Confederate Streets and Monuments

[Caecus]

1 hour ago, Rozalia said:

Back to Lee again, just can't help yourself. You know full well I didn't say that about Lee . And yeah, we're talking in the here and now, of putting up a statue of guys like the ones I have brought up as the others come down. As for why they don't have statues... already answered that but can you not remember what you stated at the beginning of all this as to why the statues were put up? My response to you then was some certainly but I wouldn't say all which is a reasonable response. Now I've been repeating your statement back to you and you're just dismissing it as irrelevant. So were you lying before or do you admit that these men weren't honoured as they deserved because the racists took issue with the fact they were "race traitors" due to being "negro lovers" and all that. Which is it? And if you admit the racists didn't honour them for their good deeds then why not shouldn't their statues be put up in states like Virginia for the good they did there? I'm here telling you sure on taking down Lee and you're just talking some crazed nonsense at my reasonable middle ground argument. I expect this from the Alt-Left, not from guys outside their camp. 

Says the guy who has been defending a racist slave owning rapist paedophile. Does that say a lot about you? Bloody hell. And yes, those Confederates like Mahone do seem to me have done positive things in their state post war worth being honoured for. 

Remind me what "good deeds" Lee did for Virginia. Last I checked, he prolonged a war that they would have lost and had they won, a quarter of Virginia's population would be in slavery, not to mention the unborn millions who would still be in slavery. Can't say he really did anything good for his state. Lee's "defense" of Virginia meant one of two things: either thousands die for no reason at all or those same thousands would die so that a quarter of their population remain slaves. He did a lot of good things for his state and country, I'm proud of Lee. That's why everyone who isn't a Nazi is clamoring to keep Lee's statues up. To honor all his good deeds. 

So if me defending Jefferson is amoral, what does that say about you? You defend Lee and other Confederate leaders, people who are objectively worse than Jefferson. The fact that you consider the insignificant shit (and it is insignificant; if it were significant, you wouldn't have had to google it when I asked you to find "good things" about Confederate leaders) that Mahone did as redeemable after he fought to preserve slavery goes to show how you don't really consider slavery and treason to be such an egregious crime. Hmmm, what does that say about you? 

[Rozalia]

On 15/09/2017 at 4:15 AM, Caecus said:

Remind me what "good deeds" Lee did for Virginia. Last I checked, he prolonged a war that they would have lost and had they won, a quarter of Virginia's population would be in slavery, not to mention the unborn millions who would still be in slavery. Can't say he really did anything good for his state. Lee's "defense" of Virginia meant one of two things: either thousands die for no reason at all or those same thousands would die so that a quarter of their population remain slaves. He did a lot of good things for his state and country, I'm proud of Lee. That's why everyone who isn't a Nazi is clamoring to keep Lee's statues up. To honor all his good deeds. 

So if me defending Jefferson is amoral, what does that say about you? You defend Lee and other Confederate leaders, people who are objectively worse than Jefferson. The fact that you consider the insignificant shit (and it is insignificant; if it were significant, you wouldn't have had to google it when I asked you to find "good things" about Confederate leaders) that Mahone did as redeemable after he fought to preserve slavery goes to show how you don't really consider slavery and treason to be such an egregious crime. Hmmm, what does that say about you? 

Just stop with the stupid Milton-like shit. My statement clearly did not include Lee as I wasn't talking about him and I then directly stated as such. There is no excuse for you to be asking me about Lee again after having it stated clearly like that. Longstreet, Mahone, and some other Confederates here. Stop bringing up Lee.

Except you know, my lone "defense" was the (accurate) slope argument which is a defense for Jefferson, Washington, basically everybody next on the hit list and for the last... how many pages I have been defending the likes of Longstreet/Mahone while being perfectly fine with Lee and the others coming down as I'm trying to talk about a possible middle ground. Also, I suppose here is a defense you could say, most of those Confederates were not worse than Jefferson and I can say that quite comfortably. I'll not say all of course because why would I deal in an absolute? However lets look at this way. Most Confederates did not believe in MAWA as after all that would defeat the point of having slaves. Most Confederates didn't have anywhere near Jefferson's amount of slaves. While many Confederates like Jefferson are known for beatings, not all. Now rape and paedophilia how many Confederates were like their boy Jefferson? Well perhaps many didn't get noted but it ain't something that I see come up when I look through Confederate guys. Finally you could say that Jefferson knew better, that all men should be equal but his racism and greed meant he had to betray that idea. Which only makes it worse. 

