" both sides brought in people to vote for their side... to the point that 103% of the population voted. Does it happen? Sure. For some deep, dark, secret conspiracy to promote communism? :lol: Not at all.

And the medial exploit and politicize every moment for ratings. It's really that simple. The man behind the curtain is, as always, the almighty dollar.