[coralway]

Originally Posted by Michael G.

Whatever side your on, one question I always wondered about.

If people insist on confederate statues being removed for whatever reason,
who is paying for the machinery and man power to remove them??

Can you say "the tax payers".

If these groups insist on removeable, let them collect the funds to pay the removal.

Who pays? The same folks who paid a couple hundred million dollars so a government official could play golf every weekend.

[Laker14]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Lincoln was a racist too. Wasn't he involved in the creation of Liberia, consisting of an experiment in exporting slaves/former slaves to Africa? Guess we had better tear down monuments honoring him. Washington had slaves so tear down the Washington Monument. Better yet, every man is flawed so let's remove any reminders to anything that is not showing America favorably.

But neither Lincoln, nor Washington fought in a war against the US, for the purpose of persevering the institution of slavery.
The Confederates who are honored with statues would unlikely be known at all to us were it not for their part in a war fought to preserve human slavery.

[Laker14]

Originally Posted by Michael G.

Whatever side your on, one question I always wondered about.

If people insist on confederate statues being removed for whatever reason,
who is paying for the machinery and man power to remove them??

Can you say "the tax payers".

If these groups insist on removeable, let them collect the funds to pay the removal.

And if I don't agree with the dollars being spent on the US defense spending, and you do, then you can pay for it, and I get a free ride. You got a deal.

[Bay Kid]

Originally Posted by Laker14

But neither Lincoln, nor Washington fought in a war against the US, for the purpose of persevering the institution of slavery.
The Confederates who are honored with statues would unlikely be known at all to us were it not for their part in a war fought to preserve human slavery.

Taxation

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by DAVES

Where we are today. National debt is now 30 Trillion dollars. I seem to be one of the only who realize I do not comprehend one trillion let alone 30 of them. We chat about billions. Hey a million here a million there get 100 million together before another 100 million and oops we have one trillion. No need to ask if an expense is worth while we are not even actually printing it. Most of the debt is just computer notes. No one is even asking you owe us half a trillion we owe you a trillion so REALITY we owe you not a trillion but half a trillion.

I think that these measurements are a bit off but you get get a good idea of how much a trillion is.

I was told that a stack of $100 bills equalling one million dollars is about a foot high. (It may be a bit less.)

A stack of $100 dollar bills equalling a billion dollars would be taller than the Empire State Building.

A trillion dollars would be represented by one thousand stacks of $100 the height of the Empire State building.

Picture an island of one thousand stacks of $100 bills the height of the Empire State building.

Now picture 30 of those islands.

It's still a bit difficult to get the idea of more than a billion in your head. But it's a lot of money.

[Lottoguy]

It's still much cheaper then 450+ holes of golf which includes helicopter rides and security for dozens.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by Laker14

But neither Lincoln, nor Washington fought in a war against the US, for the purpose of persevering the institution of slavery.
The Confederates who are honored with statues would unlikely be known at all to us were it not for their part in a war fought to preserve human slavery.

So, just to clarify a statue of a slave owner is OK, but a statue of a Soldier that may not even have had a slave has to be removed? So, everyone else on here is talking slave ownership (which some documentation suggests was by a black man FIRST in the U.S.) and you say the idea is to tear down what you deem to be are "traitor" statues? I don't think that is the consensus.

[Byte1]

So, the idea is that we should tear down, remove, eliminate all references to anything in history that shows unfavorable on our country. That way, no one will ever know our blemished history. We should not have any reminders, so that when a few years or decades down the road, there will be questions without answers. Slavery never existed and the Civil War never happened. When are we going to rid ourselves of those nasty reminders in D.C. like the Vietnam Veterans wall, or the WWII memorial, etc. After all, American soldiers killed a lot of Asians and Europeans in our violent history.
History=bad
WOK = good

[jdulej]

Originally Posted by Byte1

So, the idea is that we should tear down, remove, eliminate all references to anything in history that shows unfavorable on our country. That way, no one will ever know our blemished history. We should not have any reminders, so that when a few years or decades down the road, there will be questions without answers. Slavery never existed and the Civil War never happened. When are we going to rid ourselves of those nasty reminders in D.C. like the Vietnam Veterans wall, or the WWII memorial, etc. After all, American soldiers killed a lot of Asians and Europeans in our violent history.
History=bad
WOK = good

That's not what I think. IMO, if someone or some group wants to honor a traitor, they should show that person in an appropriate pose such as bowing his/her head in shame or something like that. This thread morphed into a debate over who was nicer or did more bad things. To me, the point was - why would we honor a traitor? Simple as that. Does not matter how nice or mean they were.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by jdulej

That's not what I think. IMO, if someone or some group wants to honor a traitor, they should show that person in an appropriate pose such as bowing his/her head in shame or something like that. This thread morphed into a debate over who was nicer or did more bad things. To me, the point was - why would we honor a traitor? Simple as that. Does not matter how nice or mean they were.

