4th of July Protest/Anti-Protest Thread

[RiotAct]

muh rights!!!!!

[Cinga]

16 minutes ago, ALF said:

The Indians were peaceful except for the van blockade

 

I don't think the vans belonged to the Indians. I heard something about how they disagreed with the blockade

[Warcodered]

I mean it's not like Native Americans have plenty of reason to be unhappy about Mt. Rushmore.

[whatdrought]

27 minutes ago, ALF said:

The Indians were peaceful except for the van blockade

 

Blocking public roads isn’t peaceful. It’s a crime. 

 

9 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

I mean it's not like Native Americans have plenty of reason to be unhappy about Mt. Rushmore.

 

Cause it’s a reminder that their ancestors spent so many years fighting and killing each other and not innovating, developing, and uniting in order to stem the coming tide of European invaders? 
 

 

[Beast]

They should run those “protesting”morons over with a tank at Mt. Rushmore. The collective IQ of the nation would rise dramatically.

Edited July 4, 2020 by Beast

[Warcodered]

5 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

Cause it’s a reminder that their ancestors spent so many years fighting and killing each other and not innovating, developing, and uniting in order to stem the coming tide of European invaders? 

Or the treaty with our government that guaranteed them that land in perpetuity....and then gold was found. So we took it in a conflict that was topped off with a massacre of unarmed civilians. Then we built a monument to our leaders on that land. Also the plague that killed 90% of their population probably helped Europeans a lot.

[Cinga]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

Or the treaty with our government that guaranteed them that land in perpetuity....and then gold was found. So we took it in a conflict that was topped off with a massacre of unarmed civilians. Then we built a monument to our leaders on that land. Also the plague that killed 90% of their population probably helped Europeans a lot.

 

You must have skipped over this exchange earlier between @Winston Zeddemore and me

 

 

Quote

 

  1 hour ago, Winston Zeddemore said:

 

The Sioux took the land from the Cheyenne, who took the land from the Kiowa, who took it from the Pawnee, who took it from the Crow, who took it from the Arikara. Throughout that timeline, the victors not only took the land, but enslaved their enemies -- at least the ones they did not eat. 

 

So, why should the Sioux get the land when they took it from someone else? How can the liberals here argue this point without tying themselves into knots? Anyone care to answer?

 

And who was there first? Was it the Polynesians by canoe? Or was it the Russians over the Alaska land bridge? Heck, maybe it was the Mongolians or Chinese here first? I'm sure the Vikings bashed a few heads but there is no evidence they stayed..... Or is there?

 

Basically we can twist this throughout history if we want

 

 

[Warcodered]

2 minutes ago, Cinga said:

You must have skipped over this exchange earlier between @Winston Zeddemore and me

 

6 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Or the treaty with our government that guaranteed them that land in perpetuity.

 

[whatdrought]

8 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Or the treaty with our government that guaranteed them that land in perpetuity....and then gold was found. So we took it in a conflict that was topped off with a massacre of unarmed civilians. Then we built a monument to our leaders on that land. Also the plague that killed 90% of their population probably helped Europeans a lot.

 

And they were forced into a treaty and then taken advantage of because they spent their time killing instead of developing. They weren’t called savages for nothing- they were called that (though narrow-minded and wrong) Because they were a technologically inferior society. That led to their downfall. They were inferior because instead of leaning on their own common heritage, culture, and ethnicity, they fought and killed each other for hundreds of years leaving them ripe for takeover. History has plenty of blame to go around.

[Cinga]

11 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

 

 

https://www.truthorfiction.com/mount-rushmore-before-carving/

 

They won a court case on it, and refused the settlement

 

Quote

In 1980, after decades of filing claims, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Sioux Nation, acknowledging that the Black Hills had been appropriated illegally by the US government when it broke the treaty of 1868. But the court also declared that the passage of time made the return of Sioux lands impossible and ordered a $120 million reparation payment. The Sioux refused the money and in 1982 the Committee for the Return of the Black Hills was formed, consisting of one representative from each Sioux tribe. The committee got the support of New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley (Dem.), who sponsored their legislation in Congress. Representatives of South Dakota led the fight against the bill to return 1.3 of the 7.5 million acres of land the Supreme Court said belonged to the Sioux. The bill was defeated in 1987. In 1990 further legislation over the Black Hills claim was defeated on Capitol Hill. South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle (Dem.) established the Open Hills Association in his home state, an organization dedicated to fighting future attempts by the Sioux to regain the Paha Sapa. Daschle also began using Mount Rushmore to raise campaign money, charging “guests” $5,000 dollars each for a helicopter ride to the top of Washington’s head—an area designated off-limits by the National Park Service.

