Confederate Streets and Monuments

[Caecus]

12 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said:

No, I have a problem because I was denied to a college where I was top 10% in terms of my ACT score, and top 25% SAT. Plus I has extracurricular activities, awards, etc. The college is over 2 times more likely to accept women than men due to the admissions office trying to achieve 50% women. 

m8 do you really think that you're fighting Nazis or something? 

Trust me, if I thought I was fighting Nazis, I would have brought A LOT more 308 Win. 

Let me guess, you had an interview and you came dressed up like your profile picture. Either that, or it was a shitty college anyway. The fact that I consider both to be equally probable shows how little I actually know you. 

To answer your question, no, I don't think you are a Nazi. If I had to guess, you are a white male in his early to mid 20s who lives in a relatively rural community with a basement that packs more firepower than the entire Canadian army. But that's just a guess. 

[WISD0MTREE]

Just now, Caecus said:

Trust me, if I thought I was fighting Nazis, I would have brought A LOT more 308 Win. 

Let me guess, you had an interview and you came dressed up like your profile picture. Either that, or it was a shitty college anyway.

The fact that I consider both to be equally probable shows how little I actually know you. If I had to guess, you are a

white male

in his early to mid 20s

who lives in a relatively rural community

with a basement that packs more firepower than the entire Canadian army.

But that's just a guess. 

I actually need more .308. Thanks for the reminder 

I actually took the interview seriously because you were way more likely to get in if you interviewed or something like that. 

-

Yes

Yes

No

lmao. No basement, just a spare bedroom.  

You were really close. I must spend too much time on here. 

[Rozalia]

On 26/08/2017 at 4:51 PM, Caecus said:

2. You do not know how desperately I wanted to hear Florida. 

1/3. Is this a subtle admission that people who support Trump (yourself included) are doing it out of a personal worship for the man? 

And let's be honest, even if you just did admit that Trump supporters now support him out of a cult worship, that's only 33% of the population at best. Granted, that number is high and saddens me nonetheless, but I take comfort in the 66% of people who can see what happens in reality and not get it from twitter or facebook. 

I nonetheless still stand by my statement that the US is different and doesn't fundamentally believe in cults of personality. Lee is on a pedestal either because we built a cult of personality around him or we believe in his ideals. Seeing as how his ideals revolve around the preservation of slavery, I can only assume decent people still leave his statue up because of the cult of personality. 

And what is wrong with supporting a strong man? I know the attack of course, dear Spite has tried it on here before (supporting strongmen making you "weak"), but I don't much see it. 

Hardly just Trump. The Bernie people, the Progressive wing of the Democrats treated the man like he was the second coming. Before either of them there was Ron Paul who got that treatment too. There have been more in the past. Americans are human, not machines. 

[ComradeMilton]

On 8/18/2017 at 11:14 PM, WISD0MTREE said:

IMO, going town to town burning down buildings needed for people to live is a little worse than a poorly managed prisoner of war camp which was intended to be temporary. The Union was notified about the poor conditions, however, the Union did not reinstate prisoner of war exchanges. Are you quite sure the South tried? And how it being so far into the south of the Confederacy how these mostly dead and dying individuals be marched back up to the Mason-Dixon line?

 

On 8/19/2017 at 3:00 AM, Rozalia said:

3: Tell me. Years back when far-right loonies would link to some random Muslim guy, usually a cleric of some sort saying Obama was their guy (as in a Muslim)... that mean absolutely anything? What about Nazis link to that former Jewish guy who is a priest or something (never watched the video but had it linked to me enough times) who says that yes, the conspiracy is real? David Duke can say what he likes as I said. The KKK is, and has for a long time been an irrelevance. 

6: To a point the examples were unneeded, America after all has hit a point where they are far more rabid than those over here could ever hope to be. What being shown to be losers will do to such people I suppose. Sad! So the Lincoln monument torched is a rumour now? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/17/abraham-lincoln-monument-torched-in-chicago-an-abs/

What about removing Washington's name? http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/08/16/jackson-washington-park-protest-presidents-slave-owners/

Imagine. With all the focus on the Confederates they still have it seems plenty of energy for targeting others. Imagine when the Confederates are gone, oh boy.

The only way you could take it as me calling Nazis reasonable people would be if you believe me to be one. I said "me and other reasonable people". As in you let these people run wild on the Nazis and they may come for them first but then they'll come for you later, you know that old meme. What excuses have I made for Nazis also? Is this all you're going to do? Imply I'm a Nazi? Just accuse me directly buddy and don't wimp out. When you do though I do hope you are ready to prove said accusation. The simple truth of the matter is these Nazis can't fight their opponents in actual debates, they're horrible as you would expect. However even if they reach an answer the wrong way that doesn't make their position wrong. Globalism for example when they oppose it they might do so because of the Jews or whatever else, but opposing globalism is certainly something I agree with. As such I do the job right and battle the Neo-Liberals or Progressives. Likewise while not seen on here I do the same in reverse such as on discord where I argue leftwing policy with Nazi sorts far better than a Progressive ever could. Those are two other loony groups by the way. Progressives are just the white nats of the left, identify politics mongers in constant rage and see conspiracy everywhere. Neo-Liberals my thoughts on are very well documented. To the dustbin of history the lot of you I say. 

Perhaps some counter-examples could be provided for use in the United Kingdom to better make it understood the similar people in the UK that have operated or lived there for decades and how naming streets after them and building statues displaying them like heroes when these people are basically traitors and terrorists of the United Kingdom.

1. At least one statue of Bobby Sands killing himself by leading the 1981 hunger strikes, remaining a member of the IRA and being elected to Parliament from prison. His history and importance to the history of the UK can't be ignored and should be honored like Civil War personnel are in the United States and offend no one.

2. A monument or street to IRA sniper, leader and planner of the 1996 Docklands attack James McArdle. It was a different time, but it's important to recognize figures historical figures without making judgments about what they've done or why.

