OCinBuffalo

Ah, so my "build another monument" idea isn't original. I figured as much. Something that makes so much sense, as opposed to tearing down monuments, is likely to have been thought of by somebody else, a long time ago.

For the record I always hurl insults with substance. First because I don't really see the point of doing the above, second, because substantive insults do 5x the damage, as well as splash damage other posters who are on the same side as the target. And, as always, doing PPP right is winning the argument on the merits, or driving a solid point home, then hurling insults, not the other way around. Also, it's not really a win/point if you don't follow it up with insults. Reality/right now is complex, thus a continuous record of right nows, otherwise known as history, must also, by definition, be complex. Complexity: Robert E. Lee did a fine job of improving standards and practices in college education, as well as using his position as a uninversity president to heal the wounds of the Civil War. He set an example that many subsequent university presidents followed, and follow to this day....at Washington College. He did so well that it is now known as Washington and Lee...and graduating from there is just as good in the business world as graduating from Harvard. If Lee had never led the Army of Northern Virginia, every(truly educated) leftist D-bag in the the country would eternally praise Lee , because the man was one of the first true "progressives" in education: Staus check: Have we heard from birdog on the substance of why he thinks a guy who says "monuments have no educational value" is worth attending, or how in blazes that statement does not summarily disqualify him as an historical expert?

Simplest terms possible: The Forrest momunent's very existence can be used as a starting point for explaining the necessity and justification of the Reconstruction policy. You take the monument down, and everything becomes abstraction. Instead, you show a kid the monument, describe that it was put up AFTER the South had already lost the war, and the entire picture becomes instantly clear: the South's attitudes and indeed it's societal realities, required the Reconstruction policies to be what they were. Then you move on to the KKK. It's not that F'ing hard to create a month's worth of lesson plans...all predicated on a visit to the Forrest monument. But, I'm supposed to believe that monuments have no historical education value...because some guy said so? Yeah, because the only reason 24 million people visit the Washington Monument each year is so they can aimlessly walk around and not learn anything.

Philly hasn't had a good mayor since Rendell. There's no point spending any time on any of the corrupt, multi-fail hacks that have held the office since.

Anybody want to give the U/O on how many pages it's going to take birdog to acknowledge that my idea: add another monument alongside Forrest's that commemorates those who fought against him... ...is infinitely superior to this idiot's idea that we should take away historical items, because we can't learn from them?

Case in point: If we are to believe that there are REAL Muslims, and that the people above are not, then the history of the Hagia Sophia bolsters that claim. For the ignorant... The REAL Muslims back in the day did not destroy the Christian monument. They did not remove it, even though it was highly offensive to them. No. The REAL Muslims valued history, and items of historical significance. They converted it to a Mosque. Today, it's a museum. That's because Turkey is a REAL Muslim country. Meanwhile, we have the non-Real Muslims behaving above....as all totalitarians do. Perhaps birdog should ask himself which side he wants to choose? The enlighted side which cares for historical items, or, the totalitarian(in this case totalitarian PC) side, which wants to destroy anything they find offensive?

Disagreement with me has nothing to do with it. I know how a real historian would treat any historical item, and it is most assuredly not "take it down" or "remove it from the public consciousness", or any other intellectually inferior approach. Thus, I do not care to read or have anything to do with the guy, because based on his position on this issue, I already know what he is: a propogandist, or, an agenda-driven revisionist. He's not a historian, or an expert on anything relating to history. Thus, his work must be scrutinized, or just flatly rejected as useless to any serious person, on its face, because no serious person with a background in history cares to get past his ridiculous "tear down the momument" position, or it's even more ridiculous rationalization "we don't learn from momuments/monuments can't be/aren't used in historical education". Perhaps you missed my edits so I will state them again: EDIT: a fascist or a communist destroys whatever historical item offends them and their ideology. An intellectual learns from it, and then shares what they have learned with others, in an attempt to influence them. But a historian, and especially one who teaches history, seeks to provide their students with as much info as possible from all sides, and perspectives, in the hopes that widsom can be gained. Why did Hitler blow up the railway car where the WW1 armistice was signed? Because he was a leftist totalitarian. A historian would have created a new monument next to it commemorating the conquering of Paris, and proving that what had been done in the railway car, had now been undone. By blowing it up, Hitler destoryed his own history.

