It's a good read, but I ultimately disagree with his final conclusion: The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves.
I would argue the inverse... the war for the South was about the protection of slavery, under the pretext of states' rights. Southern sympathizers use the 10th as the basis of the argument, ignoring of course Article IV. But if it was really about states' rights, why didn't the Nullification Crisis of 1832 lead to secession? In fact Calhoun resigned the VP in order to fight for the right of Nullification in the Senate. But no forts were taken, no arms were seized during that crisis.
I've posted bits of the Cornerstone Speech before, but I'll do it again because I believe it's the most powerful argument against the revisionism of the sympathizers of the Cause.. The speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy. So he was in a good position to know and to provide the thought leadership on the Cause. Here are two quotes that I believe are instructive...
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. .. and later.. Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
I agree. The Civil War was totally about slavery at the end of the day, because all else depending on perpetuating that "economic system" as well as the society that essentially revolved around that system of slavery in pretty much every way.
I truly 100% wish I could agree because it sure seems on the surface that was what the civil war was about and slavery in America is one of our vilest historical characteristics but the fact is, the North was also complicit in and profited from slavery. Of course this does not mean I endorse slavery or justify the south for being more involved with slavery but many do tend to glorify the Union's involvement in the Civil War while they vilify the South. Many would agree though with the notion that neither side was pure in its motives. It's not as simple as black and white.
Oh, I am not suggesting that the South was solely complicit in slavery. That doesn't change the fact that all things that the Civil War was about boiled down to slavery though. Those are really two different topics. I figure whether or not it ends up "vilifying" the South is irrelevant to the facts. That is a purely emotional consideration. I personally have no interest in attempting to be PC about the moral positions of the day. It just is what it is. What I care about is what's happening NOW. And commemorating the Confederacy now is plain wrong IMO, given that the South did indeed FIGHT that war in order to maintain slavery and all the things that stemmed from it, while the North fought against that position. What folks in the north did outside of that as far as slavery goes was often heinous, and many Northerners still supported slavery, but that isn't the point. I mean, there were tons of allied soldiers and leaders who hated Jews and gays, et al too, but that doesn't change how we view Nazis, right?
Nor is it how we view Germans today. They weren't all Nazis then, they certainly aren't all Nazis now. What we are seeing today in many quarters is a massive vilification of the South and all those who live there, as if they are all racists. There is far to much racism in America still, both north and south. But if we alienate our southern members, will that decrease racism? I don't think so.
Sure... but nothing I've said suggests that every person in the South should be vilified as racists..... I'm just talking about keeping around monuments that commemorate an army that fought for keeping slavery around. Frankly, I really don't give a shit about Southerners who claim not to be racist, who claim to care about the racial problem in American, but still think those monuments are still a valid commemoration and who don't understand why it's not appropriate. I figure racists and those who refuse to acknowledge the harm of glorifying the Confederacy probably ought to be alienated; the alternative would be to what? Accept their point of view? I don't think most think that accepting latent racism is an option. I don't think anyone intends to vilify or alienate Southerners who "get it". I would imagine that those who do understand where everyone else is coming from. Anyway, what's basically happening is that people are finally "calling out" the South for its bullshit. Does that decrease racism today? Maybe, maybe not. Will it decrease racism and affect gradual change moving forward into the future? Quite possibly. That is the goal I think, and not to pacify those who are offended because they want to cling to their precious glorification of General Lee and Stonewall Jackson, and their glorious Confederate flag. America has been coddling these people for long enough IMO, and all that did was entrench their attitudes. I feel like America is ready for an actual shake up here, not more pandering and gentle coaxing. That obviously hasn't been working at all, especially not with Trump in office.
I honestly don't know the answer. The only thing I've come up with that makes close to any sense to me is, again, this:
"Love and only love will endure/ Hate is everything you think it is/ Love and only love." --N.Y.
It's a good read, but I ultimately disagree with his final conclusion: The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves.
I would argue the inverse... the war for the South was about the protection of slavery, under the pretext of states' rights. Southern sympathizers use the 10th as the basis of the argument, ignoring of course Article IV. But if it was really about states' rights, why didn't the Nullification Crisis of 1832 lead to secession? In fact Calhoun resigned the VP in order to fight for the right of Nullification in the Senate. But no forts were taken, no arms were seized during that crisis.
