America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,026 comments
  • 1,698,629 views
This attempt by Trump to be Hitler is not going particularly well...

And 2017 is very different to...what?, 1930-something. Your point?

We can all see the man has flaws & issues, and I believe we'd find the same thing would be true of Hillary had things turned-out differently. But if you don't like the guy, why not just say it with a straight face?, why beat around the bush with a hard-on for hitler?

Disclaimer* I hardly ever spend time in this section of the forums, but plans falling-out left me with some extra freetime this week, so I'm just here with a bag of popcorn and a folding-chair... don't make me go find the .gif haha. :lol:
 
Is there a moral equivalence between right wing protesters and left wing counter-protesters when both practice violence?

Or, if one side has the right of it and the other the wrong, is law-breaking and violence thereby justified?

If the right wingers accidentally started a fire which killed everybody on both sides, could we agree that would be unjustified?

But if the left wingers accidentally started a fire in which both sides were consumed, would that be forgivable on the grounds that it was in a good cause?
 
BS they went there with no permit to counter protest and start crap.
Fake news.
As far as the monuments, they should be left alone.
The left knows they are going to piss people off removing them.
The right knew they were going to piss people off by putting them up in the first place, and they know they are going to piss people off by keeping them up.
As I always say, open your eyes and stop being sheep. They want us to kill each other and the best way to start is removing history.
I suppose you have a point, if the "they" you're referring to are the leaders of the alt-right/white nationalists/supremacists:
Richard Spencer
Millenials are arising in a period when no one at that dinner table are connected to the second world war. That might seem meaningless but it is absolutely profound and meaningful. It means that they are able to get out from under this massive black cloud, this massive anvil of guilt that has been weighing down our people. This great black cloud that hangs over us called Hitler or Auschwitz or the Holocaust or what have you. We don't need to question the accuracy of the history. Because at the end of the day, facts don't matter.
 
DK
The right knew they were going to piss people off by putting them up in the first place, and they know they are going to piss people off by keeping them up.
To be fair, the statue was erected in 1924. I expect very few people at the time expected it to piss anyone off - then, as now, it's simply a statue of a historical figure, albeit one associated with some of the less savoury aspects of America's history.

The trouble is nobody consults the sensible people somewhere in the middle on these things. People on the far left see it as a monument to slavery and evil, and people on the far right, if the recent events are anything to go by, have taken it as an opportunity to campaign for white power.

The former are wrong, and the latter are cretins. Everyone else recognises that it's a statue of a historical and local figure and if it serves any purpose at all, it should be education - both historical, and as an example of why now is a better time to be a human being of any colour than it was back then.

Of course, people will now remember it for the avoidable death of a young woman whether the statue is there or not. So good job everyone, I guess.
 
To be fair, the statue was erected in 1924. I expect very few people at the time expected it to piss anyone off - then, as now, it's simply a statue of a historical figure, albeit one associated with some of the less savoury aspects of America's history.

The trouble is nobody consults the sensible people somewhere in the middle on these things. People on the far left see it as a monument to slavery and evil, and people on the far right, if the recent events are anything to go by, have taken it as an opportunity to campaign for white power.

The former are wrong, and the latter are cretins. Everyone else recognises that it's a statue of a historical and local figure and if it serves any purpose at all, it should be education - both historical, and as an example of why now is a better time to be a human being of any colour than it was back then.

Of course, people will now remember it for the avoidable death of a young woman whether the statue is there or not. So good job everyone, I guess.

We also have a statue of Lenin

https://www.geekwire.com/2017/time-...es-relics-place-wake-charlottesville-tragedy/

and Michael Jackson

michael-jackson-statue-inmiami-miami-fl-november-miami-was-pop-singer-dancer-selling-milions-discs-all-over-49626117.jpg


and Michael Jackson

mcdonalds1.jpg


People have gone after removal of Woodrow Wilson's name from buildings as well. It is actually kinda hard to see where "sanitizing history", as Condi Rice put it, stops.
 
Its kinda stupid to have statues up of people who committed treason to the US. Remember, the Confederate states and their leaders committed high treason against the country because their views differed. And remember, the time frame most of those statues were put up was when hate groups like the KKK had many members that had a lot of power (turn of the 20th century).

