The Great Awokening and the Second American Revolution

[pie n eye]

You aren’t engaging in the argument. Instead you are misrepresenting statements and claiming straw man or pretending not to understand. For instance. It was stated that Indians held slaves and are not innocent, just as confederates are not innocent, therefore we should seek justice against all the iconography. Your response was “so you’re using native Americans to justify confederates?”

I returned with the Grant statement because it attributed something totally different from what you were saying to you. It was an example. I followed it up with an explanation in case you couldn’t understand.

You also made the leap to black people being inherently violent when I stated black on black crimes weren’t committed.

I think you understand these things, so yes I think you are obtuse. The alternatives are that you are deluded or an ass. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt.

There is no argument to engage in because you’re not addressing my viewpoint. I don’t think that monuments to the confederacy deserve a place in public spaces.

If you and others want to dance around and divert from that point by bringing up native Americans, Ulysses S Grant, and whatever else then go for it. That’s a different discussion with a different set of circumstances.

[wufan]

There is no argument to engage in because you’re not addressing my viewpoint. I don’t think that monuments to the confederacy deserve a place in public spaces.

If you and others want to dance around and divert from that point by bringing up native Americans, Ulysses S Grant, and whatever else then go for it. That’s a different discussion with a different set of circumstances.

I’m okay with your perspective on statues to the confederacy. Why hasn’t it stopped there? I’m not okay with taking down statues of the presidents. Are you? Why or why not? I believe in property rights.

I care about helping those that have had a hard go at it. One way to do that is to ensure the police are helping economically disadvantaged communities. By enforcing the law, those that want an opportunity are afforded one. Do you think that is a generally good stance?

Is America a systemically racist country? Is objective reality or subjective narrative the best way to live in a society?

Those are the arguments.

[wufan]

You continue to go on these tangents for reasons unknown to me. I have no desire to litigate every scenario or person you can think of.

Leaders of the the southern states that would eventually form the confederacy, when provided the opportunity to end the practice of enslaving other human beings, instead chose to secede from and go to war with the United States in order to protect their right to own as property another human being.

That’s not something we should celebrate or commemorate in my opinion and I don’t believe you or anyone else on this board think that either. And yet you continue to play whatabout as though I’m expressing a controversial opinion.

Will taking these steps solve all the problems of the world? Obviously not but that doesn’t mean it isn’t the right thing to do.

He’s pointing out selective enforcement. Rules for thee but not for me. If this is a virtuous crusade, then everyone is subject to the cultural revolution. If it is selective, then it is simply attacks on western ideals.

This appears to be critical race theory acted out in the real world.

[Shockm]

There is no argument to engage in because you’re not addressing my viewpoint. I don’t think that monuments to the confederacy deserve a place in public spaces.

If you and others want to dance around and divert from that point by bringing up native Americans, Ulysses S Grant, and whatever else then go for it. That’s a different discussion with a different set of circumstances.

I'm not diverting anything. I say that this has been a country built on the "Rule of Law" and has been a Constitutional Republic for a couple of centuries. Has it been perfect? No. Has the Supreme Court, Congress, and President been correct 100%? Is the Supreme Court correct now in not forcing the legislature to write a law on immigration? No. Do we rise up and murder Supreme Court members? We should not. Do we murder legislators because we disagree? No

China and the Soviet Union had their Cultural Revolutions in this past Century. They had MOB rule and they brought down their non-democratic governments,and replaced them with equally non-democratic governments. I have no problem with their bringing down their governments that didn't care about the people. But to replace it with the Government of the Few (MOB) is not caring about their people. Karl Marx's views where the people would eventually take on the power and the dictatorships would disappear hasn't happened and won't happen in either China or Russia.

Now, back to our Constitutional Republic:
Should some statues come down? Maybe, I think they should but that's not for me to decide and it shouldn't happen without the Constitution, and the Rule of Law. It should be done like "the Confederate flag was taken down in South Carolina, and Mississippi. It should be done by "the People" and elected officials with the majority demanding it. The interesting thing is that after George Floyd was murdered, the demonstrations and BLM leadership should have demanded that specific things be done. Not that police be defunded with murders taking place, and law abiding citizens businesses looted. That hasn't been how the Constitution was written to give power to the people. That's how Russia and China would have done it. When Poland and Eastern European countries were released from the USSR, and gained their freedoms, they looked to the U.S. for their model, not Russia or China.

My concern is that BLM leadership is mostly made up of Marxists who want a REVOLUTION like what happened in Soviet Union and China. I'm not talking about the people who are largely marching, but the leadership.Take down the statues, but do it right, like S. Carolina and Mississippi and the flag.

[ShockTalk]

In Seattle BLM blocks traffic on a freeway. A vehicle swerved to miss the barracked and launches two pedestrians in the air.

After stopping, the vehicle was attacked by the protestors and the car fled. The driver is now in custody.

Warning: Graphic!

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status...453191168?s=21

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/dr...?ocid=msedgdhp

The driver was black and it appears to be strictly an accident.

[wufan]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/driver-who-struck-seattle-protesters-is-very-remorseful-attorney-says/ar-BB16qy2d?ocid=msedgdhp

The driver was black and it appears to be strictly an accident.

I’m curious why he is being held on $1.2 million dollar bond if this is an accident.

[pinstripers]

I’m curious why he is being held on $1.2 million dollar bond.

FIFY

[WstateU]

I’m curious why he is being held on $1.2 million dollar bond if this is an accident.

[pinstripers]

Racist DeSean Jackson is black and tweeted hate speech about Jews. Not much gonna happen.

[wufan]

Racist DeSean Jackson is black and tweeted hate speech about Jews. Not much gonna happen.

And really, it shouldn’t. It’s okay to be hateful, and it’s okay to disagree with hateful people.

[pinstripers]

Matthew Berry

@MatthewBerryTMR

Has any current NFL player come out yet denouncing DeSean Jackson? I haven’t seen anyone but maybe I missed someone. You are either against all hate or you are not. It’s not a pick and choose proposition.

[ShockerPrez]

I’m curious why he is being held on $1.2 million dollar bond if this is an accident.

Just a guess, but because the system is racist and he is a black man. A white person would be free to go.

[ShockingButTrue]

Matthew Berry

@MatthewBerryTMR

Has any current NFL player come out yet denouncing DeSean Jackson? I haven’t seen anyone but maybe I missed someone. You are either against all hate or you are not. It’s not a pick and choose proposition.

This is what happens when we ignore the past of racism and hate, or try to erase it. No big deal today right? BLM is all good. Bend a knee y'all...

I can't believe we're dealing with a segment of society, and a large one at that, that can't see the consequences of totally erasing the past misdeeds of this Country, only to return to them again. A lot of these people out there running around are fearless (and useful) idiots.

[ShockingButTrue]

And really, it shouldn’t. It’s okay to be hateful, and it’s okay to disagree with hateful people.

C'mon man. Are you deliberately ignoring your lying eyes?

You know that doesn't work in all directions today.

[wufan]

C'mon man. Are you deliberately ignoring your lying eyes?

You know that doesn't work in all directions today.

It SHOULD be the way it works. Words are not violent. I didn’t actually read the quote, so I’m assuming he isn’t threatening or advocating for Jewish death. If he did threaten, then he should be held responsible. If he advocated, it gets a little trickier.