I've posted bits of the Cornerstone Speech before, but I'll do it again because I believe it's the most powerful argument against the revisionism of the sympathizers of the Cause.. The speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy. So he was in a good position to know and to provide the thought leadership on the Cause. Here are two quotes that I believe are instructive...
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. .. and later.. Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
I agree. The Civil War was totally about slavery at the end of the day, because all else depending on perpetuating that "economic system" as well as the society that essentially revolved around that system of slavery in pretty much every way.
I truly 100% wish I could agree because it sure seems on the surface that was what the civil war was about and slavery in America is one of our vilest historical characteristics but the fact is, the North was also complicit in and profited from slavery. Of course this does not mean I endorse slavery or justify the south for being more involved with slavery but many do tend to glorify the Union's involvement in the Civil War while they vilify the South. Many would agree though with the notion that neither side was pure in its motives. It's not as simple as black and white.
Oh, I am not suggesting that the South was solely complicit in slavery. That doesn't change the fact that all things that the Civil War was about boiled down to slavery though. Those are really two different topics. I figure whether or not it ends up "vilifying" the South is irrelevant to the facts. That is a purely emotional consideration. I personally have no interest in attempting to be PC about the moral positions of the day. It just is what it is. What I care about is what's happening NOW. And commemorating the Confederacy now is plain wrong IMO, given that the South did indeed FIGHT that war in order to maintain slavery and all the things that stemmed from it, while the North fought against that position. What folks in the north did outside of that as far as slavery goes was often heinous, and many Northerners still supported slavery, but that isn't the point. I mean, there were tons of allied soldiers and leaders who hated Jews and gays, et al too, but that doesn't change how we view Nazis, right?
Nor is it how we view Germans today. They weren't all Nazis then, they certainly aren't all Nazis now. What we are seeing today in many quarters is a massive vilification of the South and all those who live there, as if they are all racists. There is far to much racism in America still, both north and south. But if we alienate our southern members, will that decrease racism? I don't think so.
Sure... but nothing I've said suggests that every person in the South should be vilified as racists..... I'm just talking about keeping around monuments that commemorate an army that fought for keeping slavery around. Frankly, I really don't give a shit about Southerners who claim not to be racist, who claim to care about the racial problem in American, but still think those monuments are still a valid commemoration and who don't understand why it's not appropriate. I figure racists and those who refuse to acknowledge the harm of glorifying the Confederacy probably ought to be alienated; the alternative would be to what? Accept their point of view? I don't think most think that accepting latent racism is an option. I don't think anyone intends to vilify or alienate Southerners who "get it". I would imagine that those who do understand where everyone else is coming from. Anyway, what's basically happening is that people are finally "calling out" the South for its bullshit. Does that decrease racism today? Maybe, maybe not. Will it decrease racism and affect gradual change moving forward into the future? Quite possibly. That is the goal I think, and not to pacify those who are offended because they want to cling to their precious glorification of General Lee and Stonewall Jackson, and their glorious Confederate flag. America has been coddling these people for long enough IMO, and all that did was entrench their attitudes. I feel like America is ready for an actual shake up here, not more pandering and gentle coaxing. That obviously hasn't been working at all, especially not with Trump in office.
I honestly don't know the answer. The only thing I've come up with that makes close to any sense to me is, again, this:
"Love and only love will endure/ Hate is everything you think it is/ Love and only love." --N.Y.
It's a good read, but I ultimately disagree with his final conclusion: The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves.
I would argue the inverse... the war for the South was about the protection of slavery, under the pretext of states' rights. Southern sympathizers use the 10th as the basis of the argument, ignoring of course Article IV. But if it was really about states' rights, why didn't the Nullification Crisis of 1832 lead to secession? In fact Calhoun resigned the VP in order to fight for the right of Nullification in the Senate. But no forts were taken, no arms were seized during that crisis.