HOWEVER, I wholly agree that the erasing of history is beyond stupid its terrifying. What America needs to do though is STOP ROMANTICIZING THE CIVIL WAR. It was a blood bath, the Union fought the traitor Confederates, and the traitors lost, paying dearly for their crimes of high treason and suffering the consequences which followed the south far past the war itself. America should treat the history of the Confederates like Germany treats the Nazis; recognize them, allow their flag/symbols for research/historical context, but not for any other reason. Not erasing history, but taking horrendous events as important history to be learned, so that something like that never happens again, and making sure the generations to come understand exactly what happened and why and who was involved. Stupid statues aside (though, odd to have traitors gets statues). But don't ever erase history, because not only does it leave people ignorant, it can comeback to bite you right in the ***.

If anybody disagrees, fine, this is only my (rather worthless) opinion. Horrendous garbage has happened within the past week, and I just want everybody to bloody get along. It's 2017, we're in the 21st century, and its ridiculous that hate groups still exist and that we're still dealing with racists. It's disgusting. But killing each other over it thinking that that will resolve the matter is even more disgusting.
 
Yeah, sorry about the laziness. It just seemed to me that Americans might have more knowledge about the subject that they could call to hand more easily than I, a foreigner.
I figured it had something to do with revenue generation but wasnt sure of the details. :cheers:
 
But if the left wingers accidentally started a fire in which both sides were consumed, would that be forgivable on the grounds that it was in a good cause?

Depends if being Marxists that hate white people qualifies as a good cause.
 

Celebrations of Guido Fawkes are a faux thing really, 5th of November was the holy Thanksgiving day and early in the 20th century the parties that had evolved from that over centuries were furnished with newly-thought-of firework sales. Fawkes himself is still considered a villain except for that great British tradition of holding any party that the Church or Law Lords disapprove of.
 
Celebrations of Guido Fawkes are a faux thing really, 5th of November was the holy Thanksgiving day and early in the 20th century the parties that had evolved from that over centuries were furnished with newly-thought-of firework sales. Fawkes himself is still considered a villain except for that great British tradition of holding any party that the Church or Law Lords disapprove of.

Still, statue... treason...

History is what it is, a bit of historical decoration is not going to bring it back.
 
DK
Come back when it's some communist dick ploughing into crowds of peaceful counter-protesters, and there's moral equivocation BS going on.
Indeed, equivalating the counter-protesters with the white supremacists and the neo-nazis is misguided and absolutely vile.
And there's plenty out there wondering why Obama never denounced BLM, from defending it at the funeral for the 5 fallen Dallas officers to saying it's been, "really effective in bringing attention to problems".
Holy ****!
Ignoring that you're morally equating a movement that aims to improve the lives and security of black people to groups whose platform is hatred and racial superiority, why would Obama ever have denounced BLM? Why would anybody? BLM has never advocated for or condoned violence, and has denounced racially-motivated violence on multiple occasions. The BLM organization is far from perfect (some leaders can be obtuse and irritating, and small pockets within have caused trouble), but the principle cause is just and BLM is by far the most prominent anti-racism movement at this time.

Could any black-led anti-racism movement ever be up to your standards?
Is there a moral equivalence between right wing protesters and left wing counter-protesters when both practice violence?

Or, if one side has the right of it and the other the wrong, is law-breaking and violence thereby justified?
I imagine the answers to your question are always going to vary based on the specific example, in addition to differing perceptions and biases.

Was ANC violence against South Africa's apartheid regime justified? Is Tibetan separatist violence against Han Chinese property (to not even mention the people themselves) justified? Was the Hungarian uprising of 1956 justified?
 
Last edited:
Holy ****!
Ignoring that you're morally equating a movement that aims to improve the lives and security of black people to groups whose platform is hatred and racial superiority, why would Obama ever have denounced BLM? Why would anybody? BLM has never advocated for or condoned violence, and has denounced racially-motivated violence on multiple occasions. The BLM organization is far from perfect (some leaders can be obtuse and irritating, and small pockets within have caused trouble), but the principle cause is just and BLM is by far the most prominent anti-racism movement at this time.
When it first appeared, maybe that was the idea. However, somewhere, it was overrun by degenerates who took the protests as an excuse to vandalize & destroy property, multiple times, until the behavior became associated with them. Even in videos of them just protesting, they believe blocking roads & sidewalks is justified and when confronted by those who just want to pass by, they get defensive. That's not how you improve the lives and security of black people, that's how you create opposition. If someone wants to pass by on a public sidewalk to go to work, let them; it doesn't automatically mean they don't value your protest or they're racist.

During the Baltimore riots, the mayor was under attack for justifying the destruction:
With her city spiraling out of control, Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake has two problems: quelling the violence — and clarifying a controversial comment she made over the weekend before it erupted.

"I've made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech," Rawlings-Blake said Saturday as Baltimore roiled following the funeral of Freddie Gray, the black man who died in police custody April 19.

