Author Topic: The President Trump Thread  (Read 90869 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #2415 on: August 12, 2017, 10:39:36 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31964
  • Tommy Points: -28091
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I'm not sure it's possible to draw a line regarding what currently allowed speech should be banned, and what shouldn't be. We can all think of examples that we wouldn't permit, but what about the grey areas? What happens when Trump uses his "banning hate speech" powers to shut down BLM, or PETA, or Green Peace?

Marching into a city armed with shields and clubs , chanting hate speech and inciting violence, there is no debate on where to draw the line there. Any other insinuation is pure BS.

Most of what they did is constitutionally protected. People in our country are allowed to express their hateful thoughts, and to assemble with like-minded individuals. For better or for worse, being offensive is not the same as inciting violence.

I get the appeal of stripping certain people and groups of their rights. Unless those groups are a criminal enterprise, however, it is hard for the government to draw a line. The KKK is terrible. So are BLM protestors chanting "Pigs in a blanket, fry them like Bacon". So is Kathy Griffin posing with a decapitated Trump. So is burning the flag. So are people hanging politicians in effigy, whether it be Obama or GWB or King George III.

Once the door is opened to banning the expression of some ideas, somebody will inevitably come along and expand that suppressive power more and more broadly.

Punish those who are violent. Make an example out of the terrorists. Do not, however, let our government control free expression.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #2416 on: August 12, 2017, 10:43:43 PM »

Offline hpantazo

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15910
  • Tommy Points: 2370
I'm not sure it's possible to draw a line regarding what currently allowed speech should be banned, and what shouldn't be. We can all think of examples that we wouldn't permit, but what about the grey areas? What happens when Trump uses his "banning hate speech" powers to shut down BLM, or PETA, or Green Peace?

Marching into a city armed with shields and clubs , chanting hate speech and inciting violence, there is no debate on where to draw the line there. Any other insinuation is pure BS.

Most of what they did is constitutionally protected. People in our country are allowed to express their hateful thoughts, and to assemble with like-minded individuals. For better or for worse, being offensive is not the same as inciting violence.

I get the appeal of stripping certain people and groups of their rights. Unless those groups are a criminal enterprise, however, it is hard for the government to draw a line. The KKK is terrible. So are BLM protestors chanting "Pigs in a blanket, fry them like Bacon". So is Kathy Griffin posing with a decapitated Trump. So is burning the flag. So are people hanging politicians in effigy, whether it be Obama or GWB or King George III.

Once the door is opened to banning the expression of some ideas, somebody will inevitably come along and expand that suppressive power more and more broadly.

Punish those who are violent. Make an example out of the terrorists. Do not, however, let our government control free expression.

There was plenty of violence today from very specific groups. They need to be severely punished, and our leaders need to properly recognize what happened and condemn the actions of these groups. That didn't happen, and if it is left that way, it will breed more violence

Regarding right to free speech, of course, people can say what they want, but arming themselves for battle when they do it is a whole different issue. They came to create violence. That is not constitutionally protected

Running people over with your car in a hateful act due to their beliefs is a terrorist act. We have the facts now that the driver was a white supremacist protester

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #2417 on: August 12, 2017, 10:46:09 PM »

Offline chicagoceltic

  • Avery Bradley
  • Posts: 464
  • Tommy Points: 64
I'm not sure it's possible to draw a line regarding what currently allowed speech should be banned, and what shouldn't be. We can all think of examples that we wouldn't permit, but what about the grey areas? What happens when Trump uses his "banning hate speech" powers to shut down BLM, or PETA, or Green Peace?