What is the point of repeating that when I can just repeat again that you've been defending a racist slave owning rapist paedophile. Even Milton can work out there is a big problem with attacking as you are the Confederates and then defending Jefferson. You can't have it both ways. 

Excuse me? What a weak statement you just made. It is insignificant because I had to google it? Am I supposed to know American history from being taunt it in school or something? Perhaps you mean everybody knows Lee and what he did while most don't know what I'm bringing up? Well yeah, that was the point in not honouring them in the first place. The information is there if you want to look for it but after being downplayed for over a 100 years successfully (by the racists) who cares to look? 

As for fighting for slavery I think Mosby can answer that. This matter ain't as black and white as you make it, not every Confederate was out there personally fighting because of slavery. It'd be like accusing every soldier in Iraq or wherever as fighting for whatever charge you want to throw at America's foreign policy. 

Quote

He attended only one reunion of his Rangers, in Alexandria, Virginia, in January 1895, noticing with bemusement how many had become clergymen but preferring to look forward not back.[66] During the war, he had kept a slave, Aaron Burton, to whom he occasionally sent money in Brooklyn, New York after the war and with whom he kept in contact into the 1890s.[67] In 1894, Mosby wrote to a former comrade regarding the cause of the war, stating: "I've always understood that we went to war on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about. I've never heard of any other cause than slavery."[68][69][70]

In June 1907, Mosby wrote a letter to Samuel "Sam" Chapman, in which he expressed his displeasure over people, namely George Christian, downplaying and denying the importance of slavery in its causing the American Civil War. In the letter, Mosby explained his reasons as to why he fought for the Confederacy, despite personally disapproving of slavery. While he admitted that the Confederate states had seceded to protect and defend their institution of slavery, he had felt it was his patriotic duty as a Virginian to fight on behalf of the Confederacy, stating that "I am not ashamed of having fought on the side of slavery—a soldier fights for his country—right or wrong—he is not responsible for the political merits of the course he fights in" and that "The South was my country."[71][72]

 

[Caecus]

5 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Just stop with the stupid Milton-like shit. My statement clearly did not include Lee as I wasn't talking about him and I then directly stated as such. There is no excuse for you to be asking me about Lee again after having it stated clearly like that. Longstreet, Mahone, and some other Confederates here. Stop bringing up Lee.

Except you know, my lone "defense" was the (accurate) slope argument which is a defense for Jefferson, Washington, basically everybody next on the hit list and for the last... how many pages I have been defending the likes of Longstreet/Mahone while being perfectly fine with Lee and the others coming down as I'm trying to talk about a possible middle ground. Also, I suppose here is a defense you could say, most of those Confederates were not worse than Jefferson and I can say that quite comfortably. I'll not say all of course because why would I deal in an absolute? However lets look at this way. Most Confederates did not believe in MAWA as after all that would defeat the point of having slaves. Most Confederates didn't have anywhere near Jefferson's amount of slaves. While many Confederates like Jefferson are known for beatings, not all. Now rape and paedophilia how many Confederates were like their boy Jefferson? Well perhaps many didn't get noted but it ain't something that I see come up when I look through Confederate guys. Finally you could say that Jefferson knew better, that all men should be equal but his racism and greed meant he had to betray that idea. Which only makes it worse. 

What is the point of repeating that when I can just repeat again that you've been defending a racist slave owning rapist paedophile. Even Milton can work out there is a big problem with attacking as you are the Confederates and then defending Jefferson. You can't have it both ways. 

Excuse me? What a weak statement you just made. It is insignificant because I had to google it? Am I supposed to know American history from being taunt it in school or something? Perhaps you mean everybody knows Lee and what he did while most don't know what I'm bringing up? Well yeah, that was the point in not honouring them in the first place. The information is there if you want to look for it but after being downplayed for over a 100 years successfully (by the racists) who cares to look? 

