I suppose one day we will get to the point where we have images of nothing--people or animals--for fear that it might offend someone somewhere. No flags of any kind. No movies that anyone anywhere would find offensive. No music for the same reasons.

Maybe we can just name everything with a number so none will be able to take offense?

Is there nothing in the world that some won't take offense to?

Maybe we can just name everything with a number so none will be able to take offense?

it is more likely that we simply "cancel the left"

[Deleted]

Just following these kinds of "logic"--we should remove all memorials in DC for Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Iwo Jima, purge the Library of Congress of all books even with some remote possibility of offending someone, all statues must come down, best check the Smithsonian because something in it is sure to offend. etc., etc ad nauseum.

How long before some dumbass decides that "Los Angeles" is offensive? Should towns named "Berlin" be changed because some are reminded of Nazis?

Where does the insanity end?

Where does the insanity end?

after we cancel culture today's left.

and not a minute before that.

Deleted

Deleted

[Deleted]

[Deleted]

That’s exactly right!  That’s what needs to happen and the sooner the better.  Cancel the progressive part of the left now!  

Good question.  Now the BLM/Antifa progressives are trying to cancel the 4th of July!  

Where does the insanity end?

Well if your talking about this article it would behove you to review... United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians , 448 U.S. 371 (1980)

I'll give you a preview, SCOTUS sided with the Sioux Nation...

I am more concerned with people wanting to demolish Mt. Rushmore, what many consider to be a national treasure, than I am who owns it.

Carve out a small piece of land around it, designate it a national park, guaranty access to it through Indian lands, compensate them for the land taken, and give the rest to them.

Seems easy to me.

As an "owner" aren't you just a little concerned about the damage from the fireworks to the Ecosystem there just for a ego stroke and a photo op?  As an "owner", aren't you appalled at the hypocrisy of someone spearheading this 4th of July farce on sacred ground that totally admires the architect of The Trail Of Tears?  As an "owner" aren't you worried that another one of his photo op rallys will result in even more coming down with CV?  As an "owner" you should be concerned with all of these.

As an "owner" aren't you just a little concerned about the damage from the fireworks to the Ecosystem there just for a ego stroke and a photo op?  As an "owner", aren't you appalled at the hypocrisy of someone spearheading this 4th of July farce on sacred ground that totally admires the architect of The Trail Of Tears?  As an "owner" aren't you worried that another one of his photo op rallys will result in even more coming down with CV?  As an "owner" you should be concerned with all of these.

Nope.

Enough Chicken Littles running around like chickens with their heads cut off, certainly don't need to add to the mix1

So you can acknowledge that it sits on hallowed ground, but are willing to 'carve out a small piece.'  

Caught that, did ya? Good.

How gracious of you to offer compensation for that slice oftheirland for access toyourmonument. All offered in faux magnanimity in the face of the well-documented attempts at eradication of their race, forced relocation, and decades of disenfranchisement. It is not that easy.

It IS that easy. Or could be if folks were reasonable.

Wow.  You claim to "own" but no concerns about the possible damage.  How sad for the future owners is that.

Glad you admit that at the very least, payment for usurped land is in order.

Never said otherwise. What is with the "admit" bull?

Instead of a just little piece, let us extend it across the board to all tribes for all such lands...including all associated water, mineral and heritage rights. Easy for reasonable folks to comprehend, no?

Feel free to attempt it.

I will watch with fascination.

Should we compensate England since we were a colony at one time?

Wow.  You claim to "own" but no concerns about the possible damage.  How sad for the future owners is that.

Please read more carefully. I didn't claim to own anything. That was you claiming me as an owner. And I didn't say I didn't have any concerns--that is merely you projecting what you want me to say so you can argue it, and since I didn't do it, you just put the words there in my mouth so you can argue it anyways.

Shady business there from you.

Do better.

I do notice it was too tough for you to actually answer, despite your reply to it.

I'll give you a preview, SCOTUS sided with the Sioux Nation...