---------

I wish we had a President who could help heal the country. That was one of my larger problems with Obama, and it is much worse with Trump. There is a very clearly defined enemy here, and the American people need answers regarding how that enemy will be vanguished.  My fear is that acts of domestic terrorism are going to become more and more frequent.
I am a very liberal person but believe strongly in freedom of speech, even if it is speech that I find offensive.  My opinion is that the line of what is legal and is illegal is not whether it is hateful/offensive speech but rather if it is inciteful speech.  It is legally fine (though offensive and stupid) to say "I hate white/black/asian/muslim people".  It should be illegal to say "All white/black/asian/muslim people should die/be killed".  These ignorant, simple-minded people have the right of free speech and peaceful assembly but not to incite violence.  On a related note, freedom of speech does not mean freedom of repercussion of your speech/actions...if you are publicly going to be hateful it is reasonable to expect someone to get mad and for things to turn south real quick.

As for President Trump, from day one I thought that he was a terrible candidate but my biggest fear was how divisive he was, both domestically and internationally.  We had plenty of division before President Trump but we have more now and it will likely only get worse.  Whether intentional or not President Trump's rhetoric has emboldened the alt-right/nationalist/racist base. 

Interestingly on the campaign trail President Trump railed against President Obama and Secretary Clinton for refusing to say "radical islamic terrorists" yet now he seems to be unwilling to say "white supremacists" or "white nationalists".  There seems to have been little/no mention of the bombing of a mosque last week and today he refused to rail against white nationalists/supremacists and instead tried to somewhat diminish the role of white nationalists/supremacists with his line about "violence on many sides".  Perhaps it is because radical islamic terrorists do not vote Trump but white nationalists/supremecists do vote Trump.  (let me be clear that I am not saying that all or even the majority of Trump supporters are white nationalists/supremacists but it is safe to say the vast, VAST majority of white nationalists/supremacists are Trump supporters)
Pub Draft

Sam N Ella's

At the Bar: The Most Interesting Man in the World
At the Door:  Hugh Hefner
On Stage:  O.A.R., Louis C.K., EDGAR! Special Drinks:  Irish Car Bomb, Martinis On Tap: Lite, Beamish, 3 Floyds Seasonal, Chimay Grand Reserve, Spotted Cow

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #2418 on: August 13, 2017, 12:09:30 AM »

Offline GetLucky

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1253
  • Tommy Points: 269
I'm not sure it's possible to draw a line regarding what currently allowed speech should be banned, and what shouldn't be. We can all think of examples that we wouldn't permit, but what about the grey areas? What happens when Trump uses his "banning hate speech" powers to shut down BLM, or PETA, or Green Peace?

Marching into a city armed with shields and clubs , chanting hate speech and inciting violence, there is no debate on where to draw the line there. Any other insinuation is pure BS.

Events like this are why my family left the South (Virginia, actually) and moved North. I was lamenting with my mother about Charlottesville, which I noted is normally a beautiful college town that is rather Progressive, when she told me, "That's the South for you. You can't escape racial tension down there."

I agree completely that the neo-Nazi white supremacist group should be quickly denounced and appropriately legally punished. As other members have mentioned, they went around chanting racist creed ("Blood and Soil," which is a Nazi-born excuse for racism which implies ethnicity is based on both blood-relation AND place of birth) and carrying torches and riot shields, clearly looking to pick a fight and incite violence.

However, I can genuinely not understand the thought process behind the counter-protest. When one group is marching around making fools of themselves, why would one feel the need to directly confront said group? When one group is carrying riot shields and torches, among other weapons, why would one feel the need to come face-to-face with that group?

The events in Charlottesville had the potential to really set back white supremacists. They made absolute fools of themselves (seriously, who would see a group of torch-wielding people screaming Nazi chants and say to themselves, "That seems like something I really want to be a part of?") and necessitated legal interference (from what I understand, the march was about to be broken up and people who resisted were about to be arrested due to unlawful assembly charges).

But suddenly, a counter-protest group decided to confront the foolish and weapon-wielding white supremacists, and a fight broke out. The violence and chaos that the neo-Nazis were clearly looking to incite became a reality, and their actions were rewarded. Some counter-protesters had aerosol cans that were spitting fire, among other weapons. Suddenly, they grouped themselves into the "I don't really want to associate myself with their actions" group.