If this guy was an expert, or a historian of any kind, he would never suggest tearing down a monument. His very position disqualifies him as an historical expert. He is not intellectually capable of discussing and/or determining what is useful wrt historical education. In contrast, my idea of adding a new monument that acknowledges both those who fought against Forrest, in the war and against the KKK, as well as his victims, is the best way to conduct historical education. My approach is superior. Period. The funny part is: his rush to tear down the monument, and his hilariously awful rationalization for that == "we don't learn from monuments", when literally millions of children go on field trips to monuments every friggin year, exposes him as not caring about, or knowing about, history whatsoever. EDIT: a fascist or a communist destroys whatever historical item offends them and their ideology. An intellectual learns from it, and then shares what they have learned with others, in an attempt to influence them. But a historian, and especially one who teaches history, seeks to provide their students with as much info as possible from all sides, and perspectives, in the hopes that widsom can be gained. Why did Hitler blow up the railway car where the WW1 armistice was signed? Because he was a leftist totalitarian. A historian would have created a new monument next to it commemorating the conquering of Paris, and proving that what had been done in the railway car, had now been undone. By blowing it up, Hitler destoryed his own history.

Again both you and he miss the point: Monuments are history. They exist in no other context besides the historical. Their only purpose is the rememberance of history. Once again this clown tries to measure historical significance in a vacuum. As far as the educational value of monuments? School field trips to monuments are the norm, not the exception. I highly doubt this guy has done much learning of history, and I am certain he's never tought it, properly. So his opinion on the educational value of monuments is: completely worthless. Removing monuments is doing it wrong. And it's no surprise that a leftist can't think of any alternative that isn't linear and/or binary == "leave it or destory it". Luckily, I'm not a leftist, so my thinking is not rooted in "all or nothing" childish methodology, which means I am able to come up with much better ides. The right answer here is more history, not less. Rather than tearing down a monument, another should be erected alongside it. That would be both intellecutally astute, and dare I say: the wisest approach. Wisdom is history's gift to us. Thus, if we erected a monument to all of Nathan Bedford Forrest's victims, and those who fought against him both in the Civil War and the KKK throughout it's history, alongside his? That is easily the best approach. You acknowledge Forrest's history. You acknowledge the victim's. But, MOST importantly, you acknowledge the change in attitude between the time when the Forrest monument was built, and the day the KKK victim monument was built, to show that while some still valued Forrest during that time, society has learned from those mistakes and now we do not value him...because we put up a new monument saying so. In this: the history of all people and all eras is preserved. See? Superior intellect has never been the domain of the left...no matter how many times they tell you how smart they are. I've just proven it. My solution is superior in every way to "rip down the monument", which is akin to "burn the books".

No idiot, violence against dumbasses who would presume to "take over" in a city like Philly. Violence against those who started schit with violence, and got their asses kicked by people who live with the threat of violence every day, and thus are experienced with violence, and now how to respond to it. You weren't there. You didn't see what the Communists did. They literally started schit with 2 entire neighborhoods by destroying property and attempting to physically intimidate the residents, and got their asses beat in response. Imagine if 5k Communists started walking through the Bills tailgate breaking car windows, knocking over grills and getting in people's faces. How long would it take Bills fans to respond to that? Would anybody care if they were Communists? No. Why? Because before they are Communists they are: a-holes. This had nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with protecting ourselves/property.

Rush Limbaugh usually begins his "Operation Chaos" activities now. Chaos defined: he incites independents, and Rs to switch parties to D, to vote against whichever D is leading in the polls/primaries. The objective is to drag out the D primay process, cause donors to spend as much money as possible in the primay leaving less for the general, and cause general derision and infighting....thus, chaos. I see he is being given a head start on Operation Chaos by MoveOn. Once again, if you want something done right...put MoveOn et al in charge of doing the opposite. Rush has to be laughing today. I might even listen for the first time in quite a while, because he's bound to make this endorsement into a funny segment.

