New Orleans To Remove Excremental Rebel Monuments

[starrymessenger]

Hitler was a man of stature and accomplishment in a whole bunch of people's eyes. You think there should be a statue of him in Germany?

 

People fighting to dissolve the Union to create a competing pro-slavery empire in America are not condemned today simply out of "political correctness"--to use your simplistic term--but because they really were traitors and were fighting for something we consider morally repugnant, slavery and the destruction of our government. Yes, we also hate them. That part is emotional, and there is a desire to smear these cretins in the eyes of posterity, but our hate is pretty well grounded in rational thought, facts and deeds committed by the Confederates. Lee and Rommel were great generals, and its great we can look at their record from that point of view and respect their ability to kill American soldiers, but that does not mean we should honor them to the point of erecting monuments to them.

And what did mean old Mr. Lincoln do to make the South secede?

 

Hitler was a man of stature and accomplishment in a whole bunch of people's eyes. You think there should be a statue of him in Germany?

 

People fighting to dissolve the Union to create a competing pro-slavery empire in America are not condemned today simply out of "political correctness"--to use your simplistic term--but because they really were traitors and were fighting for something we consider morally repugnant, slavery and the destruction of our government. Yes, we also hate them. That part is emotional, and there is a desire to smear these cretins in the eyes of posterity, but our hate is pretty well grounded in rational thought, facts and deeds committed by the Confederates. Lee and Rommel were great generals, and its great we can look at their record from that point of view and respect their ability to kill American soldiers, but that does not mean we should honor them to the point of erecting monuments to them.

And what did mean old Mr. Lincoln do to make the South secede?

 

I don't think there should be commemorative monuments to the memory of Adolph Hitler. More importantly, the Germans themselves feel even more strongly about that than we do. Interesting that at the Nuremberg trials Goring claimed that in fifty years there would be statues of him all over Germany. There aren't. And of course I agree that slavery is an abomination. I can hardly think of anything more repulsive than the notion of owning another human being.

But if Generals Grant and Sherman, you know, the folks who actually won the War for the Union, became the closest of friends with Generals Johnstone and Longstreet, I interpret that as really the highest personal recommendation and I will take it ahead of the opinion of later day mediocrities.

General Lee killed Americans but so did General Grant. It was a civil war. They are all Americans. Ultimately all that we can say is that it puts us in the presence of all that is constant and enduring in human suffering and unites us with its secret cause.

You are missing the mark in going after men of extraordinary ability and impeccabable character.

A more controversial case is that of Lieutenant General Forrest, as superb a horse soldier as ever there was, anywhere, anytime. I don't know what went down at Ft. Pillow but if he did what some say, well then he's Joachim Peiper, the brilliant Nazi tank commander and a war criminal. If he didn't do it, he certainly deserves his monument.

[Deranged Rhino]

“He who fights with Asshats should look to it that he himself does not become a Asshat . . . when you gaze long into the ass the ass also gazes into you”

 

This advice is unfortunately too late for Deranged Rhino.

 

 

[DC Tom]

Again, why do you act like this?

 

There are people here, myself included, who have read more about the Civil War, it's causes, economics, outcomes, and participants than you will ever do in your lifetime. Your entire purpose here is to revise history, with a current agenda.

 

It's one of the least intellectually honest things I've ever encountered here, and you are a worse person for it.

 

Knock it off.

 

Actually, his entire purpose here is to get attention by being an assfish. He's not trying to revise history; he's taking the most extreme and unsupported position he can think of and forcing everyone to argue against it, thereby receiving recognition and validation that he so desperately craves. I don't think he's pretending to be stupid - he's a genuine dolt. But I doubt he believes any of the **** he posts, either.

 

And yes, I do indulge him. But that's my own failing.

I don't think there should be commemorative monuments to the memory of Adolph Hitler. More importantly, the Germans themselves feel even more strongly about that than we do. Interesting that at the Nuremberg trials Goring claimed that in fifty years there would be statues of him all over Germany. There aren't.

 

Not enough marble left in Germany to make one for that fat bastard anyway...

[DC Tom]

A more controversial case is that of Lieutenant General Forrest, as superb a horse soldier as ever there was, anywhere, anytime. I don't know what went down at Ft. Pillow but if he did what some say, well then he's Joachim Peiper, the brilliant Nazi tank commander and a war criminal. If he didn't do it, he certainly deserves his monument.