"It's a very delicate balancing act because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well, and we work very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate."
Could any black-led anti-racism movement ever be up to your standards?
This is my standard:
1f4a7fd3eb5b13ebe051931d1e91597e.jpg

26026_hd.jpg



Is this yours?


How about the demands they want? They seem pretty reasonable, but some of it is excessive . For example, asking for the removal of capital punishment? That's a good one, plenty of people have protested it. Asking for the removal of the bail system? That's a bit much; a better argument would be fighting what would be deemed excessive bail.

And.
An End To All Jails, Prisons, and Detention Facilities As We Know Them and the Establishment of Policies and Programs to Address the Current Oppressive Conditions Experienced by People Who Are Imprisoned
"We demand a world where those most impacted in our communities control the laws, institutions, and policies that are meant to serve us – from our schools to our local budgets, economies, police departments, and our land – while recognizing that the rights and histories of our Indigenous family must also be respected," the group states. It goes on to describe a completely community-controlled law enforcement, education system, and local government; thus, the end of all current local government structure. They also demand the end to all private education.
And of course, reparations.
The group demands that reparations be paid to all members of the black community, including the undocumented, by the "government, responsible corporations and other institutions that have profited off of the harm they have inflicted on Black people — from colonialism to slavery through food and housing redlining, mass incarceration, and surveillance." Some of the ways these reparations will be made is through "full and free access for all Black people (including undocumented and currently and formerly incarcerated people) to lifetime education" and giving a permanent "guaranteed minimum livable income for all Black people."
That is never going to happen, and it's not because whitey would like it, too.

An issue with some of these demands, such as capital punishment, is that they're being fought because they believe it's racist. Capital punishment has long been debated due to whether or not it's inhumane, not because it allows the govt. to bring lynching into the courtroom. This isn't the approach if they want the sympathy of those who want it abolished if they're only concerned for their own involved.

You can believe BLM is a prominent anti-racism movement all you want, but the fact is this: these people in charge who organize it are undoing the Civil Rights Movement that fought for ending racial segregation & discrimination. Much of what these people want are rooted back in becoming segregated by wanting to govern themselves with their own security, education, & benefits. And of course, the racial discrimination by ensuring these demands are met for Black people. Don't even think of questioning or asking for these same demands if you're white.



In other news, this happened earlier in the year, but is being brought up due to the recent events about how it may affect other statues.
3631071793_b424e30d4b_o.sized-770x415xc.jpg

The golden equestrian statue of St. Joan of Arc, the Maid of Orleans, stands on Decatur Street in New Orleans’ historic French Quarter. A gift from France in 1972 to honor the city’s French heritage, the statue is the focus of an annual community parade organized by a group devoted to the 15th-century saint and military heroine.

Joan, of course, has no connection to the Confederacy or to American history. But that didn’t stop someone from spray-painting “Tear it down!” on the statue earlier this year, according to Nola.com. The graffiti has since been removed, though stains remain, but the incident raises questions.
https://aleteia.org/2017/08/17/joan-of-arc-caught-up-in-statue-toppling-movement/
 
Last edited:
How about the demands they want?
The reparations and reforms are definitely a bit much, but they have the right to ask for it, and they are absolutely incomparable to the horrifying hateful demands of neo-nazis. I don't agree with much of the demands, but thankfully they are not the principle causes of BLM, which are pushing police reform and combating racism.
You can believe BLM is a prominent anti-racism movement all you want, but the fact is this: these people in charge who organize it are undoing the Civil Rights Movement that fought for ending racial segregation & discrimination. Much of what these people want are rooted back in becoming segregated by wanting to govern themselves with their own security, education, & benefits. And of course, the racial discrimination by ensuring these demands are met for Black people. Don't even think of questioning or asking for these same demands if you're white.
But here you misrepresent their demands completely. The demands ask for all communities to have oversight over their own policing and education. It's clearly a response to predominantly black communities having little control over the policing and education that occurs therein. Agree or disagree, these demands are clearly not advocating for segregation.
 
The reparations and reforms are definitely a bit much, but they have the right to ask for it, and they are absolutely incomparable to the horrifying hateful demands of neo-nazis. I don't agree with much of the demands, but thankfully they are not the principle causes of BLM, which are pushing police reform and combating racism.
Pushing police reform & combating racism by disrupting the rest of the public with their own racism.

Roughly 150 Black Lives Matter protesters reportedly stormed a library at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, Thursday night to berate students studying there for their supposed racial privilege.

The Dartmouth Review, an independent newspaper at the private Ivy League college, reported that protesters marched into the Baker-Berry Library shouting profanity and berating white students.