To me, the supremacists are the equivalent of a school yard bully. You don't validate heinous actions by taking the bait and stooping low; you let them put on their harmless show, rise above it all, and show how strong you are in your own way. In my opinion, a counter-protest after the "Unite the Right" protest (perhaps tomorrow or even next weekend) would have been the most powerful action of them all. A truly peaceful protest in direst contrast to a failed violence-inciting one would have brought out the best in people and really united the country. Instead, the side with good intentions made a bad decision and missed a great opportunity to set themselves apart from the crazies (white supremacists). (Side note: this will be an interesting case study about the general "do all humans seek chaos/violence/destruction?" question in a few years.)

-----

On a related topic, it's worth noting that the alt-right was protesting the statue of Robert E. Lee being taken down. Now, I know it's not a popular opinion nowadays (especially in the north east), but I think Robert E. Lee deserves a statue and more. (For those non-Civil War buffs, Robert E. Lee was the commander of the Confederate Army who was originally asked by Lincoln to lead the North.) PLEASE NOTE I am NOT a Confederate sympathizer; I am quite the opposite, actually. I have many family members that have been exposed to the aforementioned Southern propaganda about the Civil War, and it is a very real problem in our education system. However, I believe that Lee is an American hero. I'm not going to break down his decision-making when he chose to side with the Confederates, because I could write a paper on that. (Essentially, he chose to lead the South because his family was there, not because of states' rights or the right to own slaves or any of that. He wrote to his sister, "With all my devotion to the union and the feelings of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home.”) However, Lee chose to surrender at Appottomax, where he was cornered, when Jefferson Davis (the President of the Confederacy, a truly not great human) wanted to run, resort to guerilla warfare, and extend the war as long as possible. However Lee saw that that South was going to inevitably lose the War, and he decided to surrender and save as many lives as possible.

On a personal level, Lee was against slavery (although there is debate about whether or not he found African-Americans inferior to caucasians- he probably did). He actually freed all of his slaves before the Civil War ended, in 1862. (Once again, there is debate about this. Lee inherited the slaves from his father in 1957, and the will instructed Lee to release the slaves in no less than 5 years. Indeed, Lee waited the full 5 years.) While this is not seen as admirable by some, it's worth noting that Ulysses S. Grant, the Union general, kept all of his slaves until the 13th Amendment forced him to free them. (The Emancipation Proclamation was a symbolic gesture meant to win over border states. It said that any slave in Confederate soil would be freed under the eventually-victorious United States.) Lee struggled mightily with slavery, as so many Founding Fathers and Civil War era leaders, Union or not, did. Even Lincoln thought it necessary that blacks should live separately from whites. In the end, Lee held a common, albeit not morally-upstanding, belief that slavery was wrong yet it was a necessary evil that would not go away in his lifetime. (Once again, even Lincoln was not a pure abolitionist. He campaigned on the idea of no further expansion of slavery, which was life-or-death to the South because they would lose seats in Congress as new, free states were added to the USA.) And yes, Lee was also probably of the belief that blacks were different from, if not inferior to, whites. But, in the end, Lee was an honorable man who saved millions of lives with his actions. We just vilify him because of what side he fought for.

There's also a story about a black man standing up in Lee's church post-Civil-War to receive Communion. According to the account, the entire congregation stayed seated, stunned in their seats, until one man, Robert E. Lee, stood up to receive Communion next to the black man. After that, the entire congregation supposedly followed his lead. This story has one origin, and its accuracy has been questioned. It has been denounced as pro-Lee propaganda. However, the original writer tried to put a racist spin on it, saying that Lee "was the first to stand up and proudly ignore the man" (I'm paraphrasing). I'm of the opinion that a writer would not make a situation like this up, as there would no doubt be many more sensationalistic ways to use Lee as a caricature of racism; I think that Lee stood up to tacitly approve of the man's presence, to signal to his fellow citizens that the war was over and that they should unite as one people behind the flag, not behind their limiting beliefs. To me, it is much more believable that the writer took this otherwise conciliatory gesture and tried to spin it to fit his own racist narrative than the opposite.