You believe that the soldier was a traitor and many believe they were/are memorializing an American soldier, regardless of his state that he was defending. And yes, many were just defending their state when they were fighting. If they would have run up North and fought for the Union, then their families would have been punished by their own neighbors and their land would have been seized. Of course, the North DID seize their land and in many cases gave it to the freed slaves. That is just one way to look at it. I used to think of the Southern soldiers as traitors, but have "evolved" in my view. Now, I look at them as my countrymen that were put in unfortunate circumstances and were STILL loyal to their state and what would eventually be their version of country.
Not to change the subject but Floyd was a career criminal and he died. Now, he is memorialized with a statue honoring him. For what? Perhaps as a reminder that he was forgiven by the people and remembered as a criminal that died during an altercation with the police? Was he a traitor? Was he remembered as a criminal with the statue?
The statues were landmarks. The statues were a reminder of what our country had to suffer through in its growing stage. The statues were a reminder of how patriotic or loyal our fellow countrymen are, even if possibly misled. Remember, many think that Vietnam involvement was wrong, even to the point of ostracizing our Vets upon their return.
In war we do not hate the enemy. Many of us respect their bravery when they fight us, considering the overwhelming odds of them beating us.
Just my two cents. I am not insulted by Confederate statues. I am not shamed by them. I am not insulted by statues of Columbus or Indigenous natives of America. I think a statue of Floyd is ironic and ridiculous, but that is what the people of that city wished and that is what they got.

[jdulej]

Originally Posted by Byte1

You believe that the soldier was a traitor and many believe they were/are memorializing an American soldier, regardless of his state that he was defending. And yes, many were just defending their state when they were fighting. If they would have run up North and fought for the Union, then their families would have been punished by their own neighbors and their land would have been seized. Of course, the North DID seize their land and in many cases gave it to the freed slaves. That is just one way to look at it. I used to think of the Southern soldiers as traitors, but have "evolved" in my view. Now, I look at them as my countrymen that were put in unfortunate circumstances and were STILL loyal to their state and what would eventually be their version of country.
Not to change the subject but Floyd was a career criminal and he died. Now, he is memorialized with a statue honoring him. For what? Perhaps as a reminder that he was forgiven by the people and remembered as a criminal that died during an altercation with the police? Was he a traitor? Was he remembered as a criminal with the statue?
The statues were landmarks. The statues were a reminder of what our country had to suffer through in its growing stage. The statues were a reminder of how patriotic or loyal our fellow countrymen are, even if possibly misled. Remember, many think that Vietnam involvement was wrong, even to the point of ostracizing our Vets upon their return.
In war we do not hate the enemy. Many of us respect their bravery when they fight us, considering the overwhelming odds of them beating us.
Just my two cents. I am not insulted by Confederate statues. I am not shamed by them. I am not insulted by statues of Columbus or Indigenous natives of America. I think a statue of Floyd is ironic and ridiculous, but that is what the people of that city wished and that is what they got.

Sorry, this thread has gone on for so long that we are repeating ourselves. I posted this several hundred (it seems) post ago - to me the only traitors are the leaders of the traitorous event - not solders, or workers. Again, to repeat, you can blame Floyd's killers for making him a martyr, not Floyd, who would have continued to be a US citizen/petty criminal were it not for that act.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by Byte1

So, the idea is that we should tear down, remove, eliminate all references to anything in history that shows unfavorable on our country. That way, no one will ever know our blemished history. We should not have any reminders, so that when a few years or decades down the road, there will be questions without answers. Slavery never existed and the Civil War never happened. When are we going to rid ourselves of those nasty reminders in D.C. like the Vietnam Veterans wall, or the WWII memorial, etc. After all, American soldiers killed a lot of Asians and Europeans in our violent history.
History=bad
WOK = good

I see nothing to support your comment. The statues are of traitors. If you want statues on your property, then erect one. Nothing stopping you. No one is saying we should not teach about traitors, but what I see is people here honoring traitors, and even denying they were traitors. That is certainly rewriting history.

See any NAZI flags in Germany? See any statues of Hitler? See any statues of Saddam Husain.

I firmly believe we should accurately teach our children about our history, both the good and the bad. As a vet I am totally opposed to honoring anyone that that’s up arm against our country.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan

I see nothing to support your comment. The statues are of traitors. If you want statues on your property, then erect one. Nothing stopping you. No one is saying we should not teach about traitors, but what I see is people here honoring traitors, and even denying they were traitors. That is certainly rewriting history.

See any NAZI flags in Germany? See any statues of Hitler? See any statues of Saddam Husain.

I firmly believe we should accurately teach our children about our history, both the good and the bad. As a vet I am totally opposed to honoring anyone that that’s up arm against our country.

The US Government did not consider them to be traitors...

No matter how many times you repeat yourself...

[Ben Franklin]

I have to laugh at those who are upset that taxpayers are paying to remove statues of American traitors. How much did it cost taxpayers to design, create, and put up those statues in the first place? SMH.

Slavery is a hateful, arrogant, dehumanizing and disgusting belief system.

[jdulej]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

The US Government did not consider them to be traitors...

No matter how many times you repeat yourself...

Huh. I thought they were pardoned rather than punished for their actions. If they were not traitors, why pardon them? Just drop whatever charges there were. I think the administration at the time held their noses and pardoned everyone for the sake of bringing the issue to an end - which didn't work too well given this thread.