 

But even Joachim Peiper wasn't Joachim Peiper. Malmedy showed all the evidence of spontaneity and undiscipline that supposedly were featured at Ft. Pillow. I'm not a fan of either man (except militarily, in Forrest's case,) but in both cases their responsibility seems more that of a commander at arm's length, and not of direct involvement.

 

And if you've ever seen Forrest's farewell to his troops, it's interesting. "Southern gentleman" charming and magnanimous. Further evidence for what I've been saying and gatorman's been ignoring: people, and their motivations, are complex.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

But even Joachim Peiper wasn't Joachim Peiper. Malmedy showed all the evidence of spontaneity and undiscipline that supposedly were featured at Ft. Pillow. I'm not a fan of either man (except militarily, in Forrest's case,) but in both cases their responsibility seems more that of a commander at arm's length, and not of direct involvement.

 

And if you've ever seen Forrest's farewell to his troops, it's interesting. "Southern gentleman" charming and magnanimous. Further evidence for what I've been saying and gatorman's been ignoring: people, and their motivations, are complex.

 

This has been the most stunning realization. I'll never understand how the grown men in this thread, who have (presumably) lived complex lives filled with nuanced motivations, cannot fathom how other men and women in history can be more complex than just black or white.

 

Forget their inability to contextualize or even understand the history they're torturing in this thread, it's the complete lack of empathy displayed by some here who consider themselves to be progressive or liberal which amazes me most.

[DC Tom]

 

This has been the most stunning realization. I'll never understand how the grown men in this thread, who have (presumably) lived complex lives filled with nuanced motivations, cannot fathom how other men and women in history can be more complex than just black or white.

 

Forget their inability to contextualize or even understand the history they're torturing in this thread, it's the complete lack of empathy displayed by some here who consider themselves to be progressive or liberal which amazes me most.

 

Modern liberalism doesn't recognize nuance. I've been having that argument elsewhere, where I'm considered a conservative, yet I'm the only one in a pack of so-called "liberals" that seems to hold the liberal position that speaking out against the government is protected by the First Amendment and not "sedition." Liberalism today is a far cry from what it was in the '60s.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

This has been the most stunning realization. I'll never understand how the grown men in this thread, who have (presumably) lived complex lives filled with nuanced motivations, cannot fathom how other men and women in history can be more complex than just black or white.

 

Forget their inability to contextualize or even understand the history they're torturing in this thread, it's the complete lack of empathy displayed by some here who consider themselves to be progressive or liberal which amazes me most.

It's not that they don't know it, it's that they've purposefully moved to abandon it in order to advance an agenda. The ends always justify the means for people with no higher moral standard or respect for history.

Edited January 22, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Modern liberalism doesn't recognize nuance. I've been having that argument elsewhere, where I'm considered a conservative, yet I'm the only one in a pack of so-called "liberals" that seems to hold the liberal position that speaking out against the government is protected by the First Amendment and not "sedition." Liberalism today is a far cry from what it was in the '60s.

 

Sad but true. Liberalism, true liberalism, is about preserving individual liberties and freedoms from the jackboot of a central authority. Government is necessary to protect the liberty of individuals from being harmed by others, but true liberals also realize that government itself can harm an individual if not kept in check. No other force in history has been more destructive to liberty and freedom than an unchecked central power.

 

It's as if the last part of that equation has been discarded because the government has propagandized the public into believing that its the only thing protecting them from utter annihilation at the hands of terrorists. Now, even questioning the government is seen as seditious when it's the RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PEOPLE TO QUESTION ITS LEADERS. Not only to question them, but to hold them accountable for their actions and shortcomings.

 

As I've said in other threads, the entire foundation upon which our country was built, namely that the government is a threat to the people and must be closely watched and have its powers checked by the people to prevent tyranny (a cornerstone of liberal philosophy), has been flipped on its head. Now the government sees the people as the threat that must be monitored and have their power checked in order to preserve order.

 

The left realized this shifting paradigm under W, lashing out (rightfully so) against the Patriot Act and other assaults on the first and fourth amendments... but the moment W finished his second term, the left became silent on the issue because party politics matters more than the actual policies enacted by the government.

 

It's sad and needs to change before we lose the country completely. If we haven't already.

 

It's not that they don't know it, it's that they've purposefully moved to abandon it in order to advance an agenda. The ends always justify the means for people with no higher moral standard or respect for history.

 

Propaganda 101. Of course if the same people understood their history they'd understand when they're being hustled.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Sad but true. Liberalism, true liberalism, is about preserving individual liberties and freedoms from the jackboot of a central authority. Government is necessary to protect the liberty of individuals from being harmed by others, but true liberals also realize that government itself can harm an individual if not kept in check. No other force in history has been more destructive to liberty and freedom than an unchecked central power.

 

It's as if the last part of that equation has been discarded because the government has propagandized the public into believing that its the only thing protecting them from utter annihilation at the hands of terrorists. Now, even questioning the government is seen as seditious when it's the RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PEOPLE TO QUESTION ITS LEADERS. Not only to question them, but to hold them accountable for their actions and shortcomings.

 

As I've said in other threads, the entire foundation upon which our country was built, namely that the government is a threat to the people and must be closely watched and have its powers checked by the people to prevent tyranny (a cornerstone of liberal philosophy), has been flipped on its head. Now the government sees the people as the threat that must be monitored and have their power checked in order to preserve order.

 

The left realized this shifting paradigm under W, lashing out (rightfully so) against the Patriot Act and other assaults on the first and fourth amendments... but the moment W finished his second term, the left became silent on the issue because party politics matters more than the actual policies enacted by the government.

 

It's sad and needs to change before we lose the country completely. If we haven't already.

 

 

Propaganda 101. Of course if the same people understood their history they'd understand when they're being hustled.

Modern American liberalism is liberal at all: it's just rebranded fascism.

[Azalin]

Again, why do you act like this?

 

There are people here, myself included, who have read more about the Civil War, it's causes, economics, outcomes, and participants than you will ever do in your lifetime. Your entire purpose here is to revise history, with a current agenda.

 

It's one of the least intellectually honest things I've ever encountered here, and you are a worse person for it.

 

Knock it off.

 

His entire purpose is to simply keep arguing until nobody wants to argue anymore, then declare himself winner. That's the pajama boy technique. It doesn't matter what you say, if you contradict yourself, or have nothing to offer except feces references. You can prove someone wrong over and over, but if they adopt the pajama boy technique, any effort on your part will do nothing more than waste your time and provide him entertainment.

 

The truly pathetic thing in all this is that in setting up a wall of pure idiotic stubbornness, he won't ever learn a single thing.

[3rdnlng]

 

His entire purpose is to simply keep arguing until nobody wants to argue anymore, then declare himself winner. That's the pajama boy technique. It doesn't matter what you say, if you contradict yourself, or have nothing to offer except feces references. You can prove someone wrong over and over, but if they adopt the pajama boy technique, any effort on your part will do nothing more than waste your time and provide him entertainment.

 

The truly pathetic thing in all this is that in setting up a wall of pure idiotic stubbornness, he won't ever learn a single thing.

Yes, gator willfully dooms himself to a life of ignorance.

[Tiberius]

I don't think there should be commemorative monuments to the memory of Adolph Hitler. More importantly, the Germans themselves feel even more strongly about that than we do. Interesting that at the Nuremberg trials Goring claimed that in fifty years there would be statues of him all over Germany. There aren't. And of course I agree that slavery is an abomination. I can hardly think of anything more repulsive than the notion of owning another human being.

But if Generals Grant and Sherman, you know, the folks who actually won the War for the Union, became the closest of friends with Generals Johnstone and Longstreet, I interpret that as really the highest personal recommendation and I will take it ahead of the opinion of later day mediocrities.

General Lee killed Americans but so did General Grant. It was a civil war. They are all Americans. Ultimately all that we can say is that it puts us in the presence of all that is constant and enduring in human suffering and unites us with its secret cause.

You are missing the mark in going after men of extraordinary ability and impeccabable character.

A more controversial case is that of Lieutenant General Forrest, as superb a horse soldier as ever there was, anywhere, anytime. I don't know what went down at Ft. Pillow but if he did what some say, well then he's Joachim Peiper, the brilliant Nazi tank commander and a war criminal. If he didn't do it, he certainly deserves his monument.

So time out, let me get this straight. The German people are against Hitler monuments and you agree. The American people today are generally turning against these Confederates and you call them names and make them out like they don't know what they are talking about? I have said from the beginning of this thread that if the people in an area want to take down monuments, change the names of schools, etc, they should be able to. Seems you are applying the same standard to Germany but but for the "impeccable characters" of the South.

 

Grant and Longstreet were friends before the war and at least Longstreet got on board with Reconstruction and the Union, but I'm not about to put up a statue for him. Johnston and Sherman seemed to have a bond through and expeience that literally followed them to the very end--Johnston died from cold he caught at Sherman's funeral.

 

As to your point of Grant killing Americans, sure, in the sense of a cop killing a criminal, I guess.

 

We "mediocre Americans" should be able to pick who we decide to celebrate from our past, and for my vote I would not pick someone that fought to create a slave empire. I might not actually pick Sherman or Sheridan or George Thomas either as much as I might admire their military skill.

 

Sad but true. Liberalism, true liberalism, is about preserving individual liberties and freedoms from the jackboot of a central authority. Government is necessary to protect the liberty of individuals from being harmed by others, but true liberals also realize that government itself can harm an individual if not kept in check. No other force in history has been more destructive to liberty and freedom than an unchecked central power.

 

It's as if the last part of that equation has been discarded because the government has propagandized the public into believing that its the only thing protecting them from utter annihilation at the hands of terrorists. Now, even questioning the government is seen as seditious when it's the RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PEOPLE TO QUESTION ITS LEADERS. Not only to question them, but to hold them accountable for their actions and shortcomings.

 

As I've said in other threads, the entire foundation upon which our country was built, namely that the government is a threat to the people and must be closely watched and have its powers checked by the people to prevent tyranny (a cornerstone of liberal philosophy), has been flipped on its head. Now the government sees the people as the threat that must be monitored and have their power checked in order to preserve order.

 

The left realized this shifting paradigm under W, lashing out (rightfully so) against the Patriot Act and other assaults on the first and fourth amendments... but the moment W finished his second term, the left became silent on the issue because party politics matters more than the actual policies enacted by the government.

 

It's sad and needs to change before we lose the country completely. If we haven't already.

 

 

Propaganda 101. Of course if the same people understood their history they'd understand when they're being hustled.

Sounds like we liberals are slaveholders now. Eh, minion?

 

His entire purpose is to simply keep arguing until nobody wants to argue anymore, then declare himself winner. That's the pajama boy technique. It doesn't matter what you say, if you contradict yourself, or have nothing to offer except feces references. You can prove someone wrong over and over, but if they adopt the pajama boy technique, any effort on your part will do nothing more than waste your time and provide him entertainment.

 

The truly pathetic thing in all this is that in setting up a wall of pure idiotic stubbornness, he won't ever learn a single thing.

I don't think that's true. We all argue, so what? I provide facts and your friends here kind of hate that. That's not my fault. Look at how Tasker was screaming about Lincoln destroying the country and then I pointed out he wasn't even president yet, so he (tasker) that Lincoln had said things he shouldn't have and he destroyed the nation that way, but tasker gave no proof at all. That's my fault?

Modern American liberalism is liberal at all: it's just rebranded fascism.

Really? Do you even know what fascism is? That's Hitler. You consider your typical liberal to be a fascist?

 

But even Joachim Peiper wasn't Joachim Peiper. Malmedy showed all the evidence of spontaneity and undiscipline that supposedly were featured at Ft. Pillow. I'm not a fan of either man (except militarily, in Forrest's case,) but in both cases their responsibility seems more that of a commander at arm's length, and not of direct involvement.

 

And if you've ever seen Forrest's farewell to his troops, it's interesting. "Southern gentleman" charming and magnanimous. Further evidence for what I've been saying and gatorman's been ignoring: people, and their motivations, are complex.

Hey, that's fine, maybe they were not the extreme monsters that many think they were, or maybe they were. But that doesn't change the fact at all that we should be forced to celebrate them, or that the since they were "honorable gentlemen" in some way they should never have their statues pulled down.