Well if that's the case...we should CANCEL THE SUPREME COURT!

/sarc

Mt. Rushmore, what many consider to be a national treasure, than I am who owns it.

Your words.

aren't you just a little concerned about the damage from the fireworks to the Ecosystem

Have you watched fireworks where you are from? Have you ever set off fireworks during your lifetime?

If the answer is yes for either question, then you obviously were not concerned about the damage to the ecosystem in your town, so why ask the question of others?

It is called "Imminent Domain" and used all the time to force the sale of private land for public benefit.

Your words.

Indeed they are--and never denied.

Now, how does that have anything to do with you telling me I claimed ownership???

Nice thought, but it will not happen.

There are considerable elements among those on the secular progressive left who will not be happy until America as founded by our founders and our constitution amended is canceled and transformed into their hideous image.  

I won't be happy until each and every unamerican white supremacist in the USA stops seeing the sun rise and set. this monument is on NA land. let those that want to preserve it start a go fund me site to buy it or let the NA's turn it into kitchen countertops for all I care.

Crazy Horse Memorial

en.wikipedia

let those that want to preserve it start a go fund me site to buy it or let the NA's turn it into kitchen countertops for all I care.

 it is better to just arrest  anyone who tries to destroy that monument on federal charges with a nice long prison sentence attached.

I'm thinkin this is the plan we will be going with,

the time has come for people to cancel culture the left.

 Crazy Horse Memorial

We've got to tear that down, and every other statue of any one who fought the US Army. Isn't that the new standard?

hasn't someone here claimed that anyone who fought against the US was a traitor?

no, someone is always carrying on about traitors are anyone who takes up arms against the US

Jefferson wrote that "All men are created Equal" - note - men - not people.

He also wrote - He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. 

And that was in his little Declaration of Independence thesis.  Yup - looks pretty "equal" to me, eh?

Then this fella called Washington - hated Indians - they refused to sell him their lands - so, when Indians refused to sell, Washington was ready to wage war against them. “Extirpate” was the term he used. (The Merriam-Webster dictionary provides two definitions of the word: one is “to pull up by the root”; the other “to destroy completely: wipe out.”) After he dispatched armies to ravage their country during the Revolution, the Haudenosaunee (or Iroquois) called Washington “Town Destroyer.”

The Mohawk chief Joseph Brant, after visiting Washington in Philadelphia in 1792, warned other Indians: “General Washington is very cunning, he will try to fool us if he can. He speaks very smooth, will tell you fair stories, and at the same time want to ruin us.” Six months after meeting the president, the Cherokee chief Bloody Fellow declared, “General Washington is a Liar.”

Teddy???   He is quoted at that time saying “I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians but I believe nine out of ten are….and I wouldn’t want to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth.”   About Indians, Teddy believed that Indians should “vanish,” there was really no place in his America for them, and his every act revealed his point of view as the leader of the Republican Party of his time.

Honest Abe???  The Lincoln administration simply continued to implement discriminatory and damaging policies, like placing Indians on reservations. Beginning in 1863, the Lincoln administration oversaw the removal of the Navajos and the Mescalero Apaches from the New Mexico Territory, forcing the Navajo to march 450 miles to Bosque Redondo—a brutal journey. Eventually, more than 2,000 died before a treaty was signed.

Several massacres of Indians also occurred under Lincoln’s watch. For example, the Dakota War in Minnesota in 1862 led to the hanging of thirty-eight Indian men—303 Indian men had been sentenced to hang, but the others were spared by Lincoln’s pardon. The Sand Creek Massacre in southeastern Colorado in 1864 also resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Cheyenne and Arapaho.

What’s clear is that the Emancipation Proclamation did not end discrimination against Native Americans. There are many wounds that still need to be healed.

Oh yeah - we should be "Honored" that those four are the "finest" representatives of the U.S. and they "deserve" to be placed on very sacred Native American lands.

After all, we are the "invisible people".