Meanwhile...at RCP: VS Rs: Clinton is losing to Rubio, in the margin of error against Cruz, Trump and Carson, and in no recent poll is above 47%. With her name recognition alone she should be polling around 50-55% right now, and beating all of these guys by at least 5-6%. That in and of itself shows her weakness, and the damage the email server scandal has done. I'd say at this point that damange is permanent, as the 23% trustworthiness with independents shows. How far can she realistically increase that %? 10 pts? 20(dreaming)? That is still an election-losing minority, since only 29% of people currently identify as Democrats, the lowest in decades. Laffer says whichever R is chosen will win 45 states? At first that seems ridiculous. But, if this downward trend continues for Hillary(and she loses both Iowa and NH) Laffer's prediction will start to gain credibility. Of course the outlier is Sanders win the nomination. In that case? An R winning 40-45 states becomes the baseline.

I see you didn't get the part about the guns/ocean going vessels at all, or you wouldn't have posted this. When one looks at history, cherry picking is tempting, especially when one has an agenda, and seeks to avoid context. Cherry picking is how leftists deal with history all the time. However, the real trouble begins when we start attempting to erase history. As was said earlier in the thread, this is the real problem here. It's a real problem, not only because it's stupid. It can lead to a slew of unintended consequences. The chief unintended consequence: not knowing where to halt the erasure. By the time some are done, ALL of American history would be labor unions and the great works of government. Thomas Edison would be banned for the crimes of being white, a male, cultural appropriation(because yon can Kevin Bacon anything), theft of other people's ideas, and whatever he did/might have done to Tesla. See? Leaving the Ministry of Erasure in the hands of people who aren't historians and aren't very smart, or objective, or rational, otherwise known as the far-left, is a recipe for chaos. In fact it is a recipe for counter-education. Leaving a monument of a CSA general in place in New Orleans...does a lot more to educate the public...than tearing it down. 100 years from now, if that statue is still there, some kid is going to ask why(because that's what kids do), and will want to know the answer, as on the suface it won't make sense to them(i.e. "Why is there a statue of a loser of a war?", "Why would we keep a statue of somebody who supported slavery?"). Tearing it down means that never happens. And once again, the far-left will achieve the exact opposite of what it intends: slavery will become less observed, thus less acknowledged, thus less taught and considered, not more. Ask yourself: why haven't they torn down the death camps in Poland/Germany? Certainly nothing is more offensive. Yet, they keep them open, preserved/untouched. Tearing down the monuments is just as stupid as tearing down the death camps, in terms of the only thing that matters: proper rememberance of history, so that we do not repeat it. I say only thing that matters, becuause yes, in fact, teaching history properly, for millenia, is infinitely more important than the butthurt/offened sensibilities of those who will be historically irrelevant in just a few decades, if they aren't already right now.

I wonder if the people of the neighborhood in West Philly where the police officer was shot at by an ISIS terrorist, using a stolen police weapon, think the legal/illegal guns they own are "hilarious" this morning? Ever been to 60th and Spruce? Wanna get out of your car and start telling those people they are all idiots for having guns? Now that would be: hilarious. Speaking of comedy, what bad timing for Obama....talking about gun control one day, only to have a gun crime occur the very next day, that could never have been prevented by any of his gun control policy. One thing that hasn't changed in 7 years? Any time Obama makes a big "move to the hoop" he is almost immediately Dikembe Mutomboed by events. This happens over and over. Remember the "Summer of Recovery"? How about the "Russian Reset Button"? How about we go back to golden oldie "The police officer in this case acted stupidly". Remember where you were when the historic "Beer Summit" was happening? Yeah. What a day in American presidential ( ) history. If anyone is hilarious, it's you: because we can spend this entire Monday doing "Obama's Greatest Hits"....and you'll have no reply at all, to any of it.

