Welcome to Thunderdome

National Parks will not be removing statues.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/16/trump ... ttlefields

Let's see what the mob says about that.

Vince wrote:

GORDON wrote:I was told that was an insane comparison. FYI.

I try to be consistent in my beliefs. I don't agree with the criminal destruction of private or public property. Because laws.

Maybe that's what bugs me.

I just saw a van killed some people in Barcelona. I know there are still many arabesques (I think that's what they're called, those little muslim alcoves that face Mecca) that were left from the last occupation by the Moores, maybe they should tear those out. The Moores lost.

TheCatt wrote: Remove all the memorials. Stick them on battlefields or in museums. They don't belong in public.

Yeah, I'm fine with this. Take away the slavery part and you still have statues of men who fought to destroy the United States. Do we have statues of Hitler? Mussolini? Nickelback? Poncho Villa? Fidel Castro? Stalin? Lenin? Putin? Kim Jong Il? No because why would we celebrate our enemies?

However, we do have their images in museums.

GORDON wrote: There is no way people in this country are going to come together again without a war, and we're learning that one side considers the other unworthy of respect.

Sadly I think Gordon is right about this. People are being led one way or another by harsher and harsher hate speech that people are pretending isn't hate speech. You can't have people, literally, cutting ties with family and friends because one votes R and another votes D and think this will end with hugs. There is bigotry and discrimination, but because our leaders and media are involved and it's not based on skin color people are having trouble seeing it. Plus, it's really, really hard for people to see themselves as bigots or wrong.

GORDON wrote: And the awesome thing is, we can apply the "Nazi" label to whomever we want, now, and it sticks.

Again, also true. When you call everyone that disagrees with you a "Nazi", then it loses all meaning and weight.

TheCatt wrote: I'm going to start with the people carrying Nazi flags and swastikas. Cuz, you know, Nazis.

A lot of the Nazis weren't really Nazis. Back then folks didn't know what was going on, what that symbol meant (because it meant something else), etc. A LOT were simply rolled into it by where they were born. Now if you carry one or tattoo it on yourself, yeah, you're an asshole. However, my question is: What's the new swastika that we don't know is the new swastika? Left leaning folks will tell you it's anything right wing. Right leaning folks will tell you it's anything left wing. Who is correct? Since history repeats itself, someone is...

Vince wrote: I don't agree with the criminal destruction of private or public property. Because laws.

Agreed. "Hey, next let's go burn crosses in the yards of people we deem racist and we want gone..."

As for Charlottesville, I golf with a conspiracy theory nutjob. Not my partner, but he's in our league. Here's the stuff I heard from him last night (brace yourself):
-The guy was driving at a normal rate of speed until someone hit his car with a bat. Then he panicked and sped up.
Here's the video they're referring to:

Looks like cloth to me. Maybe a shirt? Definitely not a bat.
-This one's my favorite: Another car of the same make and model with the same license plates was stopped earlier that day. Someone has video of the driver of that car in the crowd and it's not the same guy that's been charged. He didn't provide me with any links to that video...

I mean, which conspiracy theory is it? He panicked or it wasn't him and this was all staged? Sad thing is it wouldn't be a huge jump in logic to think this was staged. I mean suicide bombers are a thing...

The real question I have about this event is how the hell that guy could drive that car into the crowd. Why wasn't the street blocked off? Was it because the counter protesters were there illegally? Not judging, but they did not have a permit, and thus, I wonder if that's why the street wasn't blocked off for them?

Vince wrote:

GORDON wrote:I was told that was an insane comparison. FYI.

I try to be consistent in my beliefs. I don't agree with the criminal destruction of private or public property. Because laws.

I'm torn. I don't like people taking matters into their owns hands, but I also believe they have a right to. Boy is that slippery slope territory. I mean, I think we all agree that people have the right to rebel against the government?

Isn't that what the South did?

Laws are written by bloated, corrupt douchebags. They're far from sacred in a country where they and justice are traded like any other commodity.

Antifa attacks reporter for filming them.

No hate and violence on the left, no sir!

"Trump is such an idiot for saying both sides are wrong!"

Live shot of a Confederate statue being removed.

Phoenix mayor (D, of course) equates upcoming Trump rally to Charlottesville.

Like I said, to the left everything on the right is a Nazi.

GORDON wrote: Isn't that what the South did?

Yes, and they lost. So they don't get any prizes.

Leisher wrote: Hooray for vigilantism!

I really hate this stuff. Is vigilantiism a crime?

TheCatt wrote:

Leisher wrote: Hooray for vigilantism!

I really hate this stuff. Is vigilantiism a crime?

Usually.

TheCatt wrote:

Vince wrote:

GORDON wrote:I was told that was an insane comparison. FYI.

I try to be consistent in my beliefs. I don't agree with the criminal destruction of private or public property. Because laws.

I'm torn. I don't like people taking matters into their owns hands, but I also believe they have a right to. Boy is that slippery slope territory. I mean, I think we all agree that people have the right to rebel against the government?

Yes, people have the right to rebel against the government. But what they're doing with the statues is not rebelling. It's throwing a temper tantrum. We rebelled against England. There was no political recourse for us. We'd been trying for years, and whenever we made progress England would change the rules. These mobs aren't trying to bring change to the system.

Vince wrote: These mobs aren't trying to bring change to the system.

Going to disagree somewhat. NC has actually made it illegal for municipalities to remove these monuments, which is ABSURD. Thus, I can see individual removal by people in NC as a political act against the state, and not just a temper tantrum. They are trying to change the system. NC changed the rules in 2015.

TheCatt wrote:

Vince wrote: These mobs aren't trying to bring change to the system.

Going to disagree somewhat. NC has actually made it illegal for municipalities to remove these monuments, which is ABSURD. Thus, I can see individual removal by people in NC as a political act against the state, and not just a temper tantrum. They are trying to change the system. NC changed the rules in 2015.

I'm confused as to how one can reason the statues should come down because the south lost, but people pushing to remove the statues are losing in the legislative process but they should be recognized?

For what it's worth, I agree that it's absurd for the state to dictate what municipalities can do with these statues, unless the are in parks that are funded by the state. As long as it's all local money funding the park, then I'd call that an over reach. Still not going to say it makes breaking the law okay as long as there is a legal and electoral way to change things.

Now if you want to talk about political acts against the state when it comes to legal edicts handed down by unelected and unaccountable judges, then I'm all for that.

Vince wrote: I'm confused as to how one can reason the statues should come down because the south lost, but people pushing to remove the statues are losing in the legislative process but they should be recognized?

Catt is making some contradictory statements and I'm beginning to think he's trolling us.

Well that escalated quickly.

All well and good for the mayor to request it as long as the owners are free to say go fork yourself.