Lee's personal letters reveal that he was much more than the glossed-up or vilified caricatures of him would have you believe: he was an honorable man, a deep thinker, a loving brother, son, and husband. Lee was ambivalent towards slavery and his role in the Civil War. The letters from his late years reveal a great deal of inner struggle. Yes, Robert E. Lee was racist. Most, if not all, of American leaders, be them Union or Confederate, were as well. And yes, his actions were wrong in hindsight. But Robert E. Lee also had an honorable thought-process. He chose family over country, saw no realistic road towards abolishing slavery (as all but the radical Abolitionsists did), and ended up saving millions of lives. Lee was not all-good, but most men aren't. He was a complex character, and all complex characters are easy to pigeon-hole, especially ones that were on the wrong side of history. In the end, Lee is a man worth studying, and, in my opinion, worth honoring. He no doubt has had a tremdous impact on American, especially Virginian, history, and his intentions seemed to be in the right place. He is certainly no Adolph Hitler.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 12:19:36 AM by GetLucky »

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #2419 on: August 13, 2017, 12:51:45 AM »

Offline liam

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6197
  • Tommy Points: 416
Lee was less an Adolf Hitter and more a Benedict Arnold and I don't see any statures of him around. Arnold was an early hero of the revolutionary war but betrayed his country and should be despised not honored. Racists and traitors who try to destroy this country should be vilified not have statures built for them. 

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #2420 on: August 13, 2017, 12:53:42 AM »

Offline csfansince60s

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4916
  • Tommy Points: 1722
Get Lucky, thanks for the insight into Lee.

TP.... Great history lesson!

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #2421 on: August 13, 2017, 01:12:09 AM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9219
  • Tommy Points: 1006
The ignorance we're seeing presently is nothing new, it's just the long-rotting stench finally coming to the surface.

We need to keep in mind that this episode in Charlottesville was due to a Confederate statue being taken down. A statue dedicated to someone who was literally a traitor. The Civil War never really ended, and there has been far too much apologism and tolerance for what was an intolerable cause.

For decades Southern textbooks have made the case that "states' rights" were a primary cause of the War. Pure apologism, but few politicians have had the moxie to call them out on it.

A century ago White America not only tolerated the terrorist KKK but actively bolstered their numbers until they were in the millions. (Donald Trump's own father was arrested at a KKK riot in NYC, coincidentally)

Imagine if in Germany today there were still statues of Hitler and Himmler here and there, and if textbooks referred to WWII as being at least partially justified.

Germany got it right after WWII and laid the smack down on that sort of ignorance with zero-tolerance policies towards nazism and bigotry. Swastikas are illegal there. Racism can result in jail time.

Here in Maine I see the Confederate flag more and more. A flag dedicated to a murderous war fueled by racial hatred and the callous propaganda of big business. And now once again we have poor whites rising up to a pointless cause against the wrong enemy.

America is reaping what is has sowed by not quashing this a long time ago. For shame.

Excellent, excellent post! TP

I certainly don't have any respect for those who spew hate speech or support public displays of bigotry, but I'm not terribly comfortable with limiting it.

People should be able to say what they please, for the most part. If you don't like what someone else has onto say or wants to display, you don't have to look or listen. You also shouldn't be letting others words hurt you (sticks and stones, and all).

We have the obligation/responsibility that demonstration be peaceful.   Right or wrong (with respect to free speech)  groups with violent histories like the KKK and Nazis define the term "incite" by their mere presence, no less by an organized, purposeful, vitriolic and aggressive presence.   I do not think hatred incited in this way is, or should be, protected by the 1st amendment - anymore then yelling "fire" in a theater is a protected right.  You are not free to act to incite.

I should be free to say darn near whatever I want.

Just because "you" don't like what I say doesn't matter.  The  fault lies with the confronter, not the confrontee. 