The monument is already there. I see no point in destroying it now. I daresay you can find stuff that many leaders have done that were absolutely horrible, but does that outweigh all of the good they may have done? And I am not condoning what they did, nor excusing it in any way. I just don't see any purpose in destroying it.

Confederate Soldiers statues/monuments?  Woodrow Wilson statues/monuments??  Teddy Roosevelt statues/monuments???  Etc..

Yup, they did something horrible and their "memories" through structures/words are now being destroyed/taken down.

Confederate Soldiers statues/monuments?  Woodrow Wilson statues/monuments??  Teddy Roosevelt statues/monuments???  Etc.. Yup, they did something horrible and their "memories" through structures/words are now being destroyed/taken down.

If that is the case, then there should be no monuments anywhere for any human.

Like I said earlier, let's just name everything with a number to remove any possible chance that future generations might be offended by stuff that happened well before they were born. Make so much sense, right?

The problem is that if any monument goes up in place of the things that are being taken down, it is inevitable that the replacement monument will one day "offend" someone, and there will be a movement to have that monument, and a bunch of others with no relation to it...just because, removed.

The left is bending over backwards to appease these anarchists today, so they will have no choice but to do the same when the time comes to remove what they think is appropriate.

be placed on very sacred Native American land

the United States has owned those sacred lands longer than the Sioux and don’t forget the Sioux were more then willing to sell the land to to the United States in 1877,  but a price couldn’t be negotiated.

Sean - I don't think you're really trying to discuss this fully because I KNOW you know better about the U.S. owning those sacred lands.  The Lakota/Sioux were there before the 1st illegal immigrants from Europe showed up on the East coast.

lakotamall

They moved, wholly, in the late 1600's to the region they presently live in/on due to land/hunting disputes with the tribes/nations in IL, IA, OH, MI, MN.

And, NO, not under any circumstances were the Sioux willing to sell any of the Black Hills to the U.S.  The land was theirs since the 1600's, the treaties signed by the U.S. and Sioux gave them that land for occupation and use "IN PERPETUITY" (or until Congress changes its mind).  So, no, the Sioux never even considered selling the Black Hills.

If you have different information, how 'bout giving me a link or two.

Thanks.

The Indian Appropriations Act of 1876 cut off all rations until the Lakota ended hostilities and ceded the Black Hills to the federal government.

How do you explain that? 

What happened to  Indians who stood in the way of the Lakota John?  

How 'bout they were killed????  Or, how 'bout their treaties - yes, plural - all being broken - how 'bout no medical/educational/structural/etc. benefits outlined in the numerous treaties being taken from them??

'Member this guy named Custer who got to wear Arrow Shirts on 26 June 1876???  Well, he got wiped out which was REALLY the reason for the Indian Appropriations Act of 1876 - to punish those "savages".

Why do you need an explanation of something in history?

How do you explain it?

Lemme see - those who don't read about history have a serious problem of repeating all the negative shyte.

Ring any bells?

If you are going to speak for him, don't you think you should at least take a shot at answering what was asked of him?

those who don't read about history have a serious problem of repeating all the negative shyte.

Then there is agreement that the left obviously is uneducated to the history of the democrat Confederacy, or any democrat that owned slaves.  They want to erase their history so if it ever happens again, they can act surprised that something like that would ever happen.

ut off all rations until the Lakota ended hostilities and ceded the Black Hills to the federal government.

Per the Treaty of Fort Laramie that gave the Sioux the land, the Sioux were supposed to be self sufficient by 1872.  They weren't  and the US government spent millions of dollars feeding the Sioux before Custer happened.  Typically, opponents at war don't feed the population  they are fighting (See the blockade that starved Germany in WWI as an example) , and the US decided to stop feeding the Sioux while hostilities existed. 

How do you explain that?

Big government!

In this case, I agree with the Native Americans.  Obviously the reasons stated for the feelings of the Native Indians just bounce off some here, who seem to forget whose country America was before the white man's ancestors first stepped on its shores. 

