Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Discussions (FreeMichigan.com)' started by Luv2hunteup, Aug 12, 2017.
Hope no one gets an audience at the white house .
When two idiotic forces meet.....this is the result. We are lucky that it didn't turn into a real disaster.
It was stupid to decide to remove that statue in the first place, it ignores history and doesn't change the past in any way. A past that we cannot and should not ignore. No shame in remembering or putting on display statues of the era. This was an old statue anyway, besides R. E. Lee, the confederate, & his-their army were defeated! .....so what is the problem?
But lets be honest, that is not why those people were there, to protest this statue's removal, no matter what they say! And the "anti-protesters" were a bunch of idiotic morons too only there to instigate a conflict and feed into the hands of the original protesters, and cause trouble the same as the others who are not at all upstanding citizens of our country and it's beliefs......neither of these groups deserve the press they were given.
Very well said .
All this because they took down a second place trophy?
No way should those statues be taken down just as this violence on both sides is ridiculous. History is just what it is. HISTORY. maybe I don't understand the feeling behind this but symbolism certainly is no reason for someone to die. Now law enforcement needs to end this. Breaking the law needs to met with arrest.
Why are some of the alt-right protesters using the Detroit Red Wings logo on their shields?
Red Wings decry use of logo at white nationalist rally
"These are radical islamic terrorists and she won't even mention the word, and nor will President Obama. He won't use the term ‘radical Islamic terrorism...Now, to solve a problem, you have to be able to state what the problem is or at least say the name. She won't say the name and President Obama won't say the name. But the name is there. It's radical Islamic terror."
Yet there are many sides to an alt right terrorist running his car into a crowd of people who do not share his ideology. Now the extreme divisiveness predates Trump and Obama.
Congratulations to President Trump, I hope he has turned a page here with his rhetoric. He actually DID NOT blame Obama for the racism and hatred that this event erupted from.
Much is being made about him not directly denouncing the white supremacists & nazi's, which is a huge distraction from the big picture.
Those nazi & white supremacist idiots had a right to organize a "protest", as ill intended as it was. And all those black lives matter people who's signs should say ALL lives matter, are no better. They showed up to confront these people and no way was it going to be peaceful. They harbor their own brand of hate and divisiveness, they are part of the problem as well.
There is an alternative view to that as expressed in post #7: “No way should those statues be taken down just as this violence on both sides is ridiculous. History is just what it is. HISTORY."
Let me voice it.
These statues are NOT ‘historical’. They are not 'history'.
All of them were created and placed well after the war. Statues of Lee, of Forrest, of Davis, et al, were put in locations of honor to be viewed as memorials, to celebrate the fake nobility of a lost cause.
That was wrongheaded then, it is wrongheaded today. Their installations were an attempt to shape the memory of the war, paper over the ‘slavery’ cause of the war, and sidestep the very real violence white southerners used to end Reconstruction.
As such, they now serve as a misguided glorification of an illegal rebellion, of treason, and most fraught for us today, as icons of a white supremacy that attempts to validate blatant racism.
As such they should be removed. Put in a ‘Confederate Historical Museum’, dismantled, sold, it makes no matter. But they should not be publicly displayed in places of honor.
"American" heroes of the Civil War were Lincoln, Douglass, Grant, Stanton, Sherman, Custer, Joshua Chamberlain, among many many others. They were not Lee or Davis or Forrest.
It has been noted that over the last few years people on the left have had many violent protests with assaults, burning cars and buildings, looting, etc. etc. No problem, they were just venting their frustrations. Very few counter protesters inciting violence.
In this case people on the right - far right have a protest and an about equal number of leftist counter protesters who have a history of using violence show up, violence ensues, and it is blamed on the right.
Free speech, equal opportunity to assemble or seek redress, equal protection under the law? All out the window. A very double standard by the various levels of government in charge, and by the media instructing Americans as to just what is right and wrong.
It looked like both sides were looking for a fight, unless the guy spraying flames at the American flag always carries an accelerant. At this point, what does it matter? Virginia can keep them all.
Lets compare the riots in Virginia - to the LA riots, Detroit riots, Ferguson, Baltimore...etc... and start drawing comparisons.....anybody?????
Remember, That Famous Voltaire “Quote” About Free Speech Was Written By a Woman
I will defend to the death your right to be properly cited.
by Victoria McNally
The importance of free speech has been a salient and frequent talking point in the cultural zeitgeist for the last few months, so it’s more than likely that you’ve seen somebody tweet or update their Facebook status with the iconic phrase, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” But do you know where that line actually comes from? Because it sure as hell wasn’t Voltaire.
While the “defend to the death” quote properly summarizes the political beliefs of the French enlightenment thinker and 18th century writer to which they are so often misattributed, the words themselves were never said by him—they were said about him, in a 1906 biography called The Friends of Voltaire. English writer Beatrice Evelyn Hall published the book under a pseudonym, S. G. Tallentyre, and intended for the line to be a reflection of Voltaire’s attitude towards Claude Adrien Helvétius, another French philosopher, who wrote a book which was being burned at that time.
But because she wrote this line in first person, people mistook it for something Voltaire said himself, because despite how much we complain about the Internet, humanity as a species has always been surprisingly terrible at reading comprehension. (The fact that the earlier omelette line had been attributed to Voltaire in an earlier 1881 book by James Parton, The Life of Voltaire, probably didn’t help matters.)
It’s also possible Hall was inspired by a different quote attributed to Voltaire in a 1770 letter which said, “I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.” Even that quote, however, is hotly debated by scholars. Either way, The Friends of Voltaire wasn’t the only time she used the line—she also recycled it in her 1919 Voltaire in His Letters.
So the next time you see someone using that particular quote, kindly remind them Voltaire wrote a great many influential things, but definitely not that. And if you want to quote Voltaire on free speech, here’s something that he did write once, in his 1763 Treatise on Toleration: “The supposed right of intolerance is absurd and barbaric. It is the right of the tiger; nay, it is far worse, for tigers do but tear in order to have food, while we rend each other for paragraphs.” That’s something probably everybody on the Internet could stand to think about, ourselves included.