Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
The Attic
Removal of historic statues, ar what point do we say "enough is enough."
Page <<first <prev 7 of 7
Aug 17, 2017 20:56:43   #
user47602 Loc: ip 304.0.0.33.32
 
Twardlow wrote:
I think you confuse McCellan with Grant.
you are correct, McClellan was just the opposite...

"Although McClellan was meticulous in his planning and pr********ns, these very characteristics hampered his ability to challenge aggressive opponents in a fast-moving battlefield environment. He chronically overestimated the strength of enemy units and was reluctant to apply principles of mass, frequently leaving large portions of his army unengaged at decisive points."

Reply
Aug 17, 2017 21:07:06   #
ken hubert Loc: Missouri
 
Texcaster wrote:
The South only declared they were no longer part of the Union. Hell, anybody can say that, it has to be proven, that's where the South came unstuck.



"Yankees In Georgia?!?!?!" Miss Pitty Pat


You mean they didn’t win!
Funny meme, by the way.

Reply
Aug 17, 2017 21:19:10   #
papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach
 
I am the original poster of this topic and I think most of you have lost what my question was. If we allow the removal of monuments that have been with us for more than 100 years because someone or group now finds them offensive, when do we say no? What happens next year if a group says, "Washington was a s***e owner so monuments to him must go." What do we say then? Please don't say, "ain't gona' happen" because someone may find it offensive. This is not about s***ery, the Cival War or who you may think was a t*****r. This is about political correctness raising its ugly head once again. Someone will always find something offensive to them or their group. This would be different if these monuments were recently erected but some have been around for more than 150 years. Why now? Let's draw the line now before it because too late.

Reply
 
 
Aug 17, 2017 21:25:39   #
user47602 Loc: ip 304.0.0.33.32
 
papakatz45 wrote:
I am the original poster of this topic and I think most of you have lost what my question was. If we allow the removal of monuments that have been with us for more than 100 years because someone or group now finds them offensive, when do we say no? What happens next year if a group says, "Washington was a s***e owner so monuments to him must go." What do we say then? Please don't say, "ain't gona' happen" because someone may find it offensive. This is not about s***ery, the Cival War or who you may think was a t*****r. This is about political correctness raising its ugly head once again. Someone will always find something offensive to them or their group. This would be different if these monuments were recently erected but some have been around for more than 150 years. Why now? Let's draw the line now before it because too late.
I am the original poster of this topic and I think... (show quote)
your argument is crazy? there is nobody that is opposed to Washington's various monuments. The civil war was a contentious time... I would like you to name one other LOSING side that got to erect monuments to its war heroes on the winner's soil.

Reply
Aug 17, 2017 21:26:48   #
phcaan Loc: Willow Springs, MO
 
papakatz45 wrote:
I am the original poster of this topic and I think most of you have lost what my question was. If we allow the removal of monuments that have been with us for more than 100 years because someone or group now finds them offensive, when do we say no? What happens next year if a group says, "Washington was a s***e owner so monuments to him must go." What do we say then? Please don't say, "ain't gona' happen" because someone may find it offensive. This is not about s***ery, the Cival War or who you may think was a t*****r. This is about political correctness raising its ugly head once again. Someone will always find something offensive to them or their group. This would be different if these monuments were recently erected but some have been around for more than 150 years. Why now? Let's draw the line now before it because too late.
I am the original poster of this topic and I think... (show quote)

The fact of the matter is that those on the left who want to erase America's past and destroy our culture are not the majority in this country, they are the loudest, most destructive, and h**eful.
I feel that the more radical they become in their demands, the more determined the rest of the country will be to show their resistance to this in their v**e. The left will again get spanked in 2018, and then they will really be desperate.

Reply
Aug 17, 2017 21:27:34   #
Texcaster Loc: Queensland
 
papakatz45: Seven pages of well reasoned argument and erection timelines and you still don't get it.