You act as if Southern American Slavery happend in a vacuum, and that 80-90% of the rest of the world wasn't either actively, directly, participating in it, or at the very least complicit. Once again far left ingoramouses trying to oversimplify, caricature the "bad guy", and ultimately distort the history of a both well known(to everybody but the far-left) and straightforward issue. Do you have any idea how many nations/people had to be involved...first...before the South could obtain slaves...last? I bet you don't. Instead, I bet you think the American South: owned the massive colonial plantations in the Carribean, where slavery had been established long before a single slave ever set foot on US soil. had the massive naval/merchant presence to establish those plantations, or to import new slaves from Africa. occupied and ran the fortresses in Northern/Western Africa where slaves were traded and loaded onto ships. created the slave caravans/trade routes/holding points...4000 years before any white man set foot on US soil. had agents and men all throughout Africa whose job it was to capture slaves, because it's not like capturing African slaves began during/before the ascent of the ancient F'ing Egyptians or anything. If you want to blame guns for violence/murder/deaths? Then, by that same logic, you must blame the ocean-going ship for slavery. Gotcha, B word! "But...but...but...only a small % of those ships were used for slavery". Right, jagoff, and only a small % of guns are used for murder. Why did England "outlaw"(via the judiciary in 1772...ahem, you won't find any grand Emancipation Proclomations/amendments to their constitution) slavery? Because they had slaves. You don't outlaw something you don't do. Not to mention massive # of slaves brought here on British ships. How then can African(not American) Slavery be defined in any way as "Southern American Slavery" Why are we looking at a relatively tiny cross section of the entire African Slavery Issue...and pretending it represents the whole thing? Once again my "Tears for the Etruscans" point holds: if we want to blame America for slavery, then we get ~10% of the blame, with the balance reserved for almost the rest of the entire world. Or, do you think the Russian Czar emancipating his serfs in 1861 wasn't 100% political opportunism?(Hmm, this may be too deep of a point for birdog, but, I'll leave it in) Of course that depends on whether we are choosing to be historically accurate, and, intellectually responsible. Once again my "Etruscans" point holds in another way: you cannot pretend to cry big tears for "Southern American Slavery" while also pretending that slavery hadn't been going on for the prior 10k years of recorded history, and probably for a lot longer than that. No. IF you honestly find slavery repulsive, then you cannot be selectively repulsed. Why is an African slave more of a tragedy than an Etruscan slave? EDIT: #EstruscanSlavesMatter

Um, dude? Let me explain how the internet works.... Or, you can realize that there is no "becoming" and that everything "Is" as it always has been as it "was" regarding sports reporting WRT the internet? Or, Mike F'ing Florio is literally on TV, on Sunday, for F's sake.

I know most of you don't care about what is happening in NYC. However, ALL of us care about humor, and from this link, this is one of the funniest paragraphs I've read, perhaps all time:

I've been thinking about writing a book called "Tears for the Etruscans". The educated and intelligent here will instantly get that. For the rest? Every single argument that is currently being made about social justice/getting paid back for losing wars/Native Americans...all of it...can easily be refuted by looking at the Etruscans. "But...but...but...(insert whoever) had a wonderful culture/art/history before (insert whoever) came along and conquered them". Yeah? So did the Etruscans before Rome conquered them. "But...but...but...(insert whoever) did terrible things to (insert whoever)". Yeah? So did Rome to the Etruscans. "But...but...but...(insert whoever) enslaved the people and sought to destroy everything about (insert whoever), and what they didn't destroy they incorporated into their culture and claimed as their own." Yeah? So did Rome to the Etruscans. See? No matter what arugment is made, literally no matter what you say? The Etruscans fit. So where are your "Tears for the Etruscans", you unmitigated morons? If we are to do things properly, and punish all of Civilization properly, why aren't we starting at the beginning? We must punish all current Romans for their deeds against the Etruscans. Then, we can move on to punishing them for the Carthaginians. Of course we'd have to punish half of Asia for the Mongols. And the English and French? That's decades of punishment. The Greeks can make their claims on the Romans...right after they are punished for Alexander the Great's terrible act of bringing reason, math and science to half the known world, and founding 20 great cities to propogate it. But, it all has to start with the Etruscans, which unlike the piss-drinkers Alexander civilized, was already a thriving culture, complete with it's own art, language, law, everything. Rome committed the first grand act of "cultural appropriation" ever. So, again I ask every leftist clown: Where are your tears for the Etruscans? If you can't cry for them, you don't get to cry for anyone else.

Crap. You didn't adore him when we came back from 21-0 2 times in a row against the Raiders then the Pats? Either I should complement you on your incredible objectivity, or, I should call BS.

Well, let's see...9 pages later? Pretty sure we can close this one with: 3(this time) 4th qtr INTs. Any fan who watches the games knows we've been down this agonizing road with Fitz. Now it's the Jets fans' turn. Our eyes adored Fitz, though we never liked they way he threw, we all adored him. So close, so close and yet so far.

