Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How is it trivial if Trump is using it as a reason to refuse to sign the bill? If it is so trivial he should just sign it.Because we're too the point where apparently the House believes all other problems are fixed and the President disagrees. This is an unnecessary and trivial issue. The cost of renaming these places alone is enough to oppose these efforts.
Changing names to suit modern preferences, no matter the preferences, is on its face trivial. We're $28 trillion in debt, the cost of changing names alone is reason to veto the changes.How is it trivial if Trump is using it as a reason to refuse to sign the bill? If it is so trivial he should just sign it.
I thought Trump was the Christian's man, what did Trump do (reasons, Lutheran specific) to upset a Lutheran?
Can you tell me when were these confederate named forts named, were they named by confederates and are they in confederate states?
""We were allies with the UK in two world wars. What US bases are named after Howe or Clinton? Wouldn’t that have been good reconciliation to name bases after them?"" This is called "Denying the Antecedent", implying that because one thing is right, something else totally unrelated is also right.
Try answering my question. If it is so trivial, why doesn't Trump sign the bill.Changing names to suit modern preferences, no matter the preferences, is on its face trivial. We're $28 trillion in debt, the cost of changing names alone is reason to veto the changes.
Because it isn't worth giving into trivial demands. This is a nonsense issue.Try answering my question. If it is so trivial, why doesn't Trump sign the bill.
In other words, you don't have an answer as to why Trump can't sign something so trivial.Because it isn't worth giving into trivial demands. This is a nonsense issue.
So West Point should go back to Fort Clinton?Shouldn't be changing the names of historic buildings and weapons
To the contrary, you have provided no reason for him to sign something so trivial.In other words, you don't have an answer as to why Trump can't sign something so trivial.
A little common sense here—what you a calling trivial is attached to the military spending bill. Unless a person is really stupid that alone--funding our armed forces--is reason to sign it.To the contrary, you have provided no reason for him to sign something so trivial.
mmm k
I don't know, maybe you should ask some of the black people who see those names as a continual, federally-backed stick in the eye, reminding them that they're still not quite as equal as the rest of us.
You seem more concerned with coddling the racist, seditionist sentiment that lies not-quite-so-dormant among the population than you do with respecting and assuaging some of the pain wrought by that racist, seditionist sentiment.
k. And that has what to do with anything?
No, I'm just that good.
By sedition, I'm referring to the rebellion against the federal government by the southern slave states.
That's nice. The south took up arms against the federal government. That's sedition.
No, it isn't. But either way, we're talking about the civil war, which was quite clearly racist in its motivations. So unless you want to argue that the confederacy wasn't built on racism, you probably want to leave that argument behind.
Again, so what?
I'll pose the same question to you: why don't you go ask a black person who sees those names as a continual reminder that they don't matter?
mmm k
I don't know, maybe you should ask some of the black people who see those names as a continual, federally-backed stick in the eye, reminding them that they're still not quite as equal as the rest of us.
You seem more concerned with coddling the racist, seditionist sentiment that lies not-quite-so-dormant among the population than you do with respecting and assuaging some of the pain wrought by that racist, seditionist sentiment.
k. And that has what to do with anything?
No, I'm just that good.
By sedition, I'm referring to the rebellion against the federal government by the southern slave states.
That's nice. The south took up arms against the federal government. That's sedition.
No, it isn't. But either way, we're talking about the civil war, which was quite clearly racist in its motivations. So unless you want to argue that the confederacy wasn't built on racism, you probably want to leave that argument behind.
Again, so what?
I'll pose the same question to you: why don't you go ask a black person who sees those names as a continual reminder that they don't matter?
mmm k
I don't know, maybe you should ask some of the black people who see those names as a continual, federally-backed stick in the eye, reminding them that they're still not quite as equal as the rest of us.
You seem more concerned with coddling the racist, seditionist sentiment that lies not-quite-so-dormant among the population than you do with respecting and assuaging some of the pain wrought by that racist, seditionist sentiment.
k. And that has what to do with anything?
No, I'm just that good.
By sedition, I'm referring to the rebellion against the federal government by the southern slave states.
That's nice. The south took up arms against the federal government. That's sedition.
No, it isn't. But either way, we're talking about the civil war, which was quite clearly racist in its motivations. So unless you want to argue that the confederacy wasn't built on racism, you probably want to leave that argument behind.
Again, so what?
I'll pose the same question to you: why don't you go ask a black person who sees those names as a continual reminder that they don't matter?
Since when are Christians required to support Trump? I've never been a Trump fan. He was the first GOP Presidential candidate for whom I did not vote.
They were named at different time depending on when they were established. That is an easy internet search. They were not named by Confederates. They are not in Confederate states because there are no such such states (the Confederates lost the war).
Except they aren't "totally unrelated."
Let's do a tiny little ethics quiz. You are provided with two choices:
Option 1) Causes harm to some people.
Option 2) Causes harm to absolutely no one.
Which of the two options is the most ethical?
-CryptoLutheran
I think without context or specific application a solution is not possible; is God ethical; did God turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt?
If they seriously want to consider the matter, I think it should be done on an individual and gradual basis.
Trump vetoed the defense policy bill, something that rarely happens. One reason given for the veto was that it would have changed the names of bases named after Confederate military leaders. There are ten major bases named after Confederate generals: Camp Beauregard, Fort Benning, Fort Bragg, Fort Gordon, Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Hood, Fort Lee, Fort Pickett, Fort Polk and Fort Rucker.
Ironically several of these bases are named after men who were incompetent commanders.
The Army has not been the only service that has done this; several US Navy warships were also named after Confederate leaders. All of them have been decommissioned and are now out of service.
So, should US military bases be named after men who fought against the United States? Is Trump wrong to oppose renaming them?
BTW, the House has voted to override Trump's veto. The bill is now before the Senate.
Trump Lashes Out at GOP as Defense Bill Sets Up Rebuke in Senate
Why are Army bases named after Confederates? - The Washington Post
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?