There Are Good People On Both Sides

[MoonlessNight]

One can indeed take the position of pacifism. It is a Christian position. From that perspective, Jefferson should condemned for promoting war. For a pacifist, the reason is somewhat irrelevant. Wars of freedom are equivalent of wars to protect the right to keep slaves.

Are you arguing that we should take down statues of Thomas Jefferson?

 

[mark46]

Are you arguing that we should take down statues of Thomas Jefferson?

of course not

If we were a pacifist state, we might; we might get rid of all honoring of military action.

As it is, there are many, many American heroes. Jefferson is one. There are many traitors and those who have fought against us; Lee is one.

 

[MoonlessNight]

of course not

If we were a pacifist state, we might; we might get rid of all honoring of military action.

As it is, there are many, many American heroes. Jefferson is one. There are many traitors and those who have fought against us; Lee is one.

Your original argument for why Lee should not be honored was that he was responsible for too many deaths in a rebellious war. Now that you admit that Jefferson is guilty of the same sin, your reasoning for why Lee should not be honored changes.

Personally I believe that Lee was a skilled tactician and an honorable soldier, and I would have no objections to a monument in his honor.

If your objection is that we shouldn't honor non-Americans, I don't understand that line of thought. Honorable people always exist on both sides of the war, and soldiers in every war have recognized this.

 

[mark46]

As I said before, I would have problems honoring Lee, Julius Caesar, Rommel, and lots of others at a war college.

Personally I believe that Lee was a skilled tactician and an honorable soldier, and I would have no objections to a monument in his honor.

 

[mark46]

Your original argument for why Lee should not be honored was that he was responsible for too many deaths in a rebellious war. Now that you admit that Jefferson is guilty of the same sin, your reasoning for why Lee should not be honored changes.

Personally I believe that Lee was a skilled tactician and an honorable soldier, and I would have no objections to a monument in his honor.

If your objection is that we shouldn't honor non-Americans, I don't understand that line of thought. Honorable people always exist on both sides of the war, and soldiers in every war have recognized this.

When you win, it is a revolution. When you lose, it is a traitorous rebellion. The winners write the histories.

 

[MoonlessNight]

As I said before, I would have problems honoring Lee, Julius Caesar, Rommel, and lots of others at a war college.

I wouldn't have problems honoring all of those people anywhere.

I'd even support statues honoring Marcus Aurelius, despite his persecution of the Church.

People can be honored for their strengths without endorsing their faults or the sides that they belonged to.

 

[MoonlessNight]

When you win, it is a revolution. When you lose, it is a traitorous rebellion. The winners write the histories.

And thus the sin of Robert E Lee was not being immoral, it was fighting for the losing side.

If the south had won, it would therefore be morally acceptable to have statues of Lee.

Of course, we might consider that Francisco Franco did win the Spanish Civil War. Yet some people do not like that there are memorials to soldiers who fought for him. Do you think that there is a problem? I mean, he did fight for the winning side and all.

 

[mark46]

You realize that the 'alt-left' he was talking about was Antifa, who actually started the fights the other day, and who have rioted and attacked people before? You must denounce both sides or both sides will continue to grow.



It's founded on black supremacist principles. Rotten roots mean rotten fruit.

If Trump means Antifa, he should say so. If he means BLM, he should say so. If he means any primarily black political organzation that opposes hi, he should say. Otherwise, no one has a clue what he means.

 

[MoonlessNight]

If Trump means Antifa, he should say so. If he means BLM, he should say so. If he means any primarily black political organzation that opposes hi, he should say. Otherwise, no one has a clue what he means.

Most news organizations have no clue what "alt-right" means but that doesn't stop them from using the term.

 

[mark46]

And thus the sin of Robert E Lee was not being immoral, it was fighting for the losing side.

If the south had won, it would therefore be morally acceptable to have statues of Lee.

Of course, we might consider that Francisco Franco did win the Spanish Civil War. Yet some people do not like that there are memorials to soldiers who fought for him. Do you think that there is a problem? I mean, he did fight for the winning side and all.

As you well know, Franco did eventually lose.

Now, we are talking about "morally" acceptable. I thought that we were talking about American politics. Which side was moral in any situation is more than has been discussed so far.

 

[mark46]

Mark, in another thread you admitted to being older, so let me explain Antifa to you. They are not the "worker rights" communists you are probably familiar with. These people are violent radicals who consider liberal Western democracy an evil to be stamped out. They despise western / European thought and proudly boast that they will kill Democrats too. Can you understand why many of us don't agree with the neo-nazis but don't want to cozy up to these nuts either?