In this case, I agree with the Native Americans

personally, I kind of like houses with central heat and air conditioning.

beats the shit out of a teepee 

Well, your folks lived in Hogans/wickiums and teepees - I'd have preferred the Hogans.

They painted themselves blue and hid in caves.

I can’t wait to watch the 4th of July events and fireworks 💥 at Mt. Rushmore on TV tomorrow night!  

Well of course he is.

the year of the perpetual whine,

but  I guess since the Lakota have been in the black hills for thousands of years and never conquered the land from others, it’s theirs forever, right ?

Under International/Federal law - yes.  It's called Aboriginal Title and it is theirs "forever".

SCOTUS stated, in United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians , 448 U.S. 371 (1980), which the Court held that: 1) the enactment by  Congress  of a law allowing the  Sioux Nation  to pursue a claim against the  United States  that had been previously adjudicated did not violate the doctrine of separation of powers; and 2) the taking of property that was set aside for the use of the tribe required just compensation, including interest.  While reaffirming earlier decisions that Congress has "paramount authority over the property of the Indians," the Court concluded that Congress acts properly only if it "makes a good faith effort to give the Indians the full value of the land," which here it had failed to do.  In conclusion the Supreme Court ordered "just compensation to the Sioux Nation, and that obligation, including an award of interest, must now, at last, be paid."  

The tribes have declined the monetary awards and have demanded that the lands be returned as REQUIRED BY THE 1868 Ft. Laramie Treaty, which has NOT been extinguished.

Currently, the monies, $1.3 billion are in trust for the Great Sioux Nation. 

So, per the Supreme Court, the  United States  owns the land and its' just a dispute about money.

Nope - SCOTUS used this argument 'bout Aboriginal Title, which has not been extinguished, regarding the Tribe's/Nation's land rights.   Until Congress disestablishes Aboriginal Title, the Tribes/Nations are still the land-owners - which they have not.

That's not what the Supreme Court said in the Sioux case. This is what the Court decided:

1. Congress reclaimed the black hills as part of the 1877 agreement.

2. Sioux were due compensation because Congress used its eminent domain power.

The tribes have no more claim to the land than any other former owner whose claim has been extinguished by eminent domain. 

Under International/Federal law - yes.  It's called Aboriginal Title and it is theirs "forever"

OK to post that on NT-- but why don't you try telling that to our racist President?

It can also be argued the majority of the governments use of Eminent Domain to acquire Tribal lands always was/is a illegal process anyway. Hopefully the Supreme Court may finally be realizing that.

We'll see when SCOTUS writes their opinion on the McGirt v Oklahoma.  If they agree with the Constitution, the Eastern half of Oklahoma goes back to the tribes.  If they disagree with the Constitution - well, it's happened before.

The Black Hills, where Mt. Rushmore is carved into, is unceded territory in the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 and acknowledged by the 1980 Supreme Court ruling of the United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians.

I’ve read the case, which is simply about the amount of money the US owes for exercising eminent domain for the black hills pursuant to  the 1877 agreement, which supersedes the earlier Fort  Laramie Treaty.  There is nothing in the decision that claims the Sioux own the land. In fact, it specifically states  congress  controls the land.  Maybe I missed something.

Can you please point the specific language in the decision that claims Mount  Rushmore is not owned by the United  States?

Simple language - ALL reservation lands belong to the U. S. - the Indians just have "permission" to occupy and use - unless it is "Fee Simple", then it is individually owned.  Mt. Rushmore was designated a National Park in 1933, so, yes, the U. S. "owns" Mt. Rushmore.

Why?

if we are going to re-fight every single issue from a hundred or more yrs ago?

this time around, let's play cowboys and liberals 

Native Americans and Palestinians are the worlds two peoples eligible to undo the boundaries created by past history.  Before anyone abroad criticize how America came to be, they should question their host country about Tibet...