Protesters reportedly shouted “F– you, you filthy white f–-” “f– you and your comfort” and “f– you, you racist s–.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/16/black-lives-matter-protesters-berate-white-student/

Here's a nice tactic Antifa likes to practice; when a side you oppose does something for themselves, attack it and deny the same right you want.
A display at Dartmouth College honoring law enforcement officers was removed Friday and replaced with Black Lives Matter signs after just one day, members of the Dartmouth College Republicans said.

In place of the “Blue Lives Matter” tribute, which was created during National Police Week, were four fliers reading: “You cannot co-opt the movement against state violence to memorialize its perpetrators. #blacklivesmatter,” The Dartmouth Review reported.

“The next morning we got up and we saw that our display was torn apart and replaced with Black Lives Matter posters,” Dartmouth College Republicans President Michelle Knesbach told Fox News on Monday.

Knesbach, however, said the activism went beyond the billboard revamp.

“Throughout the entirety of the day, 25 Black Lives Matter protesters were standing in front of billboards,” she told On the Record's Greta Van Susteren. “Not only did they replace our billboard with their display, they also replaced all of the other billboards in the student center with Black Lives Matter posters and posted pictures of our club members’ faces with ‘Sons of Old Dartmouth’ written over it.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/1...ced-at-dartmouth-college-republicans-say.html

And who could forget this gem from MTV that jumped on the Black Lives Matter train. Group & scold all white people, that'll do wonders for race relations....

But here you misrepresent their demands completely. The demands ask for all communities to have oversight over their own policing and education. It's clearly a response to predominantly black communities having little control over the policing and education that occurs therein. Agree or disagree, these demands are clearly not advocating for segregation.
No, they don't.
"We demand a world where those most impacted in our communities control the laws, institutions, and policies that are meant to serve us – from our schools to our local budgets, economies, police departments, and our land – while recognizing that the rights and histories of our Indigenous family must also be respected," the group states. It goes on to describe a completely community-controlled law enforcement, education system, and local government; thus, the end of all current local government structure. They also demand the end to all private education.
They are referring to black communities, not all communities. The entire list of demands is based on righting what they believe are the wrong doings towards black people, not all people.
 
Last edited:
If BLM really wanted to improve the well-being of African-Americans, they would probably focus on intra-racial violence within the black community, because when you take that into account, "police brutality" is the least of their problems.
 
If BLM really wanted to improve the well-being of African-Americans, they would probably focus on intra-racial violence within the black community, because when you take that into account, "police brutality" is the least of their problems.

What's with the current trend (not from you in particular) that only the largest problems should ever get fixed?

The problem with the oft-quoted stat that you've recycled is that what it really reflects is that person-on-person violence is prevalent in densely populated low income areas. Why is it that in the USA so many of these are predominantly black? On further examination one could be forgiven for thinking that the violence you mention is actually part of exactly the same problem.
 
What's with the current trend (not from you in particular) that only the largest problems should ever get fixed?

The problem with the oft-quoted stat that you've recycled is that what it really reflects is that person-on-person violence is prevalent in densely populated low income areas. Why is it that in the USA so many of these are predominantly black? On further examination one could be forgiven for thinking that the violence you mention is actually part of exactly the same problem.

Because BLM ignore it completely. A tiny percentage of black homicide victims are unarmed men killed by cops, the vast majority are killed by other black men. BLM are acting as if US cops are on some kind of black safari and just shooting them at random. All it's doing is fuelling hatred and violence towards the majority of cops who are not racist and not corrupt and just wanna do their job and keep everyone safe.
 
"How The Russians Won World War III - A Short History"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...i-a-short-history_us_59943db7e4b0afd94eb3f650
Once in the White House, they unleashed their puppet, without his even realizing it, to set off an internal Civil War in America. It was easy to do. The alt-right in America had always existed, but no one until now had weaponized them. The Russians could and did.

The alt-right was small, but already armed to the teeth. They had more guns than the Red Army, and better onset that. By promoting the bogus myth that the Second Amendment had been written because Americans had the ‘right’ to violently overthrow their own government by force of arms if was deemed ‘oppressive’, it was a short cyber step to creating previously unheard of levels of street violence and revolution. Endless articles began to appear on the Internet featuring ‘alt-left’ violence that never existed’ an alt-left that never existed; the ‘threat’ to the ’real Americans; the media war on the elected President (unlike anything in history) and finally, the right of an oppressed people to overthrow their oppressors by force (as guaranteed in the Constitution). The entire playbook had been written in Moscow.
What the 🤬 did I just read? :crazy:
 
Back