did the university that Trump attended not have public speaking? What the hell is he talking about? This guy is a complete buffoon. Totally fumbled the ball on the issue in Virginia and how many times can he call people a star? Ugh. What a self promoter give him a minute and he will take time to say how great he is what a disaster
Watching the Trump press Confernce
- Thread starter sammyk
- Start date
Sammy, it's an interesting commentary from one who can't even put together a sentence most of the time. Be careful.
Why is Trump more of a prick to a guy who was tortured for years while serving his country than he is to these Nazi pricks?
Unfortunately, even the media….like this board….is swept up in Trump’s reaction rather than the tragedy of the event and why these things happen in our country.
I watch CNN, Fox….et al and am disappointed to say even Fox prioritizes this with the caveat of getting people of varied views rather than one-way diatribes from panels of Dems and Leftists who agree with each other that more often than not typifies the liberal media. You see the result of this one-way brain wash on this very board.
I watch CNN, Fox….et al and am disappointed to say even Fox prioritizes this with the caveat of getting people of varied views rather than one-way diatribes from panels of Dems and Leftists who agree with each other that more often than not typifies the liberal media. You see the result of this one-way brain wash on this very board.
Did you watch today's shit show? The POTUS saying the white supremacist were treated very badly? The POTUS comparing George Washington to Robert E. Lee?
Ignore the above post. It's just another example of a low intelligence individual taking something out of context, either intentionally or for political purposes. The low intelligence level is not up for debate, but, in this case, I suspect that he saw a video clip on the news or YouTube without having seen the bulk of the press conference.
RTC- it is a very slippery slope when dealing with history. Washington and Jefferson were slave owners and Washington was a very wealthy plantation owner. To some they may represent the building of America on the backs of the black man. Would they be wrong?
Here's a more recent example. There was a group that wanted to take Woodrow Wilson's name off of some buildings on the Princeton campus. Apparently Wilson's policies were deemed to be racial because they blocked the upward progress of the blacks in government. Mind you, at the time, they were totally legal and above board. But dimmed by time they appear to be of a bigoted nature. Are they wrong? Now you're talking about a man who was president of the university, a former president of the United States and the man who basically started the creation on the United Nations. How say you?? Taken out of context history can play mean tricks on you!!!
Now for the bigger question. What do you do with Stone Mountain, Georgia?? The South's Mount Rushmore!!
Great points Paul. As you know, some/most of the commentary on this board is from very shallow thought processes, if any, and is just reactionary, so your comments might not be fully understood.
What about infamous democrat, Robert Byrd, a former high-standing member of the Ku Klux Klan, who was a democratic senator until his death in 2010. So many buildings, highways, etc. bear his name. They need to be changed, in my opinion.
Just a note about Byrd. He was very active in the Klan as a young man. He said he left it in the early '50s and said in 1997 that joining the Klan was the biggest mistake he ever made.
That's what he said; it's not what he did. The guy was a liar and Bill Clinton praised him at his funeral in 2010. Disgraceful.
I have to agree with NJ on this point Tulla. If what you say is the case with Byrd, then why are the liberals allowed to go after Jeff Sessions for things he said decades ago. I am not a Sessions fan by any stretch, but you can't have it both ways.
I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.
— Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944[11][18]
Pretty harsh don't you think?? And in 1964, twenty years after that statement, he voted against the Civil Rights bill. But "he was a great American!!" -Bill Clinton. Come on!!!!
— Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944[11][18]
Pretty harsh don't you think?? And in 1964, twenty years after that statement, he voted against the Civil Rights bill. But "he was a great American!!" -Bill Clinton. Come on!!!!
Great points, Paul. It's typical democratic BS, and it gets believed without much thought. All they want is the issue. Many of these people do absolutely nothing for the minority community; it's just a talking point.
I'm not trying to make a great claim for Byrd or to agree with Bill Clinton's characterization. Clinton often went over the top in his rhetoric. All I was trying to do was point out that Byrd repudiated what he did and said in his 20's. It's true that the Democrats were split over the Civil Rights Bill of '64. Nearly all the Democrats who opposed it (e.g. Strom Thurmond) became Republicans. I frankly don't know a whole lot about Byrd, but since he remained a Democrat I am assuming his views continued to change over time. Certainly he voted in favor of extending the Voting Rights Act. One thing we can all agree on is that beginning with Nixon the Republicans developed and followed their "Southern Strategy." We might disagree on whether that strategy is partly what brought us to where we are today.
Getting a little off track from the original post. I'm going to say something that I know I'll catch heat for but what the hell.
On some points, I agree with Trump. The Alt-right has the right to assemble and speak. They got the permit (I understand they fudged on some of the rules of the permit such as entrance to the park) and the town knew it was coming. Now here is where I am going to be careful. The anti-protesters should never have been there. If I see a group getting ready for a meeting dressed in bulletproof vests and carrying weapons, I aint going anywhere near that park. If people did show up, they were looking for a fight and got one. My point is let them march. Just don't go. If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? If no one is there to listen, who the hell cares what they say. That small percentage of people is not enough to change the city's decision for the removal of a statue. The constitution is a very broad document and it goes back to one of the original arguments. I may not like what you have to say but I'll defend your right to say it. Tough to swallow but 'dems da rules!!