Wrong. You can not compare the two. The Palestinians were supposed to get land from England in what was called Trans Jordan but Jordan stole it from them. Then they were offered land over and over by Israel and the deal was never good enough for them. And when Israelis were literally dragged out of Gaza to give it to the Palestinians, the reward was a terrorist government.

THIS IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT HAPPENED TO THE INDIANS. 

They were given land in legally binding documents called treaties only to have the same government take it away from them on a whim over and over again.

Still going on - remember the Mashpee?

Indeed 1st!

Wrong. You can not compare the two. The Palestinians were supposed to get land from England in what was called Trans Jordan but Jordan stole it from them

Goodpoint!

Many Americans are unaware of that, but when an independent "Palestinian" country was supposed to be created out of the West Bank and Gaza (formerly occupied by the UK)-- the Jordanian army conquered the "West Bank" and begun the Occupation of the West Bank, and the Egyptian army also entered Gaza and occupied that!

The Israelis agreed to the formation of an new Arab state to be called "Palestine" as well as them agreeing to the re-creation of their ancient homeland as "Israel". However the the goal of both Egypt and Jordan  was to prevent the creation of a new country of "Palestine". 

the Jordanian army conquered the "West Bank" and begun the Occupation of the West Bank.

Its status as "Occupied" didn't last long. While Jordan did successfully prevent the formation of a new Arab country there ("Palestine") the Jordanians then decided to end the Occupation-- and formally annexed the West bank-- as part of Jordan! (Bye, bye "Palestine")

You are greatly over simplify things.

1) It was Britain that fucked over the Palestinians. Promising them land deals repeatedly, and then giving that land to others. Jordan didn't steal anything, England gave it to them.

britannica

On May 25, 1923, the British recognized Transjordan’s independence under the rule of Emir ʿAbdullāh, but, as outlined in a treaty as well as the constitution in 1928, matters of finance, military, and foreign affairs would remain in the hands of a British “resident.” Full independence was finally achieved after   World War II   by a treaty concluded in   London   on March 22, 1946, and ʿAbdullāh subsequently proclaimed himself king. A new constitution was   promulgated , and in 1949 the name of the state was changed to the Hāshimite Kingdom of Jordan. Throughout the interwar years ʿAbdullāh had depended on British financial support. The British also assisted him in forming an elite force called the   Arab Legion ,   comprising   Bedouin   troops but under the command of and trained by British officers, which was used to maintain and secure the   allegiance   of ʿAbdullāh’s Bedouin subjects.  

bu

In order to enlist the military and political support of the Arabs, Britain promises to support their struggle for independence in most of the lands hitherto ruled by the Ottoman Turks, presumably including Palestine (see the   correspondence between Sharif Husayn and MacMahon ).
At the same time, Britain agrees with France and Russia to carve up the Middle East into mutually agreed spheres of economic and political influence. The   map   drawn up in the   Sykes-Picot agreement   contradicts the promises made in the MacMahon correspondence.
Some authors charge Britain with outright duplicity, others are more forgiving, believing that the British later did their best to stabilize the tense situation they themselves had helped to create during the First World War. With respect to Palestine in particular, the Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour conceded as early as 1919 that

the Powers had made no statement of fact that is not admittedly wrong, and no declaration of policy which, at least in the letter, they have not always intended to violate.   (Armstrong, p. 374, quoting from Christopher Sykes,   Crossroads to Israel , London 1965, pp. 16-17)

Be that as it may, it is clear that Britain's promises could not all be fulfilled and that the mandatory power proved unable to control the flames of nationalism it had nourished.

2) The Israeli offers of land to the Palestinians never constituted a viable state. Having the Gaza Strip and West Bank be separated was never workable. When the Israelis were "dragged" out of Gaza, there was an open election and Hamas (who for years before the PLO/PA) was in the area won. Not a shocker to anyone that knew the history or culture of the area that Hamas would win the open election. The PLO/PA was not well established in Gaza, and were seen as Israeli appeasers. Israel and the US were naive to think the PA would win an election in Gaza. The PA were driven completely out of Gaza after losing.