As for fighting for slavery I think Mosby can answer that. This matter ain't as black and white as you make it, not every Confederate was out there personally fighting because of slavery. It'd be like accusing every soldier in Iraq or wherever as fighting for whatever charge you want to throw at America's foreign policy. 

 

But there is a shit ton of Lee statues, and you are saying we shouldn't take them down. I assume that because we are debating about CONFEDERATE STATUES, you would also be defending Lee. But I recognize you don't have a defense of Lee and conceded on the point that his statue shouldn't be up in the first place, so I'll stop bringing him up. Just proportion-wise, there are a lot more Lee statues than there are of Longstreet (are there any of Mahone?). 

My defense of Jefferson was an exercise to prove a point: that even your most vilely-hated Jefferson has more reason to have a statue than any Confederate leader. And yes, the deeds of Mahone are insignificant because you had to google it. We all know the great deeds of better men. Mahone's actions after the war bring no bearing on the course of American history, they play no part in its founding or continuation to a more perfect union. At least when Lee's statue is up, he's somewhat significant in that he gave the South a realistic chance at destroying the union. Contrast Mahone to any character that has a statue (even Lee), and his deeds fall short of the standard for greatness. Mahone can't boast he changed the south to become more equal for blacks (even if he tried). Mahone can't boast he created this nation. Mahone can't even boast making the right decision when his country split apart. 

But it is black and white. Literally. Everyone knew the South seceded from the union because an anti-slavery president was elected. The South fought to preserve the institution of slavery, it was as simple as that. You're right that not every Confederate was out there because they had a vested interest in slavery (most who fought in the enlisted ranks didn't even own slaves), but they fought with the fundamental knowledge that if they won, it would preserve slavery. For whatever reason they fought, they did so knowing that they actively supported the cause of the Confederacy, which is to preserve slavery in the South (and expand it West, which is why most people had beef with Lincoln, since he was a free-soiler). 

[Rozalia]

On 16/09/2017 at 3:58 PM, Caecus said:

But there is a shit ton of Lee statues, and you are saying we shouldn't take them down. I assume that because we are debating about CONFEDERATE STATUES, you would also be defending Lee. But I recognize you don't have a defense of Lee and conceded on the point that his statue shouldn't be up in the first place, so I'll stop bringing him up. Just proportion-wise, there are a lot more Lee statues than there are of Longstreet (are there any of Mahone?). 

My defense of Jefferson was an exercise to prove a point: that even your most vilely-hated Jefferson has more reason to have a statue than any Confederate leader. And yes, the deeds of Mahone are insignificant because you had to google it. We all know the great deeds of better men. Mahone's actions after the war bring no bearing on the course of American history, they play no part in its founding or continuation to a more perfect union. At least when Lee's statue is up, he's somewhat significant in that he gave the South a realistic chance at destroying the union. Contrast Mahone to any character that has a statue (even Lee), and his deeds fall short of the standard for greatness. Mahone can't boast he changed the south to become more equal for blacks (even if he tried). Mahone can't boast he created this nation. Mahone can't even boast making the right decision when his country split apart. 

But it is black and white. Literally. Everyone knew the South seceded from the union because an anti-slavery president was elected. The South fought to preserve the institution of slavery, it was as simple as that. You're right that not every Confederate was out there because they had a vested interest in slavery (most who fought in the enlisted ranks didn't even own slaves), but they fought with the fundamental knowledge that if they won, it would preserve slavery. For whatever reason they fought, they did so knowing that they actively supported the cause of the Confederacy, which is to preserve slavery in the South (and expand it West, which is why most people had beef with Lincoln, since he was a free-soiler). 

Like I said. Longstreet has like 2 and Mahone has a pillar to him though no statues. Note that both these guys were not nobodies on the field, they were pretty big time commanders. The reason they don't have loads of statues is quite apparent. 

I would state that his actions very much did have a bearing on his state as it meant that the likes of Jim Crow came later to it than it would have otherwise. From what I can see they held the Democrats off for a good 10-13 years and it then took the Democrats another 20 years on top to get everything they wanted in. That is not insignificant. You can certainly argue contributions to the nation as being insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but contributions to his state? I do believe he has that. I'm not arguing in defense of Lee here.