I've posted bits of the Cornerstone Speech before, but I'll do it again because I believe it's the most powerful argument against the revisionism of the sympathizers of the Cause.. The speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy. So he was in a good position to know and to provide the thought leadership on the Cause. Here are two quotes that I believe are instructive...
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. .. and later.. Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
I agree. The Civil War was totally about slavery at the end of the day, because all else depending on perpetuating that "economic system" as well as the society that essentially revolved around that system of slavery in pretty much every way.
I truly 100% wish I could agree because it sure seems on the surface that was what the civil war was about and slavery in America is one of our vilest historical characteristics but the fact is, the North was also complicit in and profited from slavery. Of course this does not mean I endorse slavery or justify the south for being more involved with slavery but many do tend to glorify the Union's involvement in the Civil War while they vilify the South. Many would agree though with the notion that neither side was pure in its motives. It's not as simple as black and white.
The North didn't fight to abolish slavery, but the South absolutely fought for its preservation. And states rights was a smokescreen. They didn't secede over the tariffs or even fugitive slave act.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,554
It's a good read, but I ultimately disagree with his final conclusion: The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves.
I would argue the inverse... the war for the South was about the protection of slavery, under the pretext of states' rights. Southern sympathizers use the 10th as the basis of the argument, ignoring of course Article IV. But if it was really about states' rights, why didn't the Nullification Crisis of 1832 lead to secession? In fact Calhoun resigned the VP in order to fight for the right of Nullification in the Senate. But no forts were taken, no arms were seized during that crisis.
I've posted bits of the Cornerstone Speech before, but I'll do it again because I believe it's the most powerful argument against the revisionism of the sympathizers of the Cause.. The speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy. So he was in a good position to know and to provide the thought leadership on the Cause. Here are two quotes that I believe are instructive...
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. .. and later.. Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
I agree. The Civil War was totally about slavery at the end of the day, because all else depending on perpetuating that "economic system" as well as the society that essentially revolved around that system of slavery in pretty much every way.
I truly 100% wish I could agree because it sure seems on the surface that was what the civil war was about and slavery in America is one of our vilest historical characteristics but the fact is, the North was also complicit in and profited from slavery. Of course this does not mean I endorse slavery or justify the south for being more involved with slavery but many do tend to glorify the Union's involvement in the Civil War while they vilify the South. Many would agree though with the notion that neither side was pure in its motives. It's not as simple as black and white.
Oh, I am not suggesting that the South was solely complicit in slavery. That doesn't change the fact that all things that the Civil War was about boiled down to slavery though. Those are really two different topics. I figure whether or not it ends up "vilifying" the South is irrelevant to the facts. That is a purely emotional consideration. I personally have no interest in attempting to be PC about the moral positions of the day. It just is what it is. What I care about is what's happening NOW. And commemorating the Confederacy now is plain wrong IMO, given that the South did indeed FIGHT that war in order to maintain slavery and all the things that stemmed from it, while the North fought against that position. What folks in the north did outside of that as far as slavery goes was often heinous, and many Northerners still supported slavery, but that isn't the point. I mean, there were tons of allied soldiers and leaders who hated Jews and gays, et al too, but that doesn't change how we view Nazis, right?
Nor is it how we view Germans today. They weren't all Nazis then, they certainly aren't all Nazis now. What we are seeing today in many quarters is a massive vilification of the South and all those who live there, as if they are all racists. There is far to much racism in America still, both north and south. But if we alienate our southern members, will that decrease racism? I don't think so.
Sure... but nothing I've said suggests that every person in the South should be vilified as racists..... I'm just talking about keeping around monuments that commemorate an army that fought for keeping slavery around. Frankly, I really don't give a shit about Southerners who claim not to be racist, who claim to care about the racial problem in American, but still think those monuments are still a valid commemoration and who don't understand why it's not appropriate. I figure racists and those who refuse to acknowledge the harm of glorifying the Confederacy probably ought to be alienated; the alternative would be to what? Accept their point of view? I don't think most think that accepting latent racism is an option. I don't think anyone intends to vilify or alienate Southerners who "get it". I would imagine that those who do understand where everyone else is coming from. Anyway, what's basically happening is that people are finally "calling out" the South for its bullshit. Does that decrease racism today? Maybe, maybe not. Will it decrease racism and affect gradual change moving forward into the future? Quite possibly. That is the goal I think, and not to pacify those who are offended because they want to cling to their precious glorification of General Lee and Stonewall Jackson, and their glorious Confederate flag. America has been coddling these people for long enough IMO, and all that did was entrench their attitudes. I feel like America is ready for an actual shake up here, not more pandering and gentle coaxing. That obviously hasn't been working at all, especially not with Trump in office.
