First off, people try to take the extreme and make it the rule in arguments. America has never had an Adolf Hitler. Hitler is the extreme. Here's the thing. I think you said it best when you said "Somewhere. I don't know." Nobody knows. Once again, we shouldn't have self-proclaimed "great moral arbiters in this country that get decide which transgressions were worse than others.

Robert E. Lee was not pro-slavery. He was pro-Virginia. Should he be wiped from history for supporting his home state.
Picasso was a womanizer. He would be shredded by the "me-too" movement today. Should all of his work be removed from his transgressions? Leaving it in place is celebrating a womanizer, is it not?
Martin Luther King was an adulterer. Should all of the schools and roads named after him be renamed?

This is yet another attack of the first amendment by the left. The further that we keep pushing the line, the more in jeopardy our freedoms become.

I agree. Unless we only want to have statues to Boy Scouts, we need to chill.

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/30/2019 11:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/30/2019 10:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/30/2019 10:18:00 AM (view original):
I agree 100%. Our country is too easily offended. No one is perfect. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves so do we diminish his name too? In general the easily offended basically infringe on people's free speech IMO.

I would get offended if I had to drive by a statue glorifying a racist who owned my ancestors that was built by racists every day, too.

Thomas Jefferson is not equatable, he was a US President who did a lot of good, including fighting against slavery.

Subjective. Some may not feel the same way you do about TJ. You start removing Wilson and you go down a slippery slope IMO.

Put it on a local ballot and have the people vote on it. I don't really care about Wilson as much.

The person is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it's Woodrow Wilson, Robert E. Lee, or Mother Teresa. We are removing history from our country and that's is a very dangerous road to go down.

I "knew" there was a reason I broke my rule and looked at tang's posts today. On the previous page, he tries to rip one my posts, then in the very next post he loves someone who agrees with me. It just shows how close-minded and judgmental he is, and why I no longer bother with him, or his kind. He hates any post of mine, but loves the same thing when it comes from somebody else. Hypocritical and hate-filled tang. Business as usual.

(I almost made it until my self-proclaimed February deadline before checking one of the crazy's posts. Man it's a much more enjoyable site this way.)

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/30/2019 11:15:00 AM (view original):
First off, people try to take the extreme and make it the rule in arguments. America has never had an Adolf Hitler. Hitler is the extreme. Here's the thing. I think you said it best when you said "Somewhere. I don't know." Nobody knows. Once again, we shouldn't have self-proclaimed "great moral arbiters in this country that get decide which transgressions were worse than others.

Robert E. Lee was not pro-slavery. He was pro-Virginia. Should he be wiped from history for supporting his home state.
Picasso was a womanizer. He would be shredded by the "me-too" movement today. Should all of his work be removed from his transgressions? Leaving it in place is celebrating a womanizer, is it not?
Martin Luther King was an adulterer. Should all of the schools and roads named after him be renamed?

This is yet another attack of the first amendment by the left. The further that we keep pushing the line, the more in jeopardy our freedoms become.

To all of your questions, I don't know, although for the Lee point, I never argued to wipe him from history, and for the Picasso point, sometimes it is good to separate the person and the artist, but that's a different conversation.

Putting up a monument is not a first amendment right. I never said that you couldn't mention Lee or talk about it how you wish.

Just put it on a local ballot.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/30/2019 11:33:00 AM (view original):
The person is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it's Woodrow Wilson, Robert E. Lee, or Mother Teresa. We are removing history from our country and that's is a very dangerous road to go down.

AGAIN, Statues are NOT history. A majority were NOT put there at the time. Removing a statue is not removing history.

I guess ballots are the way to go. Well that was a short debate.

Posted by all3 on 1/30/2019 11:35:00 AM (view original):
I "knew" there was a reason I broke my rule and looked at tang's posts today. On the previous page, he tries to rip one my posts, then in the very next post he loves someone who agrees with me. It just shows how close-minded and judgmental he is, and why I no longer bother with him, or his kind. He hates any post of mine, but loves the same thing when it comes from somebody else. Hypocritical and hate-filled tang. Business as usual.

(I almost made it until my self-proclaimed February deadline before checking one of the crazy's posts. Man it's a much more enjoyable site this way.)

I agreed with rsp that we should not remove history. I disagreed with you that monuments are the way we view history. That is in no way hypocritical if you actually look at the posts.

But I think you are missing the point of the thread. Bye-bye all3bot.

Monuments are exactly how we view history. That is not even debatable.

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/30/2019 11:41:00 AM (view original):
I guess ballots are the way to go. Well that was a short debate.

Well I don't think that the feds need to intervene, and I don't think the mobs should be able to tear down whatever they want, so local ballots seems like the best way to go.

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/30/2019 11:45:00 AM (view original):
Monuments are exactly how we view history. That is not even debatable.

No, it is not. It is how we glorify history.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 9:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 8:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 7:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 7:35:00 PM (view original):
I still am wary of the private sector.

The blessing and curse of the private sector is that the goal is only to make money. But not every institution should serve to make money, namely humanitarian ones, like prisons and universities.

Tldr - if a humanitarian group has 'for profit' in front of it, it usually isn't great.

Also I don't mind big government as much as everyone else.

You don't for public universities make money? Like CCCP, not for profit is nothing more than a tax designation. I agree with you that I would rather give to the Salvation Army or Habitat for Humanity over Goodwill any day. I trust "not for profit" charity organizations more as well. These are the choices that a free market provide us.

As far as big government, remember your history when you say this. Almost every government in history has become tyrannical at some point. The more power you give to government, the easier you make it for them.

I believe in the free market for businesses. I don't believe in Communism, obviously. I don't think the point of universities and prisons should be to make money off of 'consumers'. Those should be run humanely by the government.

I don't think a single president can completely overthrow our democracy in America, so the people will get a say in who runs our government, and I can take that risk. I don't support a bigger or smaller government, I support a better government.

To your first point, clarify for me, when you say that "(universities) should be run humanely by the government", are you saying that we shouldn't have private colleges?

If you don't think that America can become tyrannical, read about Germany prior to Hitler (I will actually attach an article on this for you) and Mussolini. There are quite a few more. It would be beneficial for you to learn about them. Our founders wanted a small government with the power in the hands of the citizenry for a reason. The larger that we grow government and the more influence that we give it on our lives, the closer we come to repeating history. "A better government" is very subjective and doesn't create a guarantee against tyranny. This is why I warn you against comedians trying to be political commentators like Jon Stewart. They don't know what the hell they are talking about and people soak up what they say as fact. It's very dangerous.

It's sad that our public (most private as well) institutions fail to teach our youth true history and teach revisionist history. It is going to lead us down a very bad road. England is a little different as they are a Monarchy (constitutional monarchy now), but read about King Henry VIII and his daughter Elizabeth's reign. This is what happens when you give government too much power.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2013/02/05/how-dictators-come-to-power-in-a-democracy/#72653a617ff7

the government can't do what they are supposed to do very well, but you want to give them more to do, tang? How does that make sense?

Posted by tangplay on 1/30/2019 11:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/30/2019 11:45:00 AM (view original):
Monuments are exactly how we view history. That is not even debatable.

No, it is not. It is how we glorify history.

Semantics.

A statue, building, or other structure erected to commemorate a famous or notable person or event.

Education is the only thing that changes the monument from "glorification" to knowledge of where we have been and overcome.