Fighting for your homeland and being a solider doing what a soldier does. If you're in a southern state with your family the option of travelling up north and joining up with the union isn't exactly much of an option. You take your family and you have basically lost everything... is the union going to support you? Going to give you a house like you had and whatever else? Unlikely. Lets say you go alone. You've just left your wife and children behind in what is now enemy territory which means possible reprisals can occur. 

[Caecus]

6 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Like I said. Longstreet has like 2 and Mahone has a pillar to him though no statues. Note that both these guys were not nobodies on the field, they were pretty big time commanders. The reason they don't have loads of statues is quite apparent. 

I would state that his actions very much did have a bearing on his state as it meant that the likes of Jim Crow came later to it than it would have otherwise. From what I can see they held the Democrats off for a good 10-13 years and it then took the Democrats another 20 years on top to get everything they wanted in. That is not insignificant. You can certainly argue contributions to the nation as being insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but contributions to his state? I do believe he has that. I'm not arguing in defense of Lee here.

Fighting for your homeland and being a solider doing what a soldier does. If you're in a southern state with your family the option of travelling up north and joining up with the union isn't exactly much of an option. You take your family and you have basically lost everything... is the union going to support you? Going to give you a house like you had and whatever else? Unlikely. Lets say you go alone. You've just left your wife and children behind in what is now enemy territory which means possible reprisals can occur. 

Longstreet admittedly was. I haven't heard of Mahone until now. 

Nonetheless, I think we need to consider whether or not if those actions redeem his choices in the Civil War, and whether or not those actions are ultimately worthy of glorification despite his actions in the Civil War. Also, it doesn't help that both of Longstreet's statues are of him in his Confederate battle uniform if we are honoring his actions not related to treason and the preservation of slavery. 

Were all of the Confederate soldiers professional soldiers who staffed the Union army before? There is also another possibility besides joining the Union army... Just not be involved in the war at all. That would be infinitely better than volunteering for a cause you know is morally bankrupt. Besides, the wikipedia page says Mahone was very cavalier for the secessionist cause and was fighting on behalf of the south as a volunteer before he became an officer. He was not a professional soldier. Longstreet was, but considering he swore to uphold the constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic, I don't particularly hold his actions in high regard either.  

[Rozalia]

14 hours ago, Caecus said:

Longstreet admittedly was. I haven't heard of Mahone until now. 

Nonetheless, I think we need to consider whether or not if those actions redeem his choices in the Civil War, and whether or not those actions are ultimately worthy of glorification despite his actions in the Civil War. Also, it doesn't help that both of Longstreet's statues are of him in his Confederate battle uniform if we are honoring his actions not related to treason and the preservation of slavery. 

Were all of the Confederate soldiers professional soldiers who staffed the Union army before? There is also another possibility besides joining the Union army... Just not be involved in the war at all. That would be infinitely better than volunteering for a cause you know is morally bankrupt. Besides, the wikipedia page says Mahone was very cavalier for the secessionist cause and was fighting on behalf of the south as a volunteer before he became an officer. He was not a professional soldier. Longstreet was, but considering he swore to uphold the constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic, I don't particularly hold his actions in high regard either.  

One of the articles I listed makes mention of that. How they were in a Confederate gift shop or something and the men in the picture with Lee all seemed to have something in there and yet Mahone had nothing even though he was considered one of Lee's best for fighting competently in many battles and his at the time famous rally at Petersburg which inflicted large amounts of casualties on the Union army and prevented them from taking the city for another 8 months.

Those statues unlike others weren't put up for bad reasons but yes they are him in his uniform. Any future statues of such people perhaps should be in civilian clothes to make more clear the honouring is due to actions after the war, not during it. The debate of if it qualifies as reasonable amends is certainly one that can be had and I've made my case on that. Though if the American people can actually have such a debate is questionable with how things currently stand. I did find some minor coverage in some places but right now people are more interested in tearing down monuments than thinking of building any.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Army