3. Obviously for Kim Philby, long-term spy and eventual defector to the Soviet Union after working so long in British intelligence (thus a notorious traitor and spy in the UK) would need one of the larger and more significant roads to be named to honor his contributions to British history.

4. Perhaps some kind of IRA murals. One to honor the famous photo of the Omagh bombing with the father and his son riding on his shoulders just feet from the car bomb that would detonate almost immediately after the photo was taken and the bomb killed them both; and probably one to British-born Al-Qaeda operative and planner of the 7/7 bombings Rashid Rauf portraying his biggest accomplishment in an oversized portrait above a photo of one of the destroyed buses and massive changes in British laws and policies as a direct result of his actions and keep what he's done memorialized to the history of the United Kingdom perhaps 

Afterall, whether they're traitors, spies, suicide bombers, planners of suicide bombings in the United Kingdom they have combined to make massive changes and contributions (both negative and (in my opinion much in horrible taste) positive contributions to how the United Kingdom has operated since that day. If we forget who made Britons the way they are now? All of these contributions to history, be it positive or negative to the United Kingdom, need to be preserved and remembered with public road namings, building-scale murals and public statuary.

Kind of see why people in the US don't like having the equivalent people and events of horror in the past don't like similar American figures honored in such a manner? My own personal opinion is just like that I have over the United States' simiarly celebrating the same kinds of people that you have said are so important to some people and having no perceived reason for wanting to change some road names and replace some statues; it is abhorrent.

 

On 8/20/2017 at 7:41 AM, Rozalia said:

The current line from the less excited shall we say. If you like it or not those men have cultural value to the south of America. Texas for example also has it's own heroes who at the end of the day were simply rebels, traitors, and all the rest. Sam Houston doesn't just have a huge statue but also a city named after him. Speaking of rebels... what of the Democratic party? Many of the Confederates including their President were Democrats who entered into rebellion. (They were not then Democrats and only became so afterward as "blue dog" Democrats indicating their actual political beliefs being very much racist, conservative and equivalent to the Republican Party while spitefully refusing membership to them in the Republican Party because Lincoln was involved.")  Why is a party that rebelled like that allowed to exist (I am aware the Democrats continued in the Union, as a much depleted force)? US political parties are very different from British. Surely by the same token you take the party should be banned no? In fact... the Democrat party has quite the history when it comes to slavery and the rights of non-whites, quite the negative one. Where is their banning? There, to my knowledge has ever been a person banned from either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party in history; membership is voluntary, optional, but with no control over members. To be official you just check a small box when registering to vote in a new place. There are no dues collected, there is no shadow government, members of the party decide on their own how they act within office and there is either not, or at least never used, a method in either party to remove a member for any reason. Why are the anti-racists all over there? Surely history trumps all else no? To spite Lincoln. Literally.

 

On 8/20/2017 at 10:43 AM, Caecus said:

Your first paragraph just demonstrates even further that you have no understanding of American history. 

As for the attacks on the Lincoln monument, ok. Again, the way I see it, the Lincoln monument you can defend. You can say to "rabid foot soldiers of identity politics" that Lincoln kept the Union together, and ultimately freed the slaves despite the unpopularity of such a policy even in the North. You can't defend statues of confederate leaders. 

Just for clarity could we at least call the little statue something else? The Lincoln Monument is a massive building with indoor stone walls carved with quotations attributed to him, including the Emancipation Proclamation and sits in a massive seat on the same scale sculpted sitting on it like a throne.

Again, you are trying to make me debate some random minute point without actually addressing the topic at hand. You have one flimsy argument about people vandalizing the Lincoln memorial. I have at least 5 morally compelling arguments against you. By sheer numbers (not to mention quality), I win the debate. You should probably include all of the lies, falsities, and other negative things you have done in this and other threads before you contribute more to your narcissistic qualities.

 

On 8/20/2017 at 10:55 AM, Rozalia said:

You have said this repeatedly often with insults peppered in. Not once actually stated why. 

Hehehe. You are indeed very naive. You think they care? He was a racist. Fact. That is all they care about. Fanatics can't be reasoned with. 

Again, you just say things. I don't count 5, only 1 (standard argument, not "morally compelling) that relies on fanatical people ending up satisfied simply with having claimed Confederate heads. I say they won't and recent events already show that it will not be the case. They will get more anti-Lincoln and the rest in the future, not less. However if we must think of who will be first targeted in force then I'd think it would be Jefferson, who they'll say was a monster who kept slaves and raped and impregnated some of them... what are you going to say? He did the declaration of Independence and that was a good thing? Not for the black person it wasn't they'll remark. Correct, but because the declaration made no difference in the condition of slavery at that time. The racists hadn't even yet decided how much of a person slaves would count for in official government measurements before settling on them being worth 3/5ths of a proper WASP.

Now if you don't want to talk about the Democratic party thing as by your logic you have to admit that yes they should go... that is fine. I'll write it off as you being too afraid to touch it and that is good enough for me. 

 

On 8/20/2017 at 9:33 PM, Rozalia said:

Just keep saying that, I'm sure it'll sell to someone someday. 

Bullet point them then and I'll reply once to them and that'll be that, no going back and forth. 

Refute? That the Confederates were traitors or whatever? Why would I try to refute a fact? Do I have to now? I don't believe I have to. I'm sorry that I don't agree with destroying monuments over mass Trump induced mania (There's not a mania, he lost the actual voting portion of the election considerably and also did not receive a mandate for this reason.) (if Clinton won those people wouldn't care, I'm certain about that). I know the arguments, better than you have put them, that the statues represent ills such as telling to each non-white person that the whites still control the cities/towns they were put up in. I fully understand that, however carrying out these rash actions which include mobs smashing down statues themselves is not correct. Problem with fanatics is things are never quite pure enough and more can always be done. Simply giving them what they want only leads to them wanting more and you know to what I refer to. Now should something be done about the statues themselves? Likely yes. In some cases they have been moved to confederate cemeteries and I'm sure they can stick a bunch in museums. Such a process could be done gradually and without the big hysteria. Doing things in a way that inflames nutters on both sides is not how to go about it.  Just remove the statues, keep them off any form of public property and face no governmental consequences as a result of the document the honorees are so famous for attempting to remove with violence, though there's no telling what social, popular, or private entities in reacting to which private groups or people decide to house the removed statues.