Antifa seems to be a leftist, violent, anarchist group that dates back to the 30's. Has anyone on any of these threads suggested cozying up to these folks? Obviously, many folks wouldn't cozy up with anyone to left of Reagan and the Bush's. Clearly, they were all too liberal.

BTW, I do NOT consider BLM in any way close to this group. BLM is more like the Black Panthers and various other black groups that I can recall. I would think that BLM should be talked with, at least by Democrats.

BTW, I expect the Democrats to grab defeat from the jaws of victory (as the Republicans almost did), and nominate someone from the Warren wing of the party. Of course, Sanders isn't even a Democrat.

 

[mark46]

Most news organizations have no clue what "alt-right" means but that doesn't stop them from using the term.

Would you really prefer the media to say "white nationalists, supremacists, the KKK and the neo-nazis" each time. But, I agree. Most media do not understand the nature of the alt-right.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Trump lashes out at 'alt-left' in Charlottesville, says 'fine people on both sides'

Trump has made another clarifying post, in addition to his tweets.

For him, we are having a debate between the KKK, white supremacists, and nazis on one side and the left on the other. Clearly many of his backers are among the "good" people in these groups.

I can add little. The president has every right to his views. As president, he can declare that the KKK, nazis, skinheads and white supremacists should no longer be considered terrorists. The people will tell us their opinions with their votes. As was the case with Obama, I suggest that many, many Republicans will NOT want Trump anywhere near their 2018 campaigns. Of course, many will.

My OPEN question is what will happen to the Republican Party in 2020 and 2022. Will the Trump changes become relatively entrenched?

It is already too late. Both parties are dead.


America is done. They will have a civil war that has been programmed and planned since the 20s, and bolstered by the USSR turned Russia - to do to the US what they did to USSR. Destabilization.

I would say expatriate before 2018, or definitely 2020... the people in the States may think of each other as idiots and unable to see what is actually happening, but outside no one really wants anything to do with America anymore - their money isn't even enough now, especially with the coming emerging markets backed by gold. So, if a civil war does happen in your country, then just know it was the USSR before Trump ever colluded with them, and it will be the fault of the people for letting it happen, and doing exactly what they have been manipulated to do.

It is actually kind of romantic in a political way; America is about to get its first "fall" as a new nation, and if they can come back then they will have the privilege of being called an "empire." But, 240 years is about right.

If America had actually addressed their elephant in the room regarding race and discrimination, perhaps it wouldnt have to come to civil war.

And, as soon as America is spiritually, physically and psychologically exhausted, they will likely be invaded by foreign enemies. It would be the perfect time to attack a weak nation that made itself even weaker by its own exploits.

But, all I seem to hear is left this, right that and supremacist did this. So, it seems people are ready to be violent vessels of programmed hate - exploiting the easiest abstraction (racism.)

 

[szechuan]

Would you really prefer the media to say "white nationalists, supremacists, the KKK and the neo-nazis" each time. But, I agree. Most media do not understand the nature of the alt-right.

I disagree with that. But then again the Alt-Right doesn't even know what it what the definition means sometimes.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Would you really prefer the media to say "white nationalists, supremacists, the KKK and the neo-nazis" each time. But, I agree. Most media do not understand the nature of the alt-right.

I would prefer that, since that would be a more specific and well-defined allegation. On top of that, if they made that claim they could be sued for libel in many cases since many of the people described as alt-right aren't in any sense white supremacists, neo-nazis or part of the KKK.

 

[szechuan]

I would prefer that, since that would be a more specific and well-defined allegation. On top of that, if they made that claim they could be sued for libel in many cases since many of the people described as alt-right aren't in any sense white supremacists, neo-nazis or part of the KKK.

Alt-Right is just a Buzzword that Richard Spencer used to promote his White-Supremacist Lite ideologies.

 

[cow451]

Personal Prophesy is not allowed in CF. Its in the terms of Service.

But to your point, Trump is not the leader of the party.
Naturally he will have some influence.
Hopefully everyone will manage their fears of everything.

The President is the de facto leader of his party.

 

[SkyWriting]

The President is the de facto leader of his party.

I guess you are right on that.
But he is the least political Republican in a long time.

 

[szechuan]

I guess you are right on that.
But he is the least political Republican in a long time.

You sure he's the least political Republican?

 

[SkyWriting]

You sure he's the least political Republican?

He had zero experience in any elected office and has changed parties several times.
So I rate him "least" party dedicated on those two counts.