The Confederacy actually passed the first conscription law in US history apparently where those 18 and 35 were conscripted for 3 years, which was later amended a year later to 45. An exception existed for anyone for owned 20 slaves or more however though further reading on it apparently after passing the law they got pressured to make it less such an obvious way for the rich to avoid war. From what I can gather the rich guys with more than 20 slaves were told to find an overseer who could not serve in the army (50 year old men or something) so they could join the war, but if they could not then they would have to pay a tax/provide free supplies. Mahone was within the age bracket so he was going to be in the Confederate army one way or another (seems he was smart to help the Confederate army out with his ruse as it got him immediately promoted far higher then if he simply waited for the conscription). His holdings were all in Confederate land so joining the Union wasn't going to happen based off that I would guess, plus as you say he was very much someone into secession

[Caecus]

Well, I can't speak for other people, but I'm more interested in tearing down statues because it hurts my eyes to see anything related to Lee higher than eye level. In general, when I see something so morally !@#$ed up, my primary issue is removing that thing from my sight, not worried about building more of it. I'm sure most statue builders have a second job, if you are worried about the monument building market. 

[Patty]

To all the people who say that people who don't remember history will repeat it, there's this thing called museums. I suggest you check them out.

Edited September 19, 2017 by Catsby

[Doktor Avalanche]

On 9/19/2017 at 9:07 AM, Catsby said:

To all the people who say that people who don't remember history will repeat it, there's this thing called museums. I suggest you check them out.

Museum visits in the US are at an all time low. People are too busy staring at their phones to notice anything nowadays.

[Patty]

12 hours ago, Lady Tatjanna said:

Museum visits in the US are at an all time low. People are too busy staring at their phones to notice anything nowadays.

I’m sorry what? I was too busy ready this tweet about the Confederacy being Nazis, and when each statue falls Hitler gains more power to make America his puppet via controlling Daddy Trump.

[Rozalia]

On 19/09/2017 at 3:01 PM, Caecus said:

Well, I can't speak for other people, but I'm more interested in tearing down statues because it hurts my eyes to see anything related to Lee higher than eye level. In general, when I see something so morally !@#$ed up, my primary issue is removing that thing from my sight, not worried about building more of it. I'm sure most statue builders have a second job, if you are worried about the monument building market. 

More... it is easier to get over the issue if you actually replace the statues with someone else especially if it is somebody who also was in the Confederacy. The population of today, even in America, is not like the population of the past. In the times of Longstreet, Mahone, so on the extreme racists were enough of a force they could get laws changed and monuments put up to themselves (White League getting a monument is ridiculous, it was rightfully removed). Nowadays as much as people love to talk them up they are an irrelevance. Perhaps some educating on just who Mahone was and that Longstreet isn't this almost traitor figure in the Confederacy who purposely screwed Lee might be required for the less educated out there, but I'm sure especially over time those people will see it as a good enough ending to it all. The Nazis and whatever won't, but as ever when those Nazis can't hide within a larger group to try and mask their influence as larger they crumble. 

[ComradeMilton]

On 9/19/2017 at 0:51 AM, Rozalia said:

The Confederacy actually passed the first conscription law in US history (No, they didn't. They were fighting the US at the time and thus not in it.) apparently where those 18 and 35 were conscripted for 3 years, which was later amended a year later to 45. An exception existed for anyone for owned 20 slaves or more however though further reading on it apparently after passing the law they got pressured to make it less such an obvious way for the rich to avoid war. From what I can gather the rich guys with more than 20 slaves were told to find an overseer who could not serve in the army (50 year old men or something) so they could join the war, but if they could not then they would have to pay a tax/provide free supplies. Mahone was within the age bracket so he was going to be in the Confederate army one way or another (seems he was smart to help the Confederate army out with his ruse as it got him immediately promoted far higher then if he simply waited for the conscription). His holdings were all in Confederate land so joining the Union wasn't going to happen based off that I would guess, plus as you say he was very much someone into secession We do that all the time. RICO and Civil Asset Forfeiture include those mechanisms for crime. For example, making war on your country.

 

[WISD0MTREE]

5 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

They were fighting the US at the time and thus not in it.

For example, making war on your country.

But if you aren't part of a country, would declaring war on it really be declaring war on your own country? 

[ComradeMilton]

Well, I'm just relying on their logic. They are definitely the first CSA draft. They're back in their place now.