For example:

If the KKK were to hold a rally/march/protest, displaying signs or symbols promoting their cause, and this prompts a group of dissenters to confront them, leading to some sort of altercation, the fault lies with the confronters, not the confrontees.

Similarly, if the BLM holds a rally/march/protest, any group that confronts them which leads to an altercation, the fault is again with the confronter, not the confrontee.

Free speech should be protected, no matter how uncomfortable it makes others.  Just because you don't like what someone else is "saying" doesn't give you the right to confront them in a physical manner.  Too often people get this confused and take the side of the confronter.

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #2422 on: August 13, 2017, 01:19:37 AM »

Offline GetLucky

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1253
  • Tommy Points: 269
Lee was less an Adolf Hitter and more a Benedict Arnold and I don't see any statures of him around. Arnold was an early hero of the revolutionary war but betrayed his country and should be despised not honored. Racists and traitors who try to destroy this country should be vilified not have statures built for them.

That is certainly a fair comparison to make. As for my take, I would reference this reddit user's response as a good summary:

Quote
Lee had a long and very successful career prior to the Civil War, and he was probably going to be very high in the Command of the Union military and turned down a Conferderate offer early on. Lee wasn't a supporter of secession, he criticized it in letter leading up to the war, but Lee ended up with the CSA because he decided he would support his state, Virginia, which did not initially secede.

"I shall never bear arms against the Union, but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in the defense of my native state, Virginia, in which case I shall not prove recreant to my duty."

Post war, Lee tried to help mend the wounds; he openly supported Pres. Johnson's Reconstruction plans, and actually supported some civil right reforms (though this didn't include blacks voting, he's a racist in modern eyes, but far kinder than many of his contemporaries). He spent his last days as the president of Washington College (Now Washington and Lee), where he was a well liked member of the administration.

Lee was liked before the war, liked after the war, and tried to sew up wounds he helped open. He's perceived as a gentleman who made his decision out of patriotism for his state, a soldier who followed orders.

Arnold is a different story. Arnold was a bought and paid traitor, no sense of patriotism went into his action, though maybe some love for his wife. Arnold took a bribe, maybe multiple, to turn his cloak. He had a poor relationship with the Continental Congress for passing him up in promotions and playing up other figures of the war, and that probably helped contribute to his decision.

Lee turned traitor unhappily, out of a sense of duty; Arnold did it for money and more or less out of spite.
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1p9wfe/eli5_why_is_robert_e_lee_still_moderately/

In my eyes, Lee is someone just as historically significant as Arnold, if not more so, whose wrongs against the United States were much less spiteful and ill-intentioned than Arnold's and somewhat mitigated, in my eyes, by his conciliatory efforts post-war. Arnold was a potential historical hero who became a villain, which ultimately became his legacy (think Harvey Dent in "The Dark Knight", from a viewer's perspective), while Lee was a hero who made a bad decision, then did his best to make up for that decision (think Darth Vader or Bill Gates, whose recent philanthropic actions overshadow past unethical behavior, which previously overshadowed his technological genius and Microsoft's advancement of society). However, it is definitely a reasonable position to view Lee as more of a Michael Corleone, a man whose original good intentions and final attempts at penance do not atone for his sins. Although I ultimately disagree with that view, I certainly respect it. 
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 01:25:01 AM by GetLucky »

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #2423 on: August 13, 2017, 07:17:47 AM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11808
  • Tommy Points: 2349
While I appreciated the history lessons here (I've had quite a few while in college, The Navy and in my 48 years on this planet) that statue MUST come DOWN...

Doesn't anyone here REMEMBER the 9 killed in South Carolina? By a young man with the same views evidently as this one?

Confederate monuments...Confederate flags.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9IGyidtfGI

Virginia was - just a few weeks ago - voted the most Patriotic state in the country

http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/264050694-story

Not seeing it right now.

I'm currently ashamed of this state even though I still love her AND this country.

I DO know that THIS will pass.

But if these monuments / flags mean THIS MUCH and brings out THIS MUCH HATE in some folks then they should be removed.