On some points, I agree with Trump. The Alt-right has the right to assemble and speak. They got the permit (I understand they fudged on some of the rules of the permit such as entrance to the park) and the town knew it was coming. Now here is where I am going to be careful. The anti-protesters should never have been there. If I see a group getting ready for a meeting dressed in bulletproof vests and carrying weapons, I aint going anywhere near that park. If people did show up, they were looking for a fight and got one. My point is let them march. Just don't go. If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? If no one is there to listen, who the hell cares what they say. That small percentage of people is not enough to change the city's decision for the removal of a statue. The constitution is a very broad document and it goes back to one of the original arguments. I may not like what you have to say but I'll defend your right to say it. Tough to swallow but 'dems da rules!!
Paul, The people who carried the torches on Friday night were looking for a confrontation. That's one reason they didn't just assemble at the statue but organized a march to it. And it seems clear that the great majority of the relatively small number of people who were part of the counter protest--did the clergy and other counter-protesters need a permit to stand on the sidewalk either in silence or by chanting counter slogans?--were not seeking a fight. So the question is whether people who live in a city should just ignore a large number of people marching through their streets chanting "Jews will not replace us," "Blood and Soil," "The Streets Belong to Us," etc. A strong case could be made that there is a moral obligation to protest against that. What do you think the Brothers at LaSalle would have advised--ignore the march or show that you oppose the messages being rather aggressively conveyed?
I'm not blind to the fact that there were organized groups of counter-protesters who were keen to use violence in opposition. But for reasons I could elaborate on I don't think the "sides" were equally culpable for what happened.
Great points Stalker. Notice that not one of the questions about antifa has been answered by any democrats on this board. And no left-media investigations have taken place.
And, as stated earlier, THIS IS NOTHING COMPARED TO THE THEFT OF $100 BILLION BY INCAPABAMA. Sadly, not one democrat on this board knew that it even happened until they read it here. Yet, they still can't compute that the media is lying/hiding things from them every day. Incomprehensible.
Come on Tulla, don't bring the good brothers into it. I call separation of Church and State.
I totally agree the sides were not equally culpable but (I hate to say it), the people who live in that city have no right to do anything but accept the march. Or go to the city council to try and block it. They have the right to shout them down, but isn't that like poking a bear. The constitution gives the Alt-Right those rights to march and speak. As much as that goes against my grain, I have to live with it.
Just another point. How screwed up are the gun laws in this country that a big group of guys can walk down the street with AK-47s out in the open?
Separation of church and state doesn't mean we can park our consciences when we're off church property.. When the Nazis were a small fringe group in the '20s in Germany wouldn't it have been better if more people hadn't turned away? I am not saying America in 2017 is very like Germany in the mid and late 1920s but it's not entirely different either.
I agree about our ridiculous gun laws.
I agree with all you say but with the laws in this country, what would you have "The People" do? They could sponsor counter rallys but that can't shut the Neos up from what they want to say.
You agree with the ridiculous gun laws?? "Splain that one to me Lucy!"
I agreed that gun laws that allow a group of guys to walk down the street displaying AK47s are screwed up. It makes no difference to me whether they are neo-Nazis or antifa people.
Late to the game. Washington and Jefferson were slave owners. A sign of the times. Robert E. Lee was a traitor. That's never in fashion.
RTC-taken out of context, a lot of things seem wrong. You let Washington and Jefferson off the hook rather easily by saying "A sign of the times." Place yourself in 1860 when the Federal Government is going to take your economy away from you. And remember, up until that point, you were dealing with individual states for the most part, not The United States of America. And these guys from Washington want to tell you to abandon the practice of slavery, which will most certainly kill your economy. In context, was it wrong for them to try and succeed? Tough question. Not as black and white as you put it. It is history and you can't change it. Who would have been the villain if the South had won? Remember, the winner gets to write the history!!
Last edited:
There's a key distinction between W
Paul, The best response to your point may be this article by a history prof from Vanderbilt who wrote biographies of Jefferson and Jackson: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/...-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0
Really worth a read, whether you like or hate the NYT. Also, your reference to "Washington" seems more a reflection of the present than of the Civil War Era. From my reading I think most Union soldiers didn't think they were fighting for Washington or the federal government but for the Union and all that it represented.
The article was very interesting and made some very, very good points. I understand about the need to keep the Union together but when the Federal Gov't is going to take my livelihood away and all I've ever known, as they were doing to the South (remember, keep it in context) I'm going to fight them. Hindsight is 20/20 but at that time in history things looked different to the participants. We can have this conversation aided by the passage of time but when it's right outside your window........!! Plus the author uses Jackson as an example. Now he's using Andrew Jackson as a champion?? The only President to actually practice genocide!!! How about taking down his statue in front of the White House!!
Last edited: