City Council votes to remove Statue because of "submissive" pose of Sacagawea

Tommy Tainant

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2016
Messages
22,609
Reaction score
3,109
Points
290
Location
Y Cae Ras
It's never enough for the SJW woke idiots.

City Council passes resolution for the removal of Lewis, Clark and Sacagawea statue

The Charlottesville City Council met at Carver Recreation Center Friday morning for a work session in collaboration with members of the Shoshone-Bannock tribe and Monacan Indian Nation to discuss the future of the statue that resides in West Main Street's major intersection and depicts Sacagawea cowering behind Meriwether Lewis and William Clark. The session included a presentation from City staff, statements from the Shoshone representatives and a two part discussion regarding the statue. Roughly 30 local residents were in attendance.

They kind of got a point....

Here's the statue in question.



The White guys standing tall while the woman of color is on her knees?
Shouldnt she be a few yards in front beckoning on the other guys.

"Its this way you thick fuckers"
 

bodecea

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
137,963
Reaction score
15,909
Points
2,180
Location
#HasNoClothes
It's never enough for the SJW woke idiots.

City Council passes resolution for the removal of Lewis, Clark and Sacagawea statue

The Charlottesville City Council met at Carver Recreation Center Friday morning for a work session in collaboration with members of the Shoshone-Bannock tribe and Monacan Indian Nation to discuss the future of the statue that resides in West Main Street's major intersection and depicts Sacagawea cowering behind Meriwether Lewis and William Clark. The session included a presentation from City staff, statements from the Shoshone representatives and a two part discussion regarding the statue. Roughly 30 local residents were in attendance.
Their call, isn't it?
 
OP
martybegan

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
50,189
Reaction score
7,580
Points
1,840
You aren't arguing the point, you are arguing about being qualified to argue about the point.

More deflection.
What do you think the point IS? I'm looking at your title and the first verb I see is "votes".
The point is the overall stupidity of removing statues because some overly sensitive SJW wimps are offended by it.

Do you think the Statue is offensive or not?
I think we already did this, the other day.

I don't have standing to judge whether it's 'offensive'. Nor do you. The city makes that call. Your title says they voted on it. Surely in that vote there was discussion about it but I don't make it a habit to sit in on city council meetings three hundred miles away to listen in on something that doesn't concern me in the first place.

By the way if that's the issue, why is the thread in "Politics"?
Once again you punt.
Once again you fumble.

HOW is what Charlottesville does with its public space any of my business? Just explain that.

Far as I know Charlottesville doesn't come down here dictating what we can do with our public spaces. Do they do that where you live?
Why can't you argue the actual point?
 
OP
martybegan

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
50,189
Reaction score
7,580
Points
1,840
It's never enough for the SJW woke idiots.

City Council passes resolution for the removal of Lewis, Clark and Sacagawea statue

The Charlottesville City Council met at Carver Recreation Center Friday morning for a work session in collaboration with members of the Shoshone-Bannock tribe and Monacan Indian Nation to discuss the future of the statue that resides in West Main Street's major intersection and depicts Sacagawea cowering behind Meriwether Lewis and William Clark. The session included a presentation from City staff, statements from the Shoshone representatives and a two part discussion regarding the statue. Roughly 30 local residents were in attendance.
Their call, isn't it?
Like it's Alabama's call to allow abortion or not?
 

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
61,567
Reaction score
15,642
Points
2,290
At some point in the future it will be reported that these innocent looking Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrat hats were not JUST cute little hats for snowflakes to wear so they could spot each other in crowds when they are out and about so they could group together when offended but that they were scientifically engineered devices that once donned on their heads sucked the remaining intelligence out of their heads, replacing any independent thought left with fragile, emotionally-manipulated, parroted collective thought and dependence on Democrats and their 'free schit' to exist:








.












 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
115,935
Reaction score
18,297
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
What do you think the point IS? I'm looking at your title and the first verb I see is "votes".
The point is the overall stupidity of removing statues because some overly sensitive SJW wimps are offended by it.

Do you think the Statue is offensive or not?
I think we already did this, the other day.

I don't have standing to judge whether it's 'offensive'. Nor do you. The city makes that call. Your title says they voted on it. Surely in that vote there was discussion about it but I don't make it a habit to sit in on city council meetings three hundred miles away to listen in on something that doesn't concern me in the first place.

By the way if that's the issue, why is the thread in "Politics"?
Once again you punt.
Once again you fumble.

HOW is what Charlottesville does with its public space any of my business? Just explain that.

Far as I know Charlottesville doesn't come down here dictating what we can do with our public spaces. Do they do that where you live?
Why can't you argue the actual point?
You want to know if *I* think somebody else's statue is "offensive" or not? A statue I can't even see?

Is the question then about aesthetics? Because (again) the thread is in Politics.
 
OP
martybegan

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
50,189
Reaction score
7,580
Points
1,840
The point is the overall stupidity of removing statues because some overly sensitive SJW wimps are offended by it.

Do you think the Statue is offensive or not?
I think we already did this, the other day.

I don't have standing to judge whether it's 'offensive'. Nor do you. The city makes that call. Your title says they voted on it. Surely in that vote there was discussion about it but I don't make it a habit to sit in on city council meetings three hundred miles away to listen in on something that doesn't concern me in the first place.

By the way if that's the issue, why is the thread in "Politics"?
Once again you punt.
Once again you fumble.

HOW is what Charlottesville does with its public space any of my business? Just explain that.

Far as I know Charlottesville doesn't come down here dictating what we can do with our public spaces. Do they do that where you live?
Why can't you argue the actual point?
You want to know if *I* think somebody else's statue is "offensive" or not? A statue I can't even see?

Is the question then about aesthetics? Because (again) the thread is in Politics.
The current need of mewling SJW idiots to remove anything from public they find offensive is a political discussion.

Do you agree with them or not?
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
115,935
Reaction score
18,297
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
I think we already did this, the other day.

I don't have standing to judge whether it's 'offensive'. Nor do you. The city makes that call. Your title says they voted on it. Surely in that vote there was discussion about it but I don't make it a habit to sit in on city council meetings three hundred miles away to listen in on something that doesn't concern me in the first place.

By the way if that's the issue, why is the thread in "Politics"?
Once again you punt.
Once again you fumble.

HOW is what Charlottesville does with its public space any of my business? Just explain that.

Far as I know Charlottesville doesn't come down here dictating what we can do with our public spaces. Do they do that where you live?
Why can't you argue the actual point?
You want to know if *I* think somebody else's statue is "offensive" or not? A statue I can't even see?

Is the question then about aesthetics? Because (again) the thread is in Politics.
The current need of mewling SJW idiots to remove anything from public they find offensive is a political discussion.

Do you agree with them or not?
I'm not aware of that mewling. Reference?

And what is an "SJW"?
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
115,935
Reaction score
18,297
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
At some point in the future it will be reported that these innocent looking Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrat hats were not JUST cute little hats for snowflakes to wear so they could spot each other in crowds when they are out and about so they could group together when offended but that they were scientifically engineered devices that once donned on their heads sucked the remaining intelligence out of their heads, replacing any independent thought left with fragile, emotionally-manipulated, parroted collective thought and dependence on Democrats and their 'free schit' to exist:

That image is a direct mocking of the "grab 'em by the p***y" tape.

You know that right? And you're just playing stupid so you don't have to deal with it?
 

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
61,567
Reaction score
15,642
Points
2,290
At some point in the future it will be reported that these innocent looking Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrat hats were not JUST cute little hats for snowflakes to wear so they could spot each other in crowds when they are out and about so they could group together when offended but that they were scientifically engineered devices that once donned on their heads sucked the remaining intelligence out of their heads, replacing any independent thought left with fragile, emotionally-manipulated, parroted collective thought and dependence on Democrats and their 'free schit' to exist:

That image is a direct mocking of the "grab 'em by the p***y" tape.

You know that right? And you're just playing stupid so you don't have to deal with it?
I see you put on the hat and not only had all of your remaining common sense and intelligence sucked from your head but also your SENSE OF HUMOR!

iT WAS A JOKE, SNOWFLAKE - SORRY TO HAVE TRIGGERED YOU!

.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
115,935
Reaction score
18,297
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
At some point in the future it will be reported that these innocent looking Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrat hats were not JUST cute little hats for snowflakes to wear so they could spot each other in crowds when they are out and about so they could group together when offended but that they were scientifically engineered devices that once donned on their heads sucked the remaining intelligence out of their heads, replacing any independent thought left with fragile, emotionally-manipulated, parroted collective thought and dependence on Democrats and their 'free schit' to exist:

That image is a direct mocking of the "grab 'em by the p***y" tape.

You know that right? And you're just playing stupid so you don't have to deal with it?
I see you put on the hat and not only had all of your remaining common sense and intelligence sucked from your head but also your SENSE OF HUMOR!

iT WAS A JOKE, SNOWFLAKE - SORRY TO HAVE triggered YOU!

.
A "joke". uh HUH...

---- where's the punchline?
 
OP
martybegan

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
50,189
Reaction score
7,580
Points
1,840
Once again you punt.
Once again you fumble.

HOW is what Charlottesville does with its public space any of my business? Just explain that.

Far as I know Charlottesville doesn't come down here dictating what we can do with our public spaces. Do they do that where you live?
Why can't you argue the actual point?
You want to know if *I* think somebody else's statue is "offensive" or not? A statue I can't even see?

Is the question then about aesthetics? Because (again) the thread is in Politics.
The current need of mewling SJW idiots to remove anything from public they find offensive is a political discussion.

Do you agree with them or not?
I'm not aware of that mewling. Reference?

And what is an "SJW"?
GIYF
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
32,617
Reaction score
3,678
Points
1,130
It's never enough for the SJW woke idiots.

City Council passes resolution for the removal of Lewis, Clark and Sacagawea statue

The Charlottesville City Council met at Carver Recreation Center Friday morning for a work session in collaboration with members of the Shoshone-Bannock tribe and Monacan Indian Nation to discuss the future of the statue that resides in West Main Street's major intersection and depicts Sacagawea cowering behind Meriwether Lewis and William Clark. The session included a presentation from City staff, statements from the Shoshone representatives and a two part discussion regarding the statue. Roughly 30 local residents were in attendance.
Their call, isn't it?
Like it's Alabama's call to allow abortion or not?
No, it isn't.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
121,029
Reaction score
10,815
Points
2,055
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Nice tapdancing, but it still doesn't show the right to an abortion being in the Constitution. It is only a construct of one set of justices at one specific time, and can be easily overridden by another set of justices, same as Plessey was.

This whole thing is further made comical when people who support the figment or a right to an abortion via Roe then decide the 2nd amendment doesn't protect RKBA, which is actually explicit in the document.
Second Amendment doesn't mention guns, and does specifically call for a well regulated militia...

These guys are not a well-regulated militia..

upload_2019-11-26_5-37-10.jpeg
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
121,029
Reaction score
10,815
Points
2,055
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Shouldnt she be a few yards in front beckoning on the other guys.

"Its this way you thick fuckers"
That would offend Marty's sense of privilege..

The current need of mewling SJW idiots to remove anything from public they find offensive is a political discussion.

Do you agree with them or not?
The problem is with Columbus or Lewis and Clark is that we tend to only count history as starting "When White People Got there"... kind of a narcissism that kind of defines our society...

We tend to discount the genocide that followed... We wiped out their civilizations and then forget they were there.

This statue is a great example. The white men are visionary...the woman of color is subservient and can't lift up her head.

This statue totally needs to go.
 

satrebil

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2018
Messages
2,553
Reaction score
1,157
Points
365
Second Amendment doesn't mention guns
Riiight. "Keep And Bear Arms" totally meant slingshots.

and does specifically call for a well regulated militia...
Every time I see you post this stupidity, I'm going to slap you with this. Maybe one day you'll actually fucking read it:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed theSecond Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
121,029
Reaction score
10,815
Points
2,055
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Every time I see you post this stupidity, I'm going to slap you with this. Maybe one day you'll actually fucking read it:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Heller was a stupid decision, so I ignore it. We are going to have to fix a lot of dumb decisions.

There's no good reason for an average citizen to own a firearm. They aren't in a militia, they aren't the police...
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top