 

On 8/22/2017 at 4:30 AM, Rozalia said:

Depends how you want to see it and as I said, it ain't a problem here or in the rest of the world. There is statues of warlords all over the place for example. Warlords who had control of X amount of the country and spent decades waging war and killing countless amounts of people from the other part of the country. These warlords often had plenty of slaves, some of them were big time rapists, killed people over slights, so on. If we talk simply on notability Lee as you put it was good at killing people and he is considered an ideal leader ain't he? No, he isn't.  Bedford Forrest was considered an extremely able soldier/commander who used an early version of mobile warfare, and even though famously a member of the KKK when it began he later in life acted/spoke differently and was condemned by racists for it (this is the same argument people use in defense over that guy (Byrd I believe) Byrd was one of the last blue dog Democrats associated with the brief Dixiecrats/States Rights movement; literally the only reason he selected the Democratic Party was the traditional confederate hatred of Lincoln and the Republican Party. Hillary is always shown kissing, so not sure why it doesn't apply to Forrest (Hillary wasn't the person responsible for founding a notorious terrorist group that still operates to this day, killing and bombing for religious and/or race. Had she created something like a Neo-Nazi Party she would be just as despised as result.). Davis is known only for being the first/only Confederate President though yeah, largely considered incompetent too so no notable positives.

I hope you realise that I have no attachment to Confederates (would be strange to). I simply find the taking down of monuments strange and negative for reasons stated already. Perhaps a law against putting up more and removing the less notable ones, but some should I think stay. When this sort of thing popped off here over a year ago with the Cecil Rhodes statue I opposed taking that down too and unlike over in America they guys who wanted it taken down lost and lost quite easily. I have taken the liberty of offering a handful of similar figures in British political history that, since you're not just arguing about this because it's fun to do so removed from it and not a hypocrite when equivalents like mine are offered to you. I won't even wait. You have far too much integrity to even need to be asked if you would be in massive support of my suggestions so I'm just going to leave it and its recommendations for you honor and praise your own selection of figures.

 

[Rozalia]

Bobby Sands is honoured you drooling moron. 

As for the rest... footsoldier terrorists are now notable enough to get statues? Spies also? What? Here in Great Britain Gerry !@#$ing Adams is an elected member of parliament. A (now former) terrorist. You pick the wrong country to try this game with. 

[ComradeMilton]

1 hour ago, Rozalia said:

Bobby Sands is honoured you drooling moron. 

Not in London. The murals are more a Northern Irish thing in symbolism and style. Gerry Adams was never meaningfully used by the Provos; he was more effective in Sinn Fein. The Bobby Sands pseudo-statue you included is small and easily ignored for so much contribution to the United Kingdom's history and treatment of political prisoners. Thank you for taking the time to read my post and note the other initial offerings and thank you for insulting me since you had nowhere factual to go after my post except another childish insult.

[Rozalia]

Is Robert Lee's in Washington? If not then surely his statue doesn't matter and should stay going by your logic. The honouring is done in Northern Ireland because uh... it makes sense to. Why the hell would they put a statue of someone with no connection to London in London? Makes no sense especially considering he was a Irish Nat. 

Gerry Adams is lucky he lucked out with that criminal Tony Blair, but whatever, we have a former terrorist in parliament so again as said, you are picking the wrong country to be trying this nonsense with.

The size of the statue now matters? Does it have to be 20 feet tall to count now? Many Confederate statues are small by the way, so they should stay by your logic again. As I don't know if you are aware but those Confederate statues you want knocked down also can be easily ignored. I in particular remember one of the papers having an article where a person states they have passed by a certain confederate statues hundreds of times and never once cared but now... in my own words this next bit, as Trump derangement syndrome has taken hold, he now notices it and wants it destroyed. Oh, also, the mural on the wall dominates the location it is in. You can't miss it. 

If I throw any insults be well aware that means you deserve them. You cited someone who is honoured, like an idiot, and got shown up. Accept it. 

[ComradeMilton]

15 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

Is Robert Lee's in Washington? Sort of, yes.  Arlington House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial, also known as the Custis–Lee Mansion, is a Greek revival mansion in Arlington, Virginia, that was once Lee's home. It overlooks the Potomac River and the National Mall in Washington, D.C. During the Civil War, the grounds of the mansion were selected as the site of Arlington National Cemetery, in part to ensure that Lee would never again be able to return to his home. The United States designated the mansion as a National Memorial to Lee in 1955, a mark of widespread respect for him in both the North and South. If not then surely his statue doesn't matter and should stay going by your logic.Meaning what, exactly? The honouring is done in Northern Ireland because uh... it makes sense to. Why the hell would they put a statue of someone with no connection to London in London? Makes no sense especially considering he was a Irish Nat. They have a good deal of bomb connections to London. Number Ten getting mortared; Royals being assassinated; Bombings at large and populated businesses and other settings.

Gerry Adams is lucky he lucked out with that criminal Tony Blair, but whatever, we have a former terrorist in parliament so again as said, you are picking the wrong country to be trying this nonsense with. Yours is very fitting and you appear to have trouble understanding other systems of government so it seemed appropriate and more effective to do so with what and how the United Kingdom runs, if you continue to be British.