[Azalin]

 

I don't think that's true. We all argue, so what? I provide facts and your friends here kind of hate that. That's not my fault. Look at how Tasker was screaming about Lincoln destroying the country and then I pointed out he wasn't even president yet, so he (tasker) that Lincoln had said things he shouldn't have and he destroyed the nation that way, but tasker gave no proof at all. That's my fault?

 

You know what I'm talking about. It's not just in this thread, but pretty much any thread in which you participate. Only a fool enters into debate and never learns anything from the exchange. Unlike you, I readily admit to learning quite a bit from the exchanges here, especially in terms of history and economics. That's why I rarely contribute to either topic.

 

Debate is a crucible in which bad logic goes to die. Your technique ignores this - for you, it's all about trying to be right, even to the point that you abandon any semblance of logic in an effort to keep the argument going. That undermines your position, and I used to be amazed that you don't see that. Now I've come to the conclusion that I stated above - with you, it's not about exchanging ideas or learning anything, it's all about having the last word. The pajama boy technique - the smug satisfaction of the oblivious, with barriers solidly in place to prevent any actual growth or learning.

[Tiberius]

 

You know what I'm talking about. It's not just in this thread, but pretty much any thread in which you participate. Only a fool enters into debate and never learns anything from the exchange. Unlike you, I readily admit to learning quite a bit from the exchanges here, especially in terms of history and economics. That's why I rarely contribute to either topic.

 

Debate is a crucible in which bad logic goes to die. Your technique ignores this - for you, it's all about trying to be right, even to the point that you abandon any semblance of logic in an effort to keep the argument going. That undermines your position, and I used to be amazed that you don't see that. Now I've come to the conclusion that I stated above - with you, it's not about exchanging ideas or learning anything, it's all about having the last word. The pajama boy technique - the smug satisfaction of the oblivious, with barriers solidly in place to prevent any actual growth or learning.

Sorry you feel that way. Perhaps I have put up a wall with all the insults, gotcha questions, "asshat" pics and such, so it makes me feel like I'm getting even by easily proving Tom and the others wrong all the time.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Sounds like we liberals are slaveholders now. Eh, minion?

 

This doesn't make any sense in the context of my post. Not that I expect honesty from someone so allergic to it.

 

Asshats are gonna keep on asshatting I guess.

Sorry you feel that way. Perhaps I have put up a wall with all the insults, gotcha questions, "asshat" pics and such, so it makes me feel like I'm getting even by easily proving Tom and the others wrong all the time.

 

Put up a wall? No, sir. You're simply reaping what you sow. You've never once shown a genuine interest in being anything other than a troll on this board. You don't contribute to any thread honestly, you attack other posters with insults without provocation, and you're unwilling to admit when you've been so clearly wrong.

 

There's a definition for that kind of behavoir: Asshatery.

[Tiberius]

 

This doesn't make any sense in the context of my post. Not that I expect honesty from someone so allergic to it.

 

Asshats are gonna keep on asshatting I guess.

Nothing makes sense with you. You are a little minion for a reason. It's as far as you can rise

[Azalin]

Sorry you feel that way. Perhaps I have put up a wall with all the insults, gotcha questions, "asshat" pics and such, so it makes me feel like I'm getting even by easily proving Tom and the others wrong all the time.

 

Perhaps I should have listed "delusions of adequacy" in my earlier post.

[Deranged Rhino]

Nothing makes sense with you. You are a little minion for a reason. It's as far as you can rise

 

The minion put downs are just the latest example of your inability to be honest, insightful, or to understand what was written in this thread.

 

Carry on with your asshattery, it's quite the spectacle of stupidity.

[DC Tom]

Sorry you feel that way. Perhaps I have put up a wall with all the insults, gotcha questions, "asshat" pics and such, so it makes me feel like I'm getting even by easily proving Tom and the others wrong all the time.

 

Did you ever notice how the rest of us have reasonable and even enlightening discussions when you raging asshattery isn't involved?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Did you ever notice how the rest of us have reasonable and even enlightening discussions when you raging asshattery isn't involved?

 

My favorite part is the unchecked hubris of his ignorance. "so it makes me feel like I'm getting even by easily proving Tom and the others wrong all the time."