Reply
Aug 17, 2017 21:35:59   #
user47602 Loc: ip 304.0.0.33.32
 
papakatz45 wrote:
I am the original poster of this topic and I think most of you have lost what my question was. If we allow the removal of monuments that have been with us for more than 100 years because someone or group now finds them offensive, when do we say no? What happens next year if a group says, "Washington was a s***e owner so monuments to him must go." What do we say then? Please don't say, "ain't gona' happen" because someone may find it offensive. This is not about s***ery, the Cival War or who you may think was a t*****r. This is about political correctness raising its ugly head once again. Someone will always find something offensive to them or their group. This would be different if these monuments were recently erected but some have been around for more than 150 years. Why now? Let's draw the line now before it because too late.
I am the original poster of this topic and I think... (show quote)
they have been recently erected... here's a good article on the subject.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/aug/15/joy-reid/did-confederate-symbols-gain-prominence-civil-righ/


Reply
 
 
Aug 17, 2017 23:04:53   #
papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach
 
user47602 wrote:
your argument is crazy? there is nobody that is opposed to Washington's various monuments. The civil war was a contentious time... I would like you to name one other LOSING side that got to erect monuments to its war heroes on the winner's soil.


As far as you or I know there is no one opposed to Washing's monuments today but what if a group tomorrow says, "You know what, we don't like Washington for being a s***e owner. Take them down!" You cannot definitively say it can't happen. This is not about the Cival War. Why did this become an issue after so many years? Martin Luther King, probably the biggest champion for Cival rights, did not have a problem with these monuments as far as I can find. This is political correctness again. Okay, how about if we let each community v**e on the issue as it applies to them? I don't mean leave it up to a few in charge such as the town council but put it on a general referendum for all the v**ers to decide. Black, white, red, yellow or green, the community sets its standards with majority rule. Sounds fair to me.

Reply
Aug 17, 2017 23:06:33   #
papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach
 
user47602 wrote:
they have been recently erected... here's a good article on the subject.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/aug/15/joy-reid/did-confederate-symbols-gain-prominence-civil-righ/



Some have been recently erected but most have been in place many years.

Reply
Aug 17, 2017 23:19:54   #
papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach
 
Texcaster wrote:
papakatz45: Seven pages of well reasoned argument and erection timelines and you still don't get it.


Based on your statement, you did not understand my original post. I am not saying Washington or Jefferson were the same as the reason for the Cival War. I am not saying monuments to them should come down. On the contrary, I am saying you either must apply the same standard or draw a line and say Enough. You cannot definitively say with any certainty that next year someone will not make the s***ery argument against Washington. (I do not) What happens then? If that were to happen, what would be your response? In my opinion this has become more about political correctness than anything.

Reply
Aug 17, 2017 23:29:25   #
letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.
 
papakatz45 wrote:
Based on your statement, you did not understand my original post. I am not saying Washington or Jefferson were the same as the reason for the Cival War. I am not saying monuments to them should come down. On the contrary, I am saying you either must apply the same standard or draw a line and say Enough. You cannot definitively say with any certainty that next year someone will not make the s***ery argument against Washington. (I do not) What happens then? If that were to happen, what would be your response? In my opinion this has become more about political correctness than anything.
Based on your statement, you did not understand my... (show quote)


SLIPPERY SLOPE👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽

Reply
 
 
Aug 18, 2017 00:13:13   #
mwalsh Loc: Houston
 
letmedance wrote:
HUDS


LoL

Reply
Aug 19, 2017 19:47:25   #
papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach
 
Texcaster wrote:
papakatz45: Seven pages of well reasoned argument and erection timelines and you still don't get it.


You obviously do not understand my original posted question.

Reply
Aug 19, 2017 20:30:09   #
Texcaster Loc: Queensland
 
papakatz45 wrote:
You obviously do not understand my original posted question.


We disagree, move on.

Reply
Aug 20, 2017 00:24:51   #
ken hubert Loc: Missouri
 
Texcaster wrote:
We disagree, move on.


In other words, you have nothing to support your mouth, so you want to run away. Got it!

Reply
Page <<first <prev 7 of 7
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
The Attic
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.