At what point do posters here realize that fans are doing this... ...because they want to get on Deadspin? Deadspin likes to pretend they are laughing at us. The truth is: they are laughing because Bills fans create content, which gets them traffic, but...they don't realize...Bills fans are laughing back, because they are doing this purely to show their buddies. Getting on Deadspin == winning the weekend. It's a unique form of trolling. The more you B word, the more tables WILL get broken, in ever more drastic fashion. Keep bitching about PG-13 whateverthe!@#$. Deadspin: keep looking down your noses(as if ). Bills fans are reveling in your whine...when they aren't drinking theirs.

And so, once again, I wish we could reanimate corpses, and ask FDR direct questions about the New Deal, such as what exactly were the goals of the WPA, and what is your response to the historical evidence that it was a completely failed policy? Or, what about the repetition that SSI doesn't need to be fixed, or what he thinks about taking $700 Billion out of Medicare, which already was on its last legs, to pay for Obamacare. Repitition? Yes. Re-branding failed FDR policies/protecting failing policies by calling them something else? Of course it's repetition. And, back on topic, of course the biggest repeated lie of them all: Global Warming is Settled Science.

bzzzt. I never had a 7th grade English teacher. I tested out of 7th grade English and took 8th grade instead. And of course, I'm so sure I'm a narcissist for once again telling the truth, that you don't like.

First, your required reading material: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/george-soros-hillary-clinton-emails-barack-obama-217272 Now, think a bit. Now, let's follow the chain of facts: 1. Soros supports Obama over Clinton 2. Obama flushes Soros most of the time 3. Obama is about to leave office/any fool can see he's irrelevant, even Soros 4. Soros tells a person he knows has Clinton's ear his story, and points out how enamored he is with his unfettered access, how good he is about admitting mistakes, then gets all nostalgic and says that things have always been this way with HIllary. 5. CFAP person sends email to Hillary 6. Authors of article uses 2012 New Yorker article to back up email's story as plausible 7. Soros is now an important donor...and all because of...what exactly? My answer to the thread's question is: you are the biggest idiot, if you don't see what is going on here. If you do, then obviously there are many candidates for biggest idiot, and no, I'm not an idiot for posting this(beat you to it). I see this clear as day. This is a hilariously bad attempt by Clinton surrogates to stick the phrase "he's been impressed that he can always call/meet with you on an issue of policy...since forever" into your head. Otherwise known as "Hillary is a dilligent public servant, who will always work with anyone, even those who made big mistakes by not supporting her". Pause: some might say "But, this lady wrote this email to Clinton because she was trying to curry favor, and kiss ass". I will say "So what? If that's all this is, then why is it newsworthy? You're making my point for me." Don't waste our time: Unpause. The desired conclusion is: Hillary gets rewarded with big $ and support of "honest broker, mistake admitting(yeah, right)" Soros...because of the bolded above. So, who is the biggest idiot here? 1. Soros, for the obvious ploy(or not.He knew what he said to this CFAP lady would get back to Clinton, and pandering or not, Clinton's ego can't help itself, which Soros is counting on.) This guy isn't as smart as he thinks he is, or he is, but couldn't reasonably forsee this email being made public. That's the thing about Bond villians like Soros though, they all have intelligent plans, but, something unforeseen/some detail is missed and the whole thing always crashes. This is what makes a Bond villian a Bond villian. The only thing bigger than their intellect is their ego. 2. Obama for snubbing Soros?(tough sell here. I'd snub Soros too, after I had his $ of course, because he's a F'ing Bond villian.) 3. CFAP lady, for being used so easily by Soros? 4. Hillary, for hiring campaign staff that push idiocy like this to Politico, both of whom expect us to lap it up? 5. Authors of article, who might actually think they are being clever with this story? 6. Or, authors of article, for not seeing that they are being used so easily? 7. gatorman, because no matter how many times we explain it, he still won't get it? It's up to you, but, please, recognize this...and all the non-Hillary-sense to come...for what it is.

I'm telling ya, if I can do it, I'm gonna sell fake kayaks and canoes in Battery Park to anyone that wants to support charity and mock leftist assclowns. You can walk(paddle) through Manhattan trolling the hell out of people, pointing down at the nonexistant flooding (3 feet let's remember) and ask people why they are walking around in water. It's a "race" you see. We can meet near NBC HQ and just paddle around for a while troll them, and then go have a beer across the way. I'm gonna to call it the Al Gore Memorial Regatta. And when dumbasses ask if he's dead, if I don't say yes(because why not?) I'm gonna say "It's a memorial for his political career".