[Rozalia]

The Union laid claim to all of the CSA so it was the first US one. Simply passed by rebels who occupied the southern part of the country, a part that was as far as I'm aware never officially recognised as being separate. The Union then passed a conscription law soon afterwards I believe.

Why you waste my time arguing this I don't know as nothing changes as the main point there was the Confederacy did do conscription. Also WISD0MTREE took a hammer to your balls lol. He has a point in that if the CSA conscription law is not the first in US history then you cannot claim as you have done that they declared war on their own country. I've told you many times you can't have it both ways, but this is you so what is logic. 

[Dubayoo]

Just stumbled across this: http://suvcw.org/reb.htm

Quote

"Several common interests transcend the differences of our Orders. These include a deep respect for all soldiers who fought during our AMERICAN Civil War, a strong desire to ensure that they and what they fought for are never forgotten, a need to ensure that their graves and memorials are maintained and a desire to ensure that the history of our United States is related to successive generations as it actually happened rather than in terms of what is currently in vogue or politically correct."

Excerpt from presentation by Keith G. Harrison, Commander-in-Chief (1994/1995) of the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War to the 100th Sons of Confederate Veterans/Military Order of the Stars and Bars Reunion, Chattanooga, Tennessee, July 1995.

 

[Caecus]

6 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

Just stumbled across this: http://suvcw.org/reb.htm

 

I'm not sure how this is relevant. Please explain. 

[ComradeMilton]

13 hours ago, Rozalia said:

The Union laid claim to all of the CSA so it was the first US one. Yes, they did. Doesn't really change the nature of it, though.  Simply passed by rebels who occupied the southern part of the country, a part that was as far as I'm aware never officially recognised as being separate. The Union then passed a conscription law soon afterwards I believe.

Why you waste my time arguing this I don't know as nothing changes as the main point there was the Confederacy did do conscription. Also WISD0MTREE took a hammer to your balls lol. He has a point in that if the CSA conscription law is not the first in US history then you cannot claim as you have done that they declared war on their own country. I've told you many times you can't have it both ways, but this is you so what is logic.  Is someone interested in your explanations? They're usually basically fiction. That was the first conscription for the CSA, the first American one occurred shortly afterword. They declared war on their country, named themselves the CSA and declared war. The US claim to the CSA doesn't change what they called themselves or anything else, aside from that their brief absence makes the first draft that of the Union, which occurred shortly afterward.

 

[Dubayoo]

12 hours ago, Caecus said:

I'm not sure how this is relevant. Please explain. 

It refers to the spirit of the monuments' construction. If the descendants of the veterans of the union army can recognize the value of history unto itself, then so should the rest of us instead of jumping to conclusions on racism.  It also points out concerns about political correctness over 20 years before the current debate.

[Caecus]

3 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

It refers to the spirit of the monuments' construction. If the descendants of the veterans of the union army can recognize the value of history unto itself, then so should the rest of us instead of jumping to conclusions on racism.  It also points out concerns about political correctness over 20 years before the current debate.

The reason why I ask is because I don't think a statue of Robert E. Lee in the city town hall square has anything to do with remembering fallen soldiers (unless said city town hall square is built on top of the graves of Confederate soldiers?). Otherwise, the statue would be in a graveyard, and not of a random person who ordered them into battle. Also, most of those war memorials were built during Reconstruction as a recognition of fallen American soldiers. We are talking about statues of Lee, which were built in the Jim Crow era to express the dominance of the South's 'Lost Cause' alternative history and was used as a symbol of systemic state-sponsored racial terrorism. Thus, the reason why I think this is irrelevant. 

Also, the speech is stupid. You don't have those war memorial monuments (which, again, is different in purpose, object, and geographic/temporal location compared to a statue of Lee) because you are afraid you are going to forget history (there is something called a book), you have them so that you honor people who died in the war. Nobody here is advocating to dig up the graves of Confederate soldiers or knocking down headstones. They may have been (at best, misguided) traitors consciously fighting for the preservation of slavery and the destruction of their own country, but they were still Americans and deserve a grave.

[Rozalia]

You're an idiot Milton. Confederates were Americans too which was confirmed when their rebellion lost. If they had won then you'd have a case of their conscription law not being part of American history. 