3) Israel has continuously encroached on Palestinian land. Illegal settlements in the West Bank ring any bells? They are still there forever expanding. In Jerusalem and other areas inside of Israel Palestinians cannot get permits to build new houses, nor rent/buy existing ones. Being second class citizens really sucks.

Consider Israel the US and the Palestinians the Indians. 

Yet you side with Israel, so do many of the Native Americans I know.

The Palestinians will never get the state they want. The Native Americans won't either. The winners write the terms for peace, and control all negotiations. 

Now as for Mount Rushmore, what this article is about. It is a national monument, and off limits. If they want to include plaques and history of each of the four showing even great men have weaknesses, it could be a learning environment. How would Native Americans feel if those that had ancestors that suffered at the hands of Crazy Horse wanted that statue blown to bits? Maybe have engraved at the base the names of all those he had killed, and innocents he butchered. Including other tribes he was at war with? Finding offense is a two way street.

if we are going to re-fight every single issue from a hundred or more yrs ago? this time around, let's play cowboys and liberals 

SCOTUS decided in favor of the Sioux Nation. Read the case and enlighten yourself. 

 United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians , 448 U.S. 371 (1980),

that monument will still be there many thousands of yrs from now.

get used to it.

Exactly, but isn't it telling that only happened after the US finally 'acquiesced' by allowing the Sioux Nation an avenue [limiting redress to monetary] to litigate their claim against the illegal taking of their land. 

They should make them look like cavemen since my people the Neanderthals might have been the first people in America. We are the forgotten people. 

Since genetic studies show that members of the anatomically modern human lineage, Homo sapiens , expanded out of Africa no earlier than 80,000 years ago, the study’s authors say the first North American settlers could have been members of some archaic, now-extinct Homo species occupying Europe and Asia, such as Homo erectus , Neanderthals or the mysterious ice age humans known as Denisovans .
  cmnh

But, none of the DNA studies link the Native Americans to either the Denisovans nor the Neanderthals.

That's not what I see here. 

"Recent DNA genealogy studies have shown that those of us of European and Asian extraction ( i.e. , non-African modern humans) are also of Neanderthal descent, with as much as 4% of our DNA deriving from the Homo neanderthalensis ( i.e. , Neanderthal), a species of human that became extinct, along with our other ancient ancestors, almost 30,000 years ago. Asians, Native Americans, and South Americans have an even higher percentage of Neanderthal DNA in their DNA genealogy than Europeans."

recordclick

"All people of Native American heritage also retain Neanderthal DNA."

seeker

Interesting - but - Willerslev added the Spirit Cave data to 14 other new whole genomes from sites scattered from Alaska to Chile and ranging from 10,700 to 500 years old. His data join an even bigger trove published in  Cell  by a team led by population geneticist David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston. They analyzed DNA from 49 new samples from Central and South America dating from 10,900 to 700 years old, at more than 1.2 million positions across the genome. All told, the data decisively dispel suggestions, based on the distinctive skull shape of a few ancient remains, that early populations had a different ancestry from today's Native Americans. "Native Americans truly did originate in the Americas, as a genetically and culturally distinctive group. They are absolutely indigenous to this continent, " Raff says.

sciencemag

I've looked at probably 15 sites that postulate the "potential" of Native Americans coming from Asia to the Western hemisphere having "possible" Neanderthal/Denisovan DNA, that they haven't found any definitive markers.

Still looking though.

However, Native Americans came to the Western Hemisphere between 20,000 - 30,000 years ago and there were no other homo sapiens in the hemisphere, making the Native Americans the first and original inhabitants.

But, none of the DNA studies link the Native Americans to either the Denisovans nor the Neanderthals.

