The Whole Statue Issue.....

You are right. There are some who do not want these statues removed and they aren't racist. The majority of folks don't care or want them removed. Originally Posted by grean

There is no way the majority don't care or want them removed.

There is no way the majority don't care or want them removed. Originally Posted by tonyvicksa

May be if you went by tonnage ... the statement might be correct.



The only thing that would let her on top is a chunk of metal.

May be if you went by tonnage ... the statement might be correct.



The only thing that would let her on top is a chunk of metal. Originally Posted by LexusLover

If they are your people support them.

is very much different than statue removal by demonstration / antifa bullshit.

It is still anti-intellectual and still erases history. Politically - I would be against it for those reasons, but if that is what a legislative body voted to do then - so be it. The politicians voting on it should be careful, because their political seat would be in danger - either way even. Originally Posted by johnjay

So you and I agree....not the KKK or the NAACP should have final say on statue removal.

It should be the branch of government from whose jurisdiction on which the statue resides.

If you do not like a statue in your town square...elect a candidate(s) that will remove it and vice versa.

I personally do not want to waste money removing them. If somebody feels strongly enough raise the money privately and remove them. Let the KKK and the NCAAP bid on them!



.

There is no way the majority don't care or want them removed. Originally Posted by tonyvicksa

You are mixing up two different issues.

Take Baltimore...My best guess is the majority of their citizen want them removed. And if they are on city property , and elected city officials want to remove them , then they should be able to regardless wtf the majority of the country wants. The majority of the country is responsible for Federal Statues.



.

Then call it an "Art Galleria" .. because that's what it is: ART.

There are many museums in this country and outside of this country that contain relics and art objects (including statues) from countries and eras that many would find "offensive" but they are preserved for a variety of reasons.

If some narrow minded, hysterical, little oversensitive titty baby doesn't want to go look at the items because it would make them scared and cry ... then they don't have to go look at them.

And I'm all for getting rid of the "division" and "anger" in this country so we all can concentrate on something productive. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Holy Shit....I agree with LL!



.

If they are your people support them. Originally Posted by bamscram

You mean "Save the Whales" ....?

Or do you mean .... "Whales Lives Matter"?



What I'm pointing out is how ridiculous it is to vandalize property out of anger and frustration over one's candidate not getting elected. It's not difficult to imagine she's miserable.

Every time she gets up in the morning and looks in the mirror. She has no self-control, which is why she needs anger management classes. Hopefully as part of her probation supervision she be required to take some anger management classes along with some other appropriate behavioral modification guidance.

My apologies if my reference to your type of "date" is offensive to you, but agreeing to "date" you would be further evidence of lack of self-respect. But you are free to condone vandalism if you wish. She's a classic Anarchist!

You mean "Save the Whales" ....?

Or do you mean .... "Whales Lives Matter"?



What I'm pointing out is how ridiculous it is to vandalize property out of anger and frustration over one's candidate not getting elected. It's not difficult to imagine she's miserable.

Every time she gets up in the morning and looks in the mirror. She has no self-control, which is why she needs anger management classes. Hopefully as part of her probation supervision she be required to take some anger management classes along with some other appropriate behavioral modification guidance. Originally Posted by LexusLover

the smart one goes on the radio and tv say I am stupid for punching hole in my dry-wall(drug/poison/etc) but they are smart for punching destory someone else property going to jail ... get their politician to make excuses ...


btw layer windows as insulation was not rig/parrot ... it was bug on the fishing vessel "JUNE BUG " con wo/man L.E.

What I'm pointing out is how ridiculous it is to vandalize property out of anger and frustration

! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Agreed.

over one's candidate not getting elected.

! Originally Posted by LexusLover

I doubt this is the reason but the reason matters not.

Anybody that pulls down a statue illegally should be prosecuted.

For you to assume the reason just shows your political slant.

This is a legal issue not a political one.

Trump mixed the two up, just like you seem to be doing.



.