The size of the statue now matters? Does it have to be 20 feet tall to count now? For the Lincoln Memorial, yes size is extremely significant. That Bobby Sands statue is ridiculously small for such a contribution to Britain. Many Confederate statues are small by the way, so they should stay by your logic again. Well, I'm arguing for the replacements to be bigger (check like one sentence before you made t his statement and you'll note it's the opposite. As I don't know if you are aware but those Confederate statues you want knocked down also can be easily ignored. And even more easily replaced by people who have helped the country remain peaceful and continually improving rather than continuing to honor traitors. I in particular remember one of the papers having an article where a person states they have passed by a certain confederate statues hundreds of times and never once cared but now... in my own words this next bit, as Trump derangement syndrome has taken hold, he now notices it and wants it destroyed. Oh, also, the mural on the wall dominates the location it is in. You can't miss it. Let's say you travel through a modest British city like, say, York. Do you, having been through it all and noticed what seems to be everything contained within that city? If you do and can remember every detail then you are truly a superhero. If you're a normal human being you miss enormous amounts of detail even in towns and cities where you live, work, or visit.

If I throw any insults be well aware that means you deserve them. You cited someone who is honoured, like an idiot, and got shown up. Accept it. Why do I need to accept things you say? We've already established through Sheepy that you hold no powers over the forums. You proclaiming the end to a topic is literally meaningless regarding enforcing it or not. You simply lack the power to actually do something like that.

 

Edited August 28, 2017 by ComradeMilton

[Caecus]

9 hours ago, Rozalia said:

And what is wrong with supporting a strong man? I know the attack of course, dear Spite has tried it on here before (supporting strongmen making you "weak"), but I don't much see it. 

Hardly just Trump. The Bernie people, the Progressive wing of the Democrats treated the man like he was the second coming. Before either of them there was Ron Paul who got that treatment too. There have been more in the past. Americans are human, not machines. 

I don't expect you to understand. Your island, up until the last 150 years or so, has spent rivers of blood and fields of wheat trying to justify which dipshit is better at killing people, and decided that the same dipshit is somehow going to govern in the interest of the people that put him/her there. It's not supporting a strongman that is bad (though there are a lot of arguments as to why those who first resort to violence tend to find themselves in political quagmires), but your blind support for a strongman. 

Here is the difference: in general, the Bernie Bros (as I have made abundantly clear how their stupidity really drives a mad itch I have) would abandon Bernie Sanders if he grabbed a woman by the kitty cat. Or insulted a gold star family. Or continues to pocket money from an international hotel in DC that everyone who wants to suck him off goes to. Or the countless stupid shit he has done. I'm sure there are some Bernie Bros who would love him anyway and blindly follow him into an abyss, just as there are Trump supporters who would do the same. I just think that the number of Trump supporters who would do that number around 33% of the US population, the number of Bernie Bros willing to do that around 5%. 

As for saying that people vault their leaders and deifying them today, I don't disagree with you. On the contrary, I think now more than ever before, there are more people who believe in the cult of personality. In a lot of ways, I think it's natural to look at people with success and believe that only they could do what they did. I think that's why human history is predominately made up of monarchies, emperors, and autocrats. I'm just saying that America is better than that, and its ideals is what people should be putting on a pedestal, not some schmuck that slaughtered a lot of people. We could use someone with good leadership, someone who represents the ideals of a free republic, interested in its safety and unity. Too bad the fat orange sitting in the highest office of the US isn't that person. 

[Rozalia]

"Sort of" is not a yes, and that is no sort of either (so you want Arlington gone too now?)

... Again. Is Robert Lee's statue in Washington? No. Bobby Sands would have wanted it in Northern Ireland and it makes no sense to build it elsewhere. 

You are trying to state that Britain acts as deranged as you when we have a statue to a man you thought had nothing and have a bloody former terrorist in office. Just stop. You were wrong. Move on.

Just insane troll logic. You talk of this guy not having something honouring him. You are shown to be wrong. You then claim it is not large enough so doesn't count. Get the !@#$ out of here. 

You can't argue your point both ways you fool. Bobby Sands was a traitor himself.

If I travel through York will I note and remember each monument there? Unlikely. Guess what though, I can note and remember every monument in my town which I've walked past plenty of times. That guy lived in that town his whole life and never cared about the statue but now suddenly wants it destroyed, that it somehow oppresses him, please. Just nonsense. 

1 minute ago, Caecus said:

I don't expect you to understand. Your island, up until the last 150 years or so, has spent rivers of blood and fields of wheat trying to justify which dipshit is better at killing people, and decided that the same dipshit is somehow going to govern in the interest of the people that put him/her there. It's not supporting a strongman that is bad (though there are a lot of arguments as to why those who first resort to violence tend to find themselves in political quagmires), but your blind support for a strongman. 

Here is the difference: in general, the Bernie Bros (as I have made abundantly clear how their stupidity really drives a mad itch I have) would abandon Bernie Sanders if he grabbed a woman by the kitty cat. Or insulted a gold star family. Or continues to pocket money from an international hotel in DC that everyone who wants to suck him off goes to. Or the countless stupid shit he has done. I'm sure there are some Bernie Bros who would love him anyway and blindly follow him into an abyss, just as there are Trump supporters who would do the same. I just think that the number of Trump supporters who would do that number around 33% of the US population, the number of Bernie Bros willing to do that around 5%. 

As for saying that people vault their leaders and deifying them today, I don't disagree with you. On the contrary, I think now more than ever before, there are more people who believe in the cult of personality. In a lot of ways, I think it's natural to look at people with success and believe that only they could do what they did. I think that's why human history is predominately made up of monarchies, emperors, and autocrats. I'm just saying that America is better than that, and its ideals is what people should be putting on a pedestal, not some schmuck that slaughtered a lot of people. We could use someone with good leadership, someone who represents the ideals of a free republic, interested in its safety and unity. Too bad the fat orange sitting in the highest office of the US isn't that person. 

I have no blind support for anyone actually. I have pointed out what Trump is doing plenty of times. I am just never all that flustered as his enemies are far worse than he might ever be. 