I'm praying for this country but even moreso for my family.

We've got to do BETTER - and it starts at the top.
Marcus Smart "Impacts Winning." Boston Celtics Coach Brad Stevens

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #2424 on: August 13, 2017, 09:12:48 AM »

Online rondohondo

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10445
  • Tommy Points: 1068
While I think any racist is filth, the white supremacists didn't cause this.

They were issued a permit , which the ACLU had to fight to get them.

BLM and Antifa were issued no such permit, staging an illegal protest. Using homemade fire throwers, mace, bottles filled with rocks, throwing them at Military vets.

Notice how the media mentions White supremacists vs Counter protesters, instead of naming Antifa and BLM,  who have caused violence and are surpressing free speech all over the country.

Again I don't condone racism or violence, but BLM and Antifa had no right to be holding a protest without a permit.

Just my 2 cents

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #2425 on: August 13, 2017, 09:29:19 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31964
  • Tommy Points: -28091
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
While I think any racist is filth, the white supremacists didn't cause this.

They were issued a permit , which the ACLU had to fight to get them.

BLM and Antifa were issued no such permit, staging an illegal protest. Using homemade fire throwers, mace, bottles filled with rocks, throwing them at Military vets.

Notice how the media mentions White supremacists vs Counter protesters, instead of naming Antifa and BLM,  who have caused violence and are surpressing free speech all over the country.

Again I don't condone racism or violence, but BLM and Antifa had no right to be holding a protest without a permit.

Just my 2 cents

While much of that is true, it's hard to hold any sort of high ground when one of your members drives his car into the crowd in an act of murder / terrorism.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #2426 on: August 13, 2017, 09:33:07 AM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11808
  • Tommy Points: 2349
While I think any racist is filth, the white supremacists didn't cause this.

They were issued a permit , which the ACLU had to fight to get them.

BLM and Antifa were issued no such permit, staging an illegal protest. Using homemade fire throwers, mace, bottles filled with rocks, throwing them at Military vets.

Notice how the media mentions White supremacists vs Counter protesters, instead of naming Antifa and BLM,  who have caused violence and are surpressing free speech all over the country.

Again I don't condone racism or violence, but BLM and Antifa had no right to be holding a protest without a permit.

Just my 2 cents

If BLM was doing as you have alleged then not only were THEY wrong BUT also the supposed "Military Vets" that were present.

Was this at a demonstration? When? Where? I'd personally be ASHAMED of ANY of my fellow service members that were present in such a demonstration.

NO ONE is free from Hate / Bigotry. NO ONE. But the bottom line is that in THIS COUNTRY over the last few years these Confederate monuments have been a flash point for some.

BLM - for the most part - has done GOOD in bringing attention to issues in the Black Community. While I certainly don't condone any violent phraseology I look at them with admiration.

They are needed. As long as I stay Black and have 2 Black sons they are needed.

I also look at Law Enforcement in this country with admiration. They wear uniforms just as I did for 20+ years.

They too - are needed.

The bottom line here is that some folks came to Charlotte this weekend to protest the pending removal of this statue and they - for the most part - came ready for violence.

And - as I've stated before - it MUST come down. The statue.
Marcus Smart "Impacts Winning." Boston Celtics Coach Brad Stevens