The statues being allowed to stand would be like if a statue of Hitler remained in the center of berlin. We don't have to glorify that part of history to remember it. We need to remember it as the dark hour that it was. Those statues do not serve that purpose. Instead, they embolden supremacist movements. They need to go.


Racism is a cancer. You don't allow any part of it to remain. Women's breasts are beautiful. However in the face of cancer, women choose to lose their breasts to get rid of the cancer.

Will this get rid of the cancer? No, but it will cut some of it out. So, why not? Originally Posted by grean

You're completely wrong. The statues erected after the Civil War were allowed by Washington DC and many were financed by both former Confederates and Union soldiers who had joined together to hone their fallen comrades. Show me a statue of Hitler that was allowed by the West or East German governments. No statue exists.

The statues being destroyed were erected by both sides of the war.

Alert!

This is not a racist, Southern sympathizer, or Confederate Soldier.



Even though he looks different from you! (Well, most of you!)

You are mixing up two different issues.

Take Baltimore...My best guess is the majority of their citizen want them removed. And if they are on city property , and elected city officials want to remove them , then they should be able to regardless wtf the majority of the country wants. The majority of the country is responsible for Federal Statues.



. Originally Posted by WTF

Your best guess means nothing.

Your best guess means nothing. Originally Posted by bambino

In fact his "best thoughtful belief" means NOTHING!

But he reads others' minds if it fits his "agenda" and "narrative"!

If the TRUTH is ever known most of the residents of the areas in question didn't even think about the presence of any statues at all ... much less be concerned about who was depicted by the statue and/or their "political/social/cultural" role in American History!

But the bottom line is: Every one of those statues are ART! And "ART" is protected speech.

20 The Supreme Court has recognized as much, applying constitutional guarantees to various forms of art speech. See, e.g., Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 790 (1989) (music); Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 558 (1975) (thea ter); Miller v. California, 413 U.S.15,34-35 (1973) (all artistic expression, unless obscene in legal sense); Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 502 (1952) (film}; see also O'Neil, supra note 9, at 181 ("There seems to be a fairly firm consensus that art that con veys a political message is fully protected."). But see Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 566 (1991) (plurality opinion) (upholding ban on nude dancing, stating that "nude dancing ... is expressive conduct within the outer perimeters of the First Amendment, though we view it as only marginally so").

http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/de...-72-2-Mach.pdf

New York University Law Review

Your best guess means nothing. Originally Posted by bambino

You dumb perverted fucker....they were removed after a City Council vote. While I do not agree with their logic, it is a local issue that folks in Baltimore should decide. Not you or me. Especially you.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...oting-on-issue
The statues have been removed nearly a year after a mayoral commission recommended taking down the public commemorations to Taney at Mount Vernon Place and to Lee and Jackson, who were depicted together on horseback in a monument in the Wyman Park Dell.
That commission had recommended keeping two other artifacts: the Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument on Mount Royal Avenue near Mosher Street and the Confederate Women's of Maryland Monument at Bishop Square Park. But in the wake of the violence in Charlottesville, Va., over the weekend, the city council voted to remove all four monuments.



Councilman Brandon Scott introduced the city's measure, which called for "the immediate deconstruction of all Confederate Monuments in Baltimore so that they are unable to be placed on public display."

You mean "Save the Whales" ....?

Or do you mean .... "Whales Lives Matter"?



What I'm pointing out is how ridiculous it is to vandalize property out of anger and frustration over one's candidate not getting elected. It's not difficult to imagine she's miserable.

Every time she gets up in the morning and looks in the mirror. She has no self-control, which is why she needs anger management classes. Hopefully as part of her probation supervision she be required to take some anger management classes along with some other appropriate behavioral modification guidance.

My apologies if my reference to your type of "date" is offensive to you, but agreeing to "date" you would be further evidence of lack of self-respect. But you are free to condone vandalism if you wish. She's a classic Anarchist! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Toughen up buttercup just because she shaves you don't have to diss her. Just keep on defending the KKK and Nazis. Your kind of folks.