Come on mate, don't kid yourself here. Bernie has 3 homes and has made comments such as his largely white base not knowing how it is to be poor. Trump and Bernie supporters both want a strongman to enter politics and defeat all the evil X and so then bring about Y. If Trump and Bernie went on a killing spree today both sides would start defending their guy while labelling the other a killer who needs to be locked up.

As much as you would like to stand above, America and it's people is just like any other on this very human matter. Note the idolatry people have for the "founding fathers" for a good example. Do not think that Washington turning down a crown somehow means anything for the American people going forward beyond that point. Perhaps we can say that Washington himself, perhaps the founding fathers as a whole were not like that... but the American people quickly got to making idols out of them and others that came after (Lincoln, Reagan, JFK, so many have taken their places in the pantheon of American idols).

[Caecus]

16 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

I have no blind support for anyone actually. I have pointed out what Trump is doing plenty of times. I am just never all that flustered as his enemies are far worse than he might ever be. 

Come on mate, don't kid yourself here. Bernie has 3 homes and has made comments such as his largely white base not knowing how it is to be poor. Trump and Bernie supporters both want a strongman to enter politics and defeat all the evil X and so then bring about Y. If Trump and Bernie went on a killing spree today both sides would start defending their guy while labelling the other a killer who needs to be locked up.

As much as you would like to stand above, America and it's people is just like any other on this very human matter. Note the idolatry people have for the "founding fathers" for a good example. Do not think that Washington turning down a crown somehow means anything for the American people going forward beyond that point. Perhaps we can say that Washington himself, perhaps the founding fathers as a whole were not like that... but the American people quickly got to making idols out of them and others that came after (Lincoln, Reagan, JFK, so many have taken their places in the pantheon of American idols).

My apologizes. I just assumed that anyone who still supports Trump either is blindly following him or has a moral compass so !@#$ed up they wouldn't be able to point where the United States of America was on a globe. Do you know where the US is on a globe? 

So, Bernie is rich, therefore he's a corrupt, !@#$-grabbing, gold-star-family insulting twitter troll who can't keep his own administration together and condemn Nazis like the entire US military did? That makes sense. I won't comment on hypothetical situations, but I should make clear that Trump supporters are marginally more stupid than Bernie Bros. That margin, however, is around 20 percentage points. 

No, no. You are misunderstanding me. Idolizing heroes is not the issue. It's Idolizing them for their proficiency in violence in support of ideals that are against the principles of a free society. Again, we (should) put people on pedestals because they represent an ideal. Realists laugh at idealists while pointing out the reality that some people are not embodiment of those ideals and calling idealists hypocrites. Nonetheless, it is those ideals that pushes our nation forward. We've come rather far from the small bickering republic that put white men in leadership positions while keeping the institution of racialized enslavement in our founding document, wouldn't you say? We idolize those heroes because they represent moral leadership, that despite each of their mortal faults (and none of them are devoid of any), they all led weary "human" people to strive beyond their status quo. Leadership in our country is first and foremost moral, not martial. If it were the latter, our country would have devolved into the shit-stain that governed English politics up until the mid-1800's. 

[Rozalia]

2 minutes ago, Caecus said:

My apologizes. I just assumed that anyone who still supports Trump either is blindly following him or has a moral compass so !@#$ed up they wouldn't be able to point where the United States of America was on a globe. Do you know where the US is on a globe? 

So, Bernie is rich, therefore he's a corrupt, !@#$-grabbing, gold-star-family insulting twitter troll who can't keep his own administration together and condemn Nazis like the entire US military did? That makes sense. I won't comment on hypothetical situations, but I should make clear that Trump supporters are marginally more stupid than Bernie Bros. That margin, however, is around 20 percentage points. 

No, no. You are misunderstanding me. Idolizing heroes is not the issue. It's Idolizing them for their proficiency in violence in support of ideals that are against the principles of a free society. Again, we (should) put people on pedestals because they represent an ideal. Realists laugh at idealists while pointing out the reality that some people are not embodiment of those ideals and calling idealists hypocrites. Nonetheless, it is those ideals that pushes our nation forward. We've come rather far from the small bickering republic that put white men in leadership positions while keeping the institution of racialized enslavement in our founding document, wouldn't you say? We idolize those heroes because they represent moral leadership, that despite each of their mortal faults (and none of them are devoid of any), they all led weary "human" people to strive beyond their status quo. Leadership in our country is first and foremost moral, not martial. If it were the latter, our country would have devolved into the shit-stain that governed English politics up until the mid-1800's. 

You shouldn't assume, especially with the Roz. 

No comment on the "white people don't know how it is to be poor" comment? Bernie attacks the excesses of the rich. He has 3 homes. Excess. Simple. 

You attack others to try and embolden yourself and it is tiring. You are not special. You are not machines. You are like any other. 

[Caecus]

2 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

You shouldn't assume, especially with the Roz. 

No comment on the "white people don't know how it is to be poor" comment? Bernie attacks the excesses of the rich. He has 3 homes. Excess. Simple. 

You attack others to try and embolden yourself and it is tiring. You are not special. You are not machines. You are like any other. 

Hahahaha. Do you have a globe, Mr. Roz?

I'm not here to defend Bernie. I think I've made it abundantly clear how stupid Bernie and those who support him are. I'm just saying that to equivocate Bernie to Trump (outside of their political dispositions) is rather insulting, even if it is Bernie !@#$ing Sanders. 

'MURICAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA MOTHA!@#$AAAAAAA!!!!!!

[Rozalia]

3 minutes ago, Caecus said:

Hahahaha. Do you have a globe, Mr. Roz?

I'm not here to defend Bernie. I think I've made it abundantly clear how stupid Bernie and those who support him are. I'm just saying that to equivocate Bernie to Trump (outside of their political dispositions) is rather insulting, even if it is Bernie !@#$ing Sanders. 

'MURICAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA MOTHA!@#$AAAAAAA!!!!!!

At home? No. I'm pretty good with where countries are though, I confess due to playing games since my youth that dealt in country simulation and such. 

You just don't like it as going by your rough percentages it would make 50+% of American voters believers in strong men on white horses which is a lot more than most places.

The difference between us is when I say Great Britain is the greatest country on Earth people will actually believe me for obvious reasons. When you say these America related things no one believes you as you have already been marked down as someone who despises America. 

[ComradeMilton]

50 minutes ago, Caecus said:

I don't expect you to understand. Your island, up until the last 150 years or so, has spent rivers of blood and fields of wheat trying to justify which dipshit is better at killing people, and decided that the same dipshit is somehow going to govern in the interest of the people that put him/her there. It's not supporting a strongman that is bad (though there are a lot of arguments as to why those who first resort to violence tend to find themselves in political quagmires), but your blind support for a strongman. 

Here is the difference: in general, the Bernie Bros (as I have made abundantly clear how their stupidity really drives a mad itch I have) would abandon Bernie Sanders if he grabbed a woman by the kitty cat. Or insulted a gold star family. Or continues to pocket money from an international hotel in DC that everyone who wants to suck him off goes to. Or the countless stupid shit he has done. This is accurate. Many, if not most Sanders supporters support him not just because he is strictly moral in speech, thought and action, but that he demonstrates it day in and day out without even meaning to do so.  I'm sure there are some Bernie Bros who would love him anyway and blindly follow him into an abyss, just as there are Trump supporters who would do the same. I just think that the number of Trump supporters who would do that number around 33% of the US population, the number of Bernie Bros willing to do that around 5%. 

As for saying that people vault their leaders and deifying them today, I don't disagree with you. On the contrary, I think now more than ever before, there are more people who believe in the cult of personality. In a lot of ways, I think it's natural to look at people with success and believe that only they could do what they did. I think that's why human history is predominately made up of monarchies, emperors, and autocrats. I'm just saying that America is better than that, and its ideals is what people should be putting on a pedestal, not some schmuck that slaughtered a lot of people. We could use someone with good leadership, someone who represents the ideals of a free republic, interested in its safety and unity. Too bad the fat orange sitting in the highest office of the US isn't that person.  Agreed. Candidates off the top of my head who would make excellent leaders in such an arrangement include, but are certainly not limited to, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, JFK, Bill Clinton, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, Edmund Muskie, Jimmy Carter, John Adams, Tip O'Neill, Robert McNamara (limited), William Cohen as Secretary of Defense and a Republican from Maine nominated by Bill Clinton to successfully be confirmed by the Senate.

 

37 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

"Sort of" is not a yes, and that is no sort of either (so you want Arlington gone too now?) No. Arlington would be a proper example of what to do as an example of the consequences of making a violent war against your country and embody yourself as a result as the definition of a traitor.

... Again. Is Robert Lee's statue in Washington? Did you miss where it was specifically listed in Washington, D.C.?  No. Bobby Sands would have wanted it in Northern Ireland and it makes no sense to build it elsewhere. Were his contributions, leadership and dedication to his cause only things of value to Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom as a whole? I believe the latter and think he should have his statue as London as it being the capital, his status as an MP, and whether he has improved the UK effectively as I think I have shown he did.

You are trying to state that Britain acts as deranged as you when we have a statue to a man you thought had nothing and have a bloody former terrorist in office. Just stop. You were wrong. Move on. Again, you are not a forums moderator and I don't believe anyone has ever followed your instructions.  Are you saying a terrorist like the founder of the KKK is no longer an appropriate statue to display since the terrorist attacks took place due to disliking the Irish? He affected all of Britain and Northern Ireland, altered the history of both, sacrificed his life to improve conditions for the political prisoners kept imprisoned.

Just insane troll logic. You talk of this guy not having something honouring him. You are shown to be wrong. You then claim it is not large enough so doesn't count. Get the !@#$ out of here. Which person were you referring to with this statement?

You can't argue your point both ways you fool. Bobby Sands was a traitor himself. As was Robert E. Lee who you have suggested in other countries should be honored for their contributions. As I asked by altering context you appear to be not only retracting stated opinions you have posted appropriate to use in the United States, but appear to take issue with if the examples are introduced to your country.

If I travel through York will I note and remember each monument there? Unlikely. Guess what though, I can note and remember every monument in my town which I've walked past plenty of times. That guy lived in that town his whole life and never cared about the statue but now suddenly wants it destroyed, that it somehow oppresses him, please. Just nonsense. Please provide the name of every street named for a person, the person depicted in each statue present in York along with why they are honored in such a way and be thankful thankful that people who otherwise go by these places never know or appreciate them as you do can name every person depicted in a statue in York or any road or street name given in honor of a person.

I have no blind support for anyone actually. I have pointed out what Trump is doing plenty of times. I am just never all that flustered as his enemies are far worse than he might ever be. Again, learn to quote, please. I have no idea what this statement is targeting.

Come on mate, don't kid yourself here. Bernie has 3 homes and has made comments such as his largely white base not knowing how it is to be poor. My family have been what it's like to be that poor and Bernie was accurate and if anything understated the difficulty in a number of tasks. Trump and Bernie supporters both want a strongman to enter politics and defeat all the evil X and so then bring about Y. If Trump and Bernie went on a killing spree today both sides would start defending their guy while labelling the other a killer who needs to be locked up. I can't speak for Trumpeters, but Sanders supporters absolutely do not want a strong man; they prefer Senator Sanders.