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #2427 on: August 13, 2017, 09:37:36 AM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2812
  • Tommy Points: 282
On a personal level, Lee was against slavery (although there is debate about whether or not he found African-Americans inferior to caucasians- he probably did). He actually freed all of his slaves before the Civil War ended, in 1862. (Once again, there is debate about this. Lee inherited the slaves from his father in 1957, and the will instructed Lee to release the slaves in no less than 5 years. Indeed, Lee waited the full 5 years.) While this is not seen as admirable by some, it's worth noting that Ulysses S. Grant, the Union general, kept all of his slaves until the 13th Amendment forced him to free them. (The Emancipation Proclamation was a symbolic gesture meant to win over border states. It said that any slave in Confederate soil would be freed under the eventually-victorious United States.) Lee struggled mightily with slavery, as so many Founding Fathers and Civil War era leaders, Union or not, did. Even Lincoln thought it necessary that blacks should live separately from whites. In the end, Lee held a common, albeit not morally-upstanding, belief that slavery was wrong yet it was a necessary evil that would not go away in his lifetime. (Once again, even Lincoln was not a pure abolitionist. He campaigned on the idea of no further expansion of slavery, which was life-or-death to the South because they would lose seats in Congress as new, free states were added to the USA.) And yes, Lee was also probably of the belief that blacks were different from, if not inferior to, whites. But, in the end, Lee was an honorable man who saved millions of lives with his actions. We just vilify him because of what side he fought for.
What is a pure abolitionist?  You didn't have to believe blacks and whites were equal to be an abolitionists.  Blacks could be God's creatures and still be inferior.  Blacks could be inferior and still need to be protected from the horrific practice of slavery.  The number of people who actually believed blacks and whites were equal would have been quite low at that time whether in the South, North, England, etc.  The distant past should be judged by the past not by modern standards and sensibilities. 

I think we've gone off the deep end in modern times.  Everything has got to be to the extremes.  Got to call things racist.  Can't just be prejudice, bias, ignorance, etc.  Lee was almost certainly the latter three but doubtful that he was a racist. 

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #2428 on: August 13, 2017, 10:05:41 AM »

Online rondohondo

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10445
  • Tommy Points: 1068
While I think any racist is filth, the white supremacists didn't cause this.

They were issued a permit , which the ACLU had to fight to get them.

BLM and Antifa were issued no such permit, staging an illegal protest. Using homemade fire throwers, mace, bottles filled with rocks, throwing them at Military vets.

Notice how the media mentions White supremacists vs Counter protesters, instead of naming Antifa and BLM,  who have caused violence and are surpressing free speech all over the country.

Again I don't condone racism or violence, but BLM and Antifa had no right to be holding a protest without a permit.

Just my 2 cents

If BLM was doing as you have alleged then not only were THEY wrong BUT also the supposed "Military Vets" that were present.

Was this at a demonstration? When? Where? I'd personally be ASHAMED of ANY of my fellow service members that were present in such a demonstration.

NO ONE is free from Hate / Bigotry. NO ONE. But the bottom line is that in THIS COUNTRY over the last few years these Confederate monuments have been a flash point for some.

BLM - for the most part - has done GOOD in bringing attention to issues in the Black Community. While I certainly don't condone any violent phraseology I look at them with admiration.

They are needed. As long as I stay Black and have 2 Black sons they are needed.

I also look at Law Enforcement in this country with admiration. They wear uniforms just as I did for 20+ years.

They too - are needed.

The bottom line here is that some folks came to Charlotte this weekend to protest the pending removal of this statue and they - for the most part - came ready for violence.

And - as I've stated before - it MUST come down. The statue.

I don't think BLM that deserves to be look at with addoration


They are the antithesis of what MLK preached.

This is a radical group, who are bringing in other far left elements

From the founder
Quote
During her speech at the 2015 Left Forum, Garza voiced her antipathy toward capitalism, declaring, Its not possible for a world to emerge where black lives matter if its under capitalism. And its not possible to abolish capitalism without a struggle against national oppression and gender oppression.

On blacklivesmatter.com she states that, The legacy and prevalence of anti-Black racism and hetero-patriarchy is a lynch pin holding together this unsustainable economy.




It's a radical socialist group, same as Antifa , funded by Nazi Collaborator George Soros to cause race riots in the United States.

Don't just follow something without doing research because it is supposed to be for the benefit of black folks.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 10:14:36 AM by rondohondo »

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #2429 on: August 13, 2017, 10:17:50 AM »

Online rondohondo

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10445
  • Tommy Points: 1068
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPWO3hnDolk&t=4s

Divide and conquer in full effect.

Sad
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 10:26:34 AM by rondohondo »