I honestly don't know the answer. The only thing I've come up with that makes close to any sense to me is, again, this:
"Love and only love will endure/ Hate is everything you think it is/ Love and only love." --N.Y.
"In Birmingham they love the governor..."
Remember that was George Wallace.
Right band (right-hand photo) but not in keeping with my point.
It's a good read, but I ultimately disagree with his final conclusion: The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves.
I would argue the inverse... the war for the South was about the protection of slavery, under the pretext of states' rights. Southern sympathizers use the 10th as the basis of the argument, ignoring of course Article IV. But if it was really about states' rights, why didn't the Nullification Crisis of 1832 lead to secession? In fact Calhoun resigned the VP in order to fight for the right of Nullification in the Senate. But no forts were taken, no arms were seized during that crisis.
I've posted bits of the Cornerstone Speech before, but I'll do it again because I believe it's the most powerful argument against the revisionism of the sympathizers of the Cause.. The speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy. So he was in a good position to know and to provide the thought leadership on the Cause. Here are two quotes that I believe are instructive...
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. .. and later.. Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
I agree. The Civil War was totally about slavery at the end of the day, because all else depending on perpetuating that "economic system" as well as the society that essentially revolved around that system of slavery in pretty much every way.
I truly 100% wish I could agree because it sure seems on the surface that was what the civil war was about and slavery in America is one of our vilest historical characteristics but the fact is, the North was also complicit in and profited from slavery. Of course this does not mean I endorse slavery or justify the south for being more involved with slavery but many do tend to glorify the Union's involvement in the Civil War while they vilify the South. Many would agree though with the notion that neither side was pure in its motives. It's not as simple as black and white.
Oh, I am not suggesting that the South was solely complicit in slavery. That doesn't change the fact that all things that the Civil War was about boiled down to slavery though. Those are really two different topics. I figure whether or not it ends up "vilifying" the South is irrelevant to the facts. That is a purely emotional consideration. I personally have no interest in attempting to be PC about the moral positions of the day. It just is what it is. What I care about is what's happening NOW. And commemorating the Confederacy now is plain wrong IMO, given that the South did indeed FIGHT that war in order to maintain slavery and all the things that stemmed from it, while the North fought against that position. What folks in the north did outside of that as far as slavery goes was often heinous, and many Northerners still supported slavery, but that isn't the point. I mean, there were tons of allied soldiers and leaders who hated Jews and gays, et al too, but that doesn't change how we view Nazis, right?
Nor is it how we view Germans today. They weren't all Nazis then, they certainly aren't all Nazis now. What we are seeing today in many quarters is a massive vilification of the South and all those who live there, as if they are all racists. There is far to much racism in America still, both north and south. But if we alienate our southern members, will that decrease racism? I don't think so.
Sure... but nothing I've said suggests that every person in the South should be vilified as racists..... I'm just talking about keeping around monuments that commemorate an army that fought for keeping slavery around. Frankly, I really don't give a shit about Southerners who claim not to be racist, who claim to care about the racial problem in American, but still think those monuments are still a valid commemoration and who don't understand why it's not appropriate. I figure racists and those who refuse to acknowledge the harm of glorifying the Confederacy probably ought to be alienated; the alternative would be to what? Accept their point of view? I don't think most think that accepting latent racism is an option. I don't think anyone intends to vilify or alienate Southerners who "get it". I would imagine that those who do understand where everyone else is coming from. Anyway, what's basically happening is that people are finally "calling out" the South for its bullshit. Does that decrease racism today? Maybe, maybe not. Will it decrease racism and affect gradual change moving forward into the future? Quite possibly. That is the goal I think, and not to pacify those who are offended because they want to cling to their precious glorification of General Lee and Stonewall Jackson, and their glorious Confederate flag. America has been coddling these people for long enough IMO, and all that did was entrench their attitudes. I feel like America is ready for an actual shake up here, not more pandering and gentle coaxing. That obviously hasn't been working at all, especially not with Trump in office.
I honestly don't know the answer. The only thing I've come up with that makes close to any sense to me is, again, this:
"Love and only love will endure/ Hate is everything you think it is/ Love and only love." --N.Y.
"In Birmingham they love the governor..."
Remember that was George Wallace.
Right band (right-hand photo) but not in keeping with my point.
I know. I'm saying that Van Zandt used his platform to fight against love and tolerance. NY was on the correct side of history.
The more I read this thread, the more I dislike Sweet Home Alabama....
It's a hopeless situation...
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,554
edited August 2017
OK, let's try this again. Here's the problem I have with this whole tearing down monuments and statues things. What I'm hearing is that a bunch of people from another culture (yes, us Yankees and Westerners and Canadians and whatnot are of another culture) want to go in and tell Southerners what they should do to eradicate their past. Now that might not be a bad thing if the intention is to eradicate the seething evil of racism that lies underneath what those monuments and statues stand for but does anyone think for one minute that going down there and saying, "Fuck you, we're tearing your shit down," is going to change anyone's mind about the underlying illness of racism? Come on, really?
What if someone came up to you and took something you value and replace it with what you think is right- is that going to go down well with you? No, seriously, think about it. And yeah, OK, erroneously you think this thing is cool but it's not but is some outsider beating down your door and telling you you're full of shit going to change your mind about JACK?
Let's use some sense here. This is not how you change shit. It never works. It's like many years ago when I was pissing my life away on alcohol and bad living habits and my folks were giving me shit for it. Hey, guess what, did that set me straight? How do you suppose I reacted to that? Yeah, I drank more. Groovy.
NOT!
Post edited by brianlux on
"It's a sad and beautiful world"
-Roberto Benigni
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,554
Do you think the HRC campaign created those? Really?
To tell the truth, no, I have no idea. But they were around during those elections, this we know, and there was, to my knowledge, no fuss made about them at the time. I don't personally give a crap about those buttons either way because I
know all major politicians will do whatever it takes to get votes.
But that's not what's relevant. What's relevant is that this is the kind of thing we see people picking and choosing. One things is OK today, not OK tomorrow or is OK for this person but not for that.
What is relevant is how we approach problems of disagreements and that leads back to my questions stated above:
Does anyone think for one minute that going down there and saying, "You're BAD and we're tearing your statues down!" is going to change anyone's mind
about the underlying illness of racism? Come on, really?
What if
someone came up to you and took something you value and replace it with
what you think is right- is that going to go down well with you? No,
seriously, think about it. And yeah, OK, erroneously you think this
thing is cool but it's not but is some outsider beating down your door
and telling you you're "You're bad, you're wrong!" etc., going to change your mind about anything?
Tearing down statutes is relatively easy but all we've gained so far is more strife and division. The solution to the problem-- that's not going to be that easy it will take a lot of hard work.
And here's another question I think worth considering: If he were alive, what would MLK do?
incendiary materials = nitroglycerin desecrate = blow to pieces
An apparent chemistry buff is in federal custody after a Houston park ranger approached him as he was allegedly intending to use incendiary materials to desecrate a statue of a Confederate commander because he didn't like the man depicted.
Preliminary results of the liquid, the complaint states, "indicate that the clear liquid was most likely nitroglycerin" and the powder, authorities believe, is hexamethylene triperoxide diamine (HMTD).
Do you think the HRC campaign created those? Really?
To tell the truth, no, I have no idea. But they were around during those elections, this we know, and there was, to my knowledge, no fuss made about them at the time. I don't personally give a crap about those buttons either way because I
know all major politicians will do whatever it takes to get votes.
But that's not what's relevant. What's relevant is that this is the kind of thing we see people picking and choosing. One things is OK today, not OK tomorrow or is OK for this person but not for that.