What do you know, 1st. You are a Native American, and that automatically makes you stupid and have no idea what you are talking about. Only the non-Native Americans know the truth about the indigenous people around the world. Maybe one day the Native Americans will get almost as smart as the Europeans and other newcomers to America.  Maybe.    /sarc  

Since genetic studies show,,,, Homo species occupying Europe and Asia, such as Homo erectus , Neanderthals or the mysterious ice age humans known as Denisovans

Homos? I always knew they were gay! (/sarc)

But throughout modern history, so-called "scientific studies" have been used to "prove" that one racial, religious, or ethnic" group or other was inferior to the "Master Race". 

Another South Dakota tribal leader is calling for the removal of Mount Rushmore as President Donald Trump's visit to the monument draws near.

Keep the monument.  Remove Trump instead.

Ya' better be "PERFECT", or you are moot soul, no matter what good you helped accomplish in your lifetime !

"Perfect" = What a "Stupid"....beyond "Stupid" concept "Humans are starting to "Require".

Don't vote..... 'cause the one your voting for ain't ...... ANYTHING close to "PERFECT" !

[deleted]

Congressional sex scandals over the years, show my (Deleted) comment to be true.

Why delete it ?

Goes to the "Perfection" thingy I was making a point about, along with the "You Vote" part too.

I won't be happy until all these fuckheads wanting to tear down memorials to great leaders/figures show me just one fucking person who was. or is, perfect; that never did anything ANYONE might find offensive. Until then, they can face the fact that even though no one is perfect, these people did something momentous enough to be immortalized by an artist that the taxpayers paid for. You want something removed? Get it on a referendum and vote for its removal. If you have a good enough case, down it comes. If not; then go fuck yourself. No one ever promised you that you could always have your way in Life.

I second that motion!   I ain't perfect and don't want to be.  Them sons of bitches that want to tear down things could not stand a close examination of their self proclaimed perfection. They think  their shit does not stink and they have never done anything wrong

Except the vast majority of the Confederate statutes were NOT paid for by 'the taxpayers'. They were paid for and constructed by the Daughters of the Confederacy and funded by believers in the Lost Cause. 

Oh and BTFW, no referendum was passed to put the fuckers up so why should there be one to take the fuckers down? 

Daughters of the Confederacy and funded by believers in the Lost Cause. 

very fine people who put up memorials to the Klan, per Joe Biden.

those statues belong face down in the dirt, like every confederate traitor should have been left at the end of that war...

Too many facts for you dennis? 

Not at all Dulay. The facts you listed are accurate and have been there for centuries. Your bitterness has been on display since America voted Trump as POTUS. 

Where have you been on this subject until a few months ago.

Your knee jerk reaction is an example of the fringe left Dem parties failed attempt to try to blame everything on a sitting POTUS in an election year.  Nothing more and nothing less.

those statues belong face down in the dirt

Maybe so, however, they once served a purpose. After the Civil War, with the nation still bitterly divided, there was an effort at reconciliation. As Union forces were more interested in creating/controlling a centralized government, the south was allowed to protect and preserve a bit of their southern customs and ideals. Thus came those statues in the time period following the Civil War.

Wasn't that taught in school?

Thus came those statues in the time period following the Civil War.

Bullshit. The overwhelming majority of Confederate monuments were built decades after the Civil War. 

Wasn't that taught in your school?

No, Bullshit to you!


That would be the time period following the Civil War



Didn't you read the history books?


BTW hate organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center and Mother Jones are unwelcome here!

No, Bullshit to you!

That would be the time period following the Civil War

Didn't you read the history books?

So based on your criteria, TODAY would be included in the time period following the Civil War.

Pffft. 

BTW hate organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center and Mother Jones are unwelcome here!

BTFW, you have no authority to proclaim a source unwelcome. Get over yourself. 

he overwhelming majority of Confederate monuments were built decades after the Civil War. 

By democrat governors and mayors

And before the claim is made that the parties switched ideologies in the 60's..

Bullshit.

Most democrats are just as racist today as they were when they were active KKK members....or still are.

would you consider anyone who takes arms against the US to be a traitor?

By democrat governors and mayors

Which is relevant to this discussion HOW bugs?