As much as you would like to stand above, America and it's people is just like any other on this very human matter. Note the idolatry people have for the "founding fathers" for a good example. Here you are simply incorrect. People who state opinions of the founding fathers of the United States tend to be overwhelmingly compulsive members of the right that attempt to deny the nature of the US Constitution is based on disagreeing that it is a living document, not a binding, original that may not be amended to improve lives and grabbing anything written by anyone associated with the Declaration of Independence and onward read their writings religiously in attempts to amend the Constitution to be more beneficial to themselves.  Do not think that Washington turning down a crown somehow means anything for the American people going forward beyond that point. Given when he gave that statement, yes, I do in a literal manner.  Perhaps we can say that Washington himself, perhaps the founding fathers as a whole were not like that... but the American people quickly got to making idols out of them and others that came after (Lincoln, Reagan, JFK, so many have taken their places in the pantheon of American idols). I can't speak for conservatives, but I know absolutely no centrists or liberals who do as you suggest.

 

3 minutes ago, Caecus said:

My apologizes. I just assumed that anyone who still supports Trump either is blindly following him or has a moral compass so !@#$ed up they wouldn't be able to point where the United States of America was on a globe. You needn't apologize; this is generally quite accurate with Rozalia. Do you know where the US is on a globe? 

So, Bernie is rich (Bernie is recorded as the least wealthy member of either the House or Senate.) , therefore he's a corrupt, !@#$-grabbing, gold-star-family insulting twitter troll who can't keep his own administration together and condemn Nazis like the entire US military did? No. Literally nothing about this particular post is even approaching total uselessness if all its claims are disproven as easily. That makes sense. I won't comment on hypothetical situations, but I should make clear that Trump supporters are marginally more stupid than Bernie Bros. That margin, however, is around 20 percentage points. 

No, no. You are misunderstanding me. Idolizing heroes is not the issue. It's Idolizing them for their proficiency in violence in support of ideals that are against the principles of a free society. Again, we (should) put people on pedestals because they represent an ideal. Realists laugh at idealists while pointing out the reality that some p?eople are not embodiment of those ideals and calling idealists hypocrites. Nonetheless, it is those ideals that pushes our nation forward. We've come rather far from the small bickering republic that put white men in leadership positions while keeping the institution of racialized enslavement in our founding document, wouldn't you say? Changed? Yes. Meaningfully? No, Usefully? No. We idolize those heroes Who idolizes them as heroes? because they represent moral leadership, that despite each of their mortal faults (and none of them are devoid of any), they all led weary "human" people to strive beyond their status quo. Leadership in our country is first and foremost moral, not martial. If it were the latter, our country would have devolved into the shit-stain that governed English politics up until the mid-1800's. I have no doubt Churchill and Thatcher would be just as capable of Cameron, Boris or any other Brexiter to wreck the British economy even if the rest of the post appears to be nothing except childish insults and you presuming the motivations of people who see statues, which I don't think is something that's ever been studied formally to even see if it's valid or not.

4 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

You shouldn't assume, especially with the Roz. 

No comment on the "white people don't know how it is to be poor" comment? Having never said this I can't help you. Bernie attacks the excesses of the rich. While he, himself is barely going to be able to retire and only due to Congressional privilege; he remains the poorest member of Congress. He has 3 homes. Excess. Simple. I didn't say any of this. This appears to be your per post fake argument or point that you then comment on from yourself, but since you wrote both of the posts: it is you debating yourself.

You attack others to try and embolden yourself and it is tiring. You are not special. You are not machines. You are like any other.  Now if we could just get you to read the end of this post and understand how much of your posts are identified here by those characteristics if not worse we'd really have something.

 

 

[Buorhann]

On 8/16/2017 at 10:06 AM, Caecus said:

Come on, spice up this debate. I honestly don't know why neo-Nazis hide their identity online when they are so open and public about it in rallies. Be proud of what you are, don't be a coward and feel like you need to stand behind a group of tiki-torch bearing idiots to express what you truly believe. The only thing worse than Nazis are !@#$-ass nazis who can't even defend their own arguments. 

Not everybody who defends the statues are Neo-Nazi's, but good job on that hasty generalization.

[Caecus]

 

1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

Not everybody who defends the statues are Neo-Nazi's, but good job on that hasty generalization.

See as how you either don't know how to properly quote or deliberately take my quotes out of context, I'll provide you with the full quote:

On 8/16/2017 at 10:06 AM, Caecus said:

Are there any more arguments left for keeping the statues up? I believe we have "it should not be taken down because it already exists," "it's part of history and we will forget it if we take them down," "leaving them up is popular," and "people are willing to commit acts of terrorism to keep them up, so let's placate the terrorists." 

Anyone want to make the argument that Robert E. Lee was a great person and should be celebrated in American history? Anyone want to make the argument that the confederacy was a good part of American history that should be celebrated? Anyone want to make the argument that they are a neo-nazi and that the confederacy represented a government that would have created their ideal utopia based on their superior race ruling over enslaved masses of genetically inferior black people?

Come on, spice up this debate. I honestly don't know why neo-Nazis hide their identity online when they are so open and public about it in rallies. Be proud of what you are, don't be a coward and feel like you need to stand behind a group of tiki-torch bearing idiots to express what you truly believe. The only thing worse than Nazis are !@#$-ass nazis who can't even defend their own arguments. 

 

Notice how nowhere in my statement did I point out that all people who defends the statues are Neo-Nazis. I'm just avidly looking for Neo-Nazis here so I can debate statues on an amoral ground, considering that anyone here who has already tried to defend the statues can't do it without shedding their common decency. 

But good job on that reading. Let me know when you graduate the 7th grade, so I can teach you a little bit more about this rather abstract idea called "baiting." 

[Rozalia]

!@#$ man. Milton is really like no one else. Just bombards with irrelevant nonsense and runs from anything he doesn't want to talk about by going "I don't know what this refers to". Even if you weren't a lying toerag and we took that as truth it would be to your supremely stupid as !@#$ way of replying to people.