What is relevant is how we approach problems of disagreements and that leads back to my questions stated above:
Does anyone think for one minute that going down there and saying, "You're BAD and we're tearing your statues down!" is going to change anyone's mind
about the underlying illness of racism? Come on, really?
What if
someone came up to you and took something you value and replace it with
what you think is right- is that going to go down well with you? No,
seriously, think about it. And yeah, OK, erroneously you think this
thing is cool but it's not but is some outsider beating down your door
and telling you you're "You're bad, you're wrong!" etc., going to change your mind about anything?
Tearing down statutes is relatively easy but all we've gained so far is more strife and division. The solution to the problem-- that's not going to be that easy it will take a lot of hard work.
And here's another question I think worth considering: If he were alive, what would MLK do?
HOw do you know they were around? I've never seen them before and I live in Virginia. That could very well be a troll item (like the Trump Russian flag) or more likely photoshopped. I do know for damn sure that HRC campaign didn't make them, so the very premise of your post is false. Most rational people aren't advocating tearing them down and throwing them away, rather putting them in a museum type environment where they can be given proper context. I'm not sure how anyone can defend putting up on a pedestal (literally) individuals that took up arms against our country in order to preserve the institution of slavery....and lost.
incendiary materials = nitroglycerin desecrate = blow to pieces
An apparent chemistry buff is in federal custody after a Houston park ranger approached him as he was allegedly intending to use incendiary materials to desecrate a statue of a Confederate commander because he didn't like the man depicted.
Preliminary results of the liquid, the complaint states, "indicate that the clear liquid was most likely nitroglycerin" and the powder, authorities believe, is hexamethylene triperoxide diamine (HMTD).
Peaceful protester if I ever saw one . This "War against statues" is getting comical!
I'm thinking someone was just trolling. I doubt these people even knew that it was a Russian flag.
The irony is thick this morning.
This is kind of an old story, right?
Irony never gets old but it's sometimes lost.
Why are we diverting to Trump and Russia flags? Brian asked a pertinent question with confederate flags and past Dems campaigns. Those complaining of irony and pointing at the other side are partaking in the deflect or "whataboutism" stategy often used in their favor when it's a Trump or Antifa statement.
I think Brian is spot on. It's like the Trump eclipse story. If that was anyone else, and I mean political leader, no one would care, but because Trump is a bumbling doofus, it's a national story. Make fun and move on.
Remember how you felt when the right made fun or criticized everything Obama did. Didn't change your mind I'm guessing so don't expect it to for him either. Everything has become a childish game of trying to point who does what wrong constantly, and I mean by all sides.
incendiary materials = nitroglycerin desecrate = blow to pieces
An apparent chemistry buff is in federal custody after a Houston park ranger approached him as he was allegedly intending to use incendiary materials to desecrate a statue of a Confederate commander because he didn't like the man depicted.
Preliminary results of the liquid, the complaint states, "indicate that the clear liquid was most likely nitroglycerin" and the powder, authorities believe, is hexamethylene triperoxide diamine (HMTD).
I'm thinking someone was just trolling. I doubt these people even knew that it was a Russian flag.
The irony is thick this morning.
This is kind of an old story, right?
Irony never gets old but it's sometimes lost.
Why are we diverting to Trump and Russia flags? Brian asked a pertinent question with confederate flags and past Dems campaigns. Those complaining of irony and pointing at the other side are partaking in the deflect or "whataboutism" stategy often used in their favor when it's a Trump or Antifa statement.
I think Brian is spot on. It's like the Trump eclipse story. If that was anyone else, and I mean political leader, no one would care, but because Trump is a bumbling doofus, it's a national story. Make fun and move on.
Remember how you felt when the right made fun or criticized everything Obama did. Didn't change your mind I'm guessing so don't expect it to for him either. Everything has become a childish game of trying to point who does what wrong constantly, and I mean by all sides.
I'm arguing that those aren't real. There's no way in God's green earth that the HRC campaign produced stars and bars pins. They are trolls or photoshop. So the whole premise is bullshit.
And the Trump Russia flag is pertinent because likewise, those were created by a troll who thought it was funny. So it's actually germane because it's two sides of the same coin.