[Fukataka]

If were gonna destroy statues of Lee then I get the right to destroy all statues of filthy communists like stalin, mao, and lenin and get to burn all communist literature.

Checkmate.

But then again, rules for thee but not for me.

[Caecus]

8 hours ago, Fukataka said:

If were gonna destroy statues of Lee then I get the right to destroy all statues of filthy communists like stalin, mao, and lenin and get to burn all communist literature.

Checkmate.

But then again, rules for thee but not for me.

I wasn't aware Virginia had statues of Stalin, Mao, and Lenin in the city square. I would be extremely surprised if they did. But I agree with your statement. I believe the analogous political opposite of Lee are mass-murdering communists, so by all means, take any statues down of Lenin and Mao you see. But if we are going to also burn all communist literature, we should go tit for tat and erase all trace of Lee. Dig up his grave, knock over his headstone, erase any literary mentioning of him and his toxic ideology just as you would do for communist dictators. 

Foolsmate. 

 

[Fukataka]

2 hours ago, Caecus said:

I wasn't aware Virginia had statues of Stalin, Mao, and Lenin in the city square. I would be extremely surprised if they did. But I agree with your statement. I believe the analogous political opposite of Lee are mass-murdering communists, so by all means, take any statues down of Lenin and Mao you see. But if we are going to also burn all communist literature, we should go tit for tat and erase all trace of Lee. Dig up his grave, knock over his headstone, erase any literary mentioning of him and his toxic ideology just as you would do for communist dictators. 

Foolsmate. 

 

I doubt anyone who would actually try to destroy a statue of Lenin would be allowed to do so without being not only arrested and charged, but lambasted by the mainstream media with terms like nazi, racist, ableist or whatever latest ism the left would come out with. And anyone who dared to burn a stack of communist books in public, especially in places like UC Berkeley would be assaulted by the likes of Antifa while not getting any coverage from the media because it doesn't fit the latest narrative.

And destroying statues of Lee would still be hailed as 'equality' by the mainstream media. And those who try to protect Confederate statues would be called a white supremacist, even if its a black person.

Seems that most of the liberal types have two sets of rules. One for them and one for everyone else not part of their cabal.

Also, no one is actually destroying communist literature from public libraries. And if you're actually going to dig up his grave, expect yours to be dug up as well in retaliation by one of those 'confederate sympathisers' you seem to hate.

[Caecus]

4 hours ago, Fukataka said:

I doubt anyone who would actually try to destroy a statue of Lenin would be allowed to do so without being not only arrested and charged, but lambasted by the mainstream media with terms like nazi, racist, ableist or whatever latest ism the left would come out with. And anyone who dared to burn a stack of communist books in public, especially in places like UC Berkeley would be assaulted by the likes of Antifa while not getting any coverage from the media because it doesn't fit the latest narrative.

And destroying statues of Lee would still be hailed as 'equality' by the mainstream media. And those who try to protect Confederate statues would be called a white supremacist, even if its a black person.

Seems that most of the liberal types have two sets of rules. One for them and one for everyone else not part of their cabal.

Also, no one is actually destroying communist literature from public libraries. And if you're actually going to dig up his grave, expect yours to be dug up as well in retaliation by one of those 'confederate sympathisers' you seem to hate.

Where is this statue of Lenin? I seem to recall there isn't one in the US. Correct me if I'm wrong. 

There's a black person protecting a confederate statue?! That's like seeing a hot red head, or a unicorn. I don't believe that exists, i need to see this shit. 

Funny, I was about to say that about pseudo-conservatives who foam at the mouth about a rabid left (yes, there is some irony in that) yet fall on the outside of the political spectrum in which both conservatives and liberals alike (in general, most decent people) condemn. 

!@#$, please. I'm a godless heathen who swipes right on tinder in the middle of my satanic ceremonies on Sunday so that I can have pre-marital intercourse with a feminazi under a painting of my beloved god, Hillary Clinton. Do you honestly think I'm going to want to have my body buried so that when the sound of 3 trumpet blasts signals the rise of the dead, I'm going to want to pop out of the ground and be eternally damned to live with hypocrites in an aimless existence shaming feisty teenagers? !@#$ no, I'm donating my body to science so that punk ass wannabe pre-medical students can stick their fingers through my os coxae.