I'm going to cover a few things real quick and I don't care to go into much detail as you will simply ignore anyway. I do not live in York the example you randomly plucked out so no !@#$ nugget I can't name every statue there, nor do I care to know what is there. I know every one in my town but of course you are always shifting goalposts and now I need to know every road too and who they are named after. Just !@#$ yourself. Of course you bring back the "I will take this comment (referring to Bernie, not even a forum poster now) as having been aimed at myself". Just !@#$ yourself. 

Edited August 29, 2017 by Rozalia

[ComradeMilton]

5 hours ago, Rozalia said:

!@#$ man. Milton is really like no one else. Just bombards with irrelevant nonsense and runs from anything he doesn't want to talk about by going "I don't know what this refers to" Your poorer method of responding to posts make it often unclear which of several possible statements a remark in one post refers to the statement in another. Even if you weren't a lying toerag and we took that as truth it would be to your supremely stupid as !@#$ way of replying to people. The way that woks better than yours in making my constant requests for which statement in a new post is meant to respond to a single example in another post. With my method it would be so easy that I doubt anyone would need to even ask.

I'm going to cover a few things real quick and I don't care to go into much detail as you will simply ignore anyway. I do not live in (York,obviously) the example you randomly plucked out so no !@#$ nugget I can't name every statue there, I selected a moderately-sized British city, removed Edinburgh, London, Belfast and so on as they are not accurate. It was a hypothetical demonstration of how significant nor do I care to know what is there. I know every one in my town but of course you are always shifting goalposts and now I need to know every road too (Note I am not the person that stopped including street names or statues. I don't recall who did do it, but it was definitely not me.) and who they are named after. Just !@#$ yourself. Of course you bring back the "I will take this comment (referring to Bernie, not even a forum poster now) as having been aimed at myself". Just !@#$ yourself. Have you ever looked at how much you rage out at me, try to get me into trouble with the game administrators, how often your language is crude or so offensive as to be censored by the forums software and your manner of responding makes most of your objections seem to be caused as a result of posting your way rather than mine.as well as inserting opinions, attributes, political beliefs, political parties that are already fictional and then attribute the statements or other example as something asserted by me and you then get annoyed (at yourself, I guess as you are both the complainer and the poster of them).

 

[Rozalia]

20 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

 

Please provide the name of every street named for a person

 

Just !@#$ yourself Milton. This is constant with you, every single thread. You'll say something stupid and when called out will utter "I never said that". You have in the past stated that you don't bother remembering what you have said previously, and if I had to guess it is because you talk such mind numbing stupidity so much your brain has long since stopped registering. That is if you were honest of course. You're just a lying prick. 

[ComradeMilton]

On 8/28/2017 at 8:17 PM, Rozalia said:

!@#$ man. Milton is really like no one else. Just bombards with irrelevant nonsense What's irrelevant? and runs from anything he doesn't want to talk about by going "I don't know what this refers to" I'm actually genuinely asking so I know which particular ludicrous point you attempted to make and want to ensure I'm doing so with your guidance toward how you'll respond when I do.. Even if you weren't a lying toerag and we took that as truth it would be to your supremely stupid as !@#$ way of replying to people. If you would learn to quote properly it would be of no issue to me which statement listed in your posts went with which claims. Much clearer.

I'm going to cover a few things real quick and I don't care to go into much detail as you will simply ignore anyway. I do not live in York (I guess as much) the example you randomly plucked out so no !@#$ nugget I can't name every statue there, I named a moderately size in the United Kingdom that wasn't London, Belfast, Edinburgh or other more famous examples.  nor do I care to know what is there. I know every one in my town but of course you are always shifting goalposts and now I need to know every road too and who they are named after. Just !@#$ yourself. Of course you bring back the "I will take this comment (referring to Bernie, not even a forum poster now) as having been aimed at myself". Just !@#$ yourself. 

So you're going to insult me (poorly), offer absolutely no answer as to what your more opaque pseudo-arguments refer to in reality and then use my fatilure to address these points since you deny offering them to me to provide an answer to them. I have never quit; again it was you who declined.

WHOA. Are you suggesting that existence of statues and street names existing within York is not enough history to provide a detailed account of this period of British history it undermines your entire argument up to this point that no change is needed as regardless of how vile the person committing a deed is, they need to be honored for their contributions to the UK even if monstrous. I have shifted no goal posts. is that just the only fallacy you know or are you actually accusing anyone other than yourself in doing that?

Your abuse is hilarious because it's thoroughly irrelevant that I can understand why you are at the stage of using it since you no longer have anything valid to offer about these issues.

[WISD0MTREE]

On 8/28/2017 at 9:49 AM, ComradeMilton said:

Are you quite sure the South tried? And how it being so far into the south of the Confederacy how these mostly dead and dying individuals be marched back up to the

Mason-Dixon line?

I mean, allowing a few Union troops to go north and tell their superiors of their treatment seems like trying to me. The troops wouldn't be dying if the prisoner exchange didn't break down during the war. 

lmao where did the Mason Dixon line come from? Wait, please don't tell me you think it was created by the Civil War. 

[Rozalia]

Oh please Milton. You have to keep talking about York, a random place you plucked out of nowhere and I have no connection to after getting called out on your shifting the goalposts by asking if I knew who every road was named after too.

[ComradeMilton]

On 8/31/2017 at 11:16 AM, Rozalia said:

Oh please Milton. You have to keep talking about York, a random place you plucked out of nowhere and I have no connection to after getting called out on your shifting the goalposts by asking if I knew who every road was named after too. No, really any city you don't live in or is not famous where you had to slum it outside of school relying on street signs and statues to educate yourself about British history.

 

[Rozalia]

What are you on about? A place not being famous means it's people don't learn about it's notable people? Get the hell out of here with that garbage. My own experience had me being taught about the famous people with statues in town and also the more modern famous people such as medal winning runners, boxers, so on. You may well be small minded and disrespectful but it doesn't mean the rest of us all are. Also British schools teach Henry VIII and the World Wars. They are not how people pick up British history.