And the Trump Russia flag is pertinent because likewise, those were created by a troll who thought it was funny. So it's actually germane because it's two sides of the same coin.
It would actually be a different coin. Russian flags touch on the collusion issue and the idiotic notion that trump supporter think "Russia is our friend". Stars and bars Clinton pins, even if they were real, are marketing around a symbol. Only relevant now because of tension around symbols of the old South.
And the Trump Russia flag is pertinent because likewise, those were created by a troll who thought it was funny. So it's actually germane because it's two sides of the same coin.
It would actually be a different coin. Russian flags touch on the collusion issue and the idiotic notion that trump supporter think "Russia is our friend". Stars and bars Clinton pins, even if they were real, are marketing around a symbol. Only relevant now because of tension around symbols of the old South.
Okay, I won't argue that. Teh point was more that people can fabricate pins, buttons, flags, whatever. We know the Trump/Russian flags were troll material, and I'm willing to bet the Clinton ones were the same thing.
Comments
"Love and only love will endure/
Hate is everything you think it is/
Love and only love."
--N.Y.
Remember that was George Wallace.
What if someone came up to you and took something you value and replace it with what you think is right- is that going to go down well with you? No, seriously, think about it. And yeah, OK, erroneously you think this thing is cool but it's not but is some outsider beating down your door and telling you you're full of shit going to change your mind about JACK?
Let's use some sense here. This is not how you change shit. It never works. It's like many years ago when I was pissing my life away on alcohol and bad living habits and my folks were giving me shit for it. Hey, guess what, did that set me straight? How do you suppose I reacted to that? Yeah, I drank more. Groovy.
NOT!
But that's not what's relevant. What's relevant is that this is the kind of thing we see people picking and choosing. One things is OK today, not OK tomorrow or is OK for this person but not for that.
What is relevant is how we approach problems of disagreements and that leads back to my questions stated above:
Does anyone think for one minute that going down there and saying, "You're BAD and we're tearing your statues down!" is going to change anyone's mind about the underlying illness of racism? Come on, really?
What if someone came up to you and took something you value and replace it with what you think is right- is that going to go down well with you? No, seriously, think about it. And yeah, OK, erroneously you think this thing is cool but it's not but is some outsider beating down your door and telling you you're "You're bad, you're wrong!" etc., going to change your mind about anything?
Tearing down statutes is relatively easy but all we've gained so far is more strife and division. The solution to the problem-- that's not going to be that easy it will take a lot of hard work.
And here's another question I think worth considering: If he were alive, what would MLK do?
https://mobile.twitter.com/UncleChangNYC/status/899373007621246976?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=https://www.youngcons.com/blm-protesters-confront-antifa-at-rally-for-wearing-masks-watch-how-guy-responds/
They recommend you start to saving your first morning piss.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://mobile.twitter.com/UncleChangNYC/status/899373007621246976?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=https://www.youngcons.com/blm-protesters-confront-antifa-at-rally-for-wearing-masks-watch-how-guy-responds/
This is "new" irony!
incendiary materials = nitroglycerin
desecrate = blow to pieces
An apparent chemistry buff is in federal custody after a Houston park ranger approached him as he was allegedly intending to use incendiary materials to desecrate a statue of a Confederate commander because he didn't like the man depicted.
Preliminary results of the liquid, the complaint states, "indicate that the clear liquid was most likely nitroglycerin" and the powder, authorities believe, is hexamethylene triperoxide diamine (HMTD).
Most rational people aren't advocating tearing them down and throwing them away, rather putting them in a museum type environment where they can be given proper context. I'm not sure how anyone can defend putting up on a pedestal (literally) individuals that took up arms against our country in order to preserve the institution of slavery....and lost.
I think Brian is spot on. It's like the Trump eclipse story. If that was anyone else, and I mean political leader, no one would care, but because Trump is a bumbling doofus, it's a national story. Make fun and move on.
Remember how you felt when the right made fun or criticized everything Obama did. Didn't change your mind I'm guessing so don't expect it to for him either. Everything has become a childish game of trying to point who does what wrong constantly, and I mean by all sides.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©