 

[Warcodered]

1 minute ago, Cinga said:

https://www.truthorfiction.com/mount-rushmore-before-carving/

 

They won a court case on it, and refused the settlement

 

 

Yes and like I said they have plenty of reason not to be happy about the whole thing. That's not to say the whole situation isn't complicated as hell.

 

9 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

And they were forced into a treaty and then taken advantage of because they spent their time killing instead of developing. They weren’t called savages for nothing- they were called that (though narrow-minded and wrong) Because they were a technologically inferior society. That led to their downfall. They were inferior because instead of leaning on their own common heritage, culture, and ethnicity, they fought and killed each other for hundreds of years leaving them ripe for takeover. History has plenty of blame to go around.

Yes because Europe was a utopia of peaceful relations between nations.?

[whatdrought]

4 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Yes and like I said they have plenty of reason not to be happy about the whole thing. That's not to say the whole situation isn't complicated as hell.

 

Yes because Europe was a utopia of peaceful relations between nations.?

 

It wasn’t. That’s Exactly right. Europe is a fantastic example of the fact that history is just that- history. 

Edited July 4, 2020 by whatdrought

[Cinga]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

Yes and like I said they have plenty of reason not to be happy about the whole thing. That's not to say the whole situation isn't complicated as hell.

 

I don't know what's so complicated about it. Throughout history to the conqueror goes the spoils. The Supremes actually sided with them, and determines fair restitution which they refused. Even though we were technically the conqueror. That should have been the end of the story.

 

I'm curious your thoughts on Tom Daschle turning it into a campaign fund raiser. Should he return all those funds to the Indians or to the government who by Supreme Court decision, does technically own it now, even though the Indians refused the money.

 

 

[Unforgiven]

14 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Yes and like I said they have plenty of reason not to be happy about the whole thing. That's not to say the whole situation isn't complicated as hell.

 

Yes because Europe was a utopia of peaceful relations between nations.?

whoa karen slow down

I get it's a stressful time if you hate your country...

Edited July 4, 2020 by Unforgiven

[Warcodered]

15 minutes ago, Cinga said:

I don't know what's so complicated about it. Throughout history to the conqueror goes the spoils. The Supremes actually sided with them, and determines fair restitution which they refused. Even though we were technically the conqueror. That should have been the end of the story.

Seriously it's not that complicated they have a reason and a right to be upset about Mt. Rushmore. What the Supreme Court(a part of the government that took their land) said our bad but it's too late to give the land back so here's some money so then it's just supposed to be settled they don't get to be unhappy about it? I mean seriously if I said you could keep your house(sounds ridiculous I mean whom am I to say you get to keep your house but I mean yeah) then you find treasure in your yard. So I then take your house, take the treasure, and then knock down the house and build a statue of myself. We'd then be square and you couldn't be upset if I said my bad and offered to pay you some money?

[bilzfancy]

Governor Kristi Noam is one good looking woman

[Unforgiven]

3 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Seriously it's not that complicated they have a reason and a right to be upset about Mt. Rushmore. What the Supreme Court(a part of the government that took their land) said our bad but it's too late to give the land back so here's some money so then it's just supposed to be settled they don't get to be unhappy about it? I mean seriously if I said you could keep your house(sounds ridiculous I mean whom am I to say you get to keep your house but I mean yeah) then you find treasure in your yard. So I then take your house, take the treasure, and then knock down the house and build a statue of myself. We'd then be square and you couldn't be upset if I said my bad and offered to pay you some money?

Sounds exactly like what the wannabe socialists are trying to do to people in this country right now.

Sounds like you are describing looters and chaz/chop builders.

Irony.

3 minutes ago, bilzfancy said:

Governor Kristi Noam is one good looking woman

Indeed.

[TakeYouToTasker]

10 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Seriously it's not that complicated they have a reason and a right to be upset about Mt. Rushmore. What the Supreme Court(a part of the government that took their land) said our bad but it's too late to give the land back so here's some money so then it's just supposed to be settled they don't get to be unhappy about it? I mean seriously if I said you could keep your house(sounds ridiculous I mean whom am I to say you get to keep your house but I mean yeah) then you find treasure in your yard. So I then take your house, take the treasure, and then knock down the house and build a statue of myself. We'd then be square and you couldn't be upset if I said my bad and offered to pay you some money?

What are your thoughts on eminent domain?

[Warcodered]

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

What are your thoughts on eminent domain?

I'm in general against it they'd need a damn good reason to do it.

[Cinga]

12 minutes ago, bilzfancy said:

Governor Kristi Noam is one good looking woman

First time I've heard her speak and she did really well, came off really sincere 

4 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

I'm in general against it they'd need a damn good reason to do it.

 

So you disagree with Kelo vs New London? In that decision, increasing the tax base was the reason