Confederate Memorials and Monuments - what history do they represent?

[Conservative65]

I'm not the one demanding statues come down because I get my feelings hurt by looking at it. You want them down and support the pussies that approve of it.

Reading comprehension is not your strong point- along with being able to chew your food and walk.

I haven't once demanded that any statues come down.

You pussies just are pissed because some communities have decided to no longer honor your heroes.

This just makes you a liar.

Point out my lie- if you aren't a typical contard cowardly pussy.

Point out where you told the truth - if you aren't the typical NL leftwing retard.

Point out my lie- if you aren't a typical racist cowardly pussy

Point out the truth you stated if you aren't a typical NL leftwing pussy.

 

[Darkwind]

The entire premise is a red herring.

The issue is NOT what the Statues represent. The issue is censorship and the silencing of any voice in America. There is no hazard to the public by the existence of any statue, therefore there is no legitimate reason to censor them.

Censor who?

The people who want them to remain.

I don't know about you, but seceding from their state strikes me as a fairly convincing protest. One that likely wouldn't get very far these days.

Of course they did *I* posted the links to their stories, but all of them (except for W Virginia) still fought to protect their homes from Union hordes.

Which once again demonstrates that the American Civil War was NOT ALL about slavery, hence the statues are not either ALL about slavery.

I'm sorry, but I've already referenced quite a lot of highly credible content in this thread that shows the Civil War was all about the South, the Confederates, successfully seceding from the United States and that the Confederacy was "all about" slavery. I 'm not going to repost or restate all that stuff.

Who had a voice in them going up? Are they any different then statues of Stalin?

You'd have to read the history of each to determine who had a voice in putting them up. I do know that tearing them down and waging a campaign of violence to intimidate these communities to take them down is nothing less than an attempt to censor people.

Let them go away and state that no more violence will be issued toward them, and then see if these communities vote to take these statues down. However, before they do that, I think they should hold a series of public forums (local community ONLY) to ensure that is the true will of the people.

Removing them without the consent of the City council (tearing them down as they did in Durham), or waging a war of intimidation is NOT the right way to do this.

I am advocating that for every community that elects to bow down to these violent intimidations, that America boycott spending any dollars in the community at all. Let their tourist dollars dry up.

Removing them without the consent of the City council (tearing them down as they did in Durham), or waging a war of intimidation is NOT the right way to do this.

One of the tenets of republican governance is that elected leaders must sometimes do things because they are the right thing to do, because they think it best, even though at the time they are unpopular things to do. One may not like that, but the fact remains that it is the case. Republics are not variously direct democracies when it's convenient and republics when that is convenient. They are republics or they are not.

"Heavy is the head that wears the crown" applies to more than just monarchs. It is the burden of leadership at all levels. Be that as it may, we elect our leaders to carry that burden, so carry it they must.

yes, I understand how representative republicanism works. When a group of terrorists tear down a statue, or a council folds to the threats of violence, then the representatives of the people are not doing their job and should be replaced, bypassed, or simply taken out of office in favor of representatives with courage.

This is not a matter of having a disagreement with the value of an elected representative. The entire equation changes when coercion is involved.

 

[Syriusly]

The pussies are the ones that demand they come down. It hurts their feelings to see something they don't like.

That's why this whole Taliban Across America thing is guaranteed not to stop with Confederate monuments.

The real resentment here doesn't concern slavery. The real and poisonous resentment comes from the descendants of the immigrants who arrived when the Civil War was safely over.

The monumental achievements of the founding stock Americans--taming a continent and constructing a great nation on it, successfully ridding itself at enormous cost of the slavery scourge they inherited at the birth of the nation, devising a political and economic and social system so unique, so brilliant, and so advanced, no corner of the world has been untouched by emulation--these achievements are regarded with hatred and resentment by a particular kind of immigrant who came later. So the whole thing--at least any mention of the WASPs who created it-- must be torn down.

Another contard who can't tell the difference between a monument celebrating rebels against the United States- and monuments that celebrate the United States.

The states that seceded only wanted to leave. They're only considered rebels by those that wouldn't allow them to do so. Do you consider someone leaving when you don't want them to go as a rebel?

Exactly- they were rebels against the United States- and the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

Censor who?

The people who want them to remain.

Of course they did *I* posted the links to their stories, but all of them (except for W Virginia) still fought to protect their homes from Union hordes.

Which once again demonstrates that the American Civil War was NOT ALL about slavery, hence the statues are not either ALL about slavery.

I'm sorry, but I've already referenced quite a lot of highly credible content in this thread that shows the Civil War was all about the South, the Confederates, successfully seceding from the United States and that the Confederacy was "all about" slavery. I 'm not going to repost or restate all that stuff.

Who had a voice in them going up? Are they any different then statues of Stalin?

You'd have to read the history of each to determine who had a voice in putting them up. I do know that tearing them down and waging a campaign of violence to intimidate these communities to take them down is nothing less than an attempt to censor people.

Let them go away and state that no more violence will be issued toward them, and then see if these communities vote to take these statues down. However, before they do that, I think they should hold a series of public forums (local community ONLY) to ensure that is the true will of the people.

Removing them without the consent of the City council (tearing them down as they did in Durham), or waging a war of intimidation is NOT the right way to do this.

I am advocating that for every community that elects to bow down to these violent intimidations, that America boycott spending any dollars in the community at all. Let their tourist dollars dry up.

Removing them without the consent of the City council (tearing them down as they did in Durham), or waging a war of intimidation is NOT the right way to do this.

One of the tenets of republican governance is that elected leaders must sometimes do things because they are the right thing to do, because they think it best, even though at the time they are unpopular things to do. One may not like that, but the fact remains that it is the case. Republics are not variously direct democracies when it's convenient and republics when that is convenient. They are republics or they are not.

"Heavy is the head that wears the crown" applies to more than just monarchs. It is the burden of leadership at all levels. Be that as it may, we elect our leaders to carry that burden, so carry it they must.

yes, I understand how representative republicanism works. When a group of terrorists tear down a statue, or a council folds to the threats of violence, then the representatives of the people are not doing their job and should be replaced, bypassed, or simply taken out of office in favor of representatives with courage.

This is not a matter of having a disagreement with the value of an elected representative. The entire equation changes when coercion is involved.

Which councils have 'folded' due to threats of violence?

Who are those 'terrorists' trying to 'terrorize' by pulling down a statue of a dead guy?

 

[Syriusly]

Reading comprehension is not your strong point- along with being able to chew your food and walk.

I haven't once demanded that any statues come down.

You pussies just are pissed because some communities have decided to no longer honor your heroes.

This just makes you a liar.

Point out my lie- if you aren't a typical contard cowardly pussy.

Point out where you told the truth - if you aren't the typical NL leftwing retard.

Point out my lie- if you aren't a typical racist cowardly pussy

Point out the truth you stated if you aren't a typical NL leftwing pussy.

Point out my lie- if you aren't a typical racist cowardly pussy

 

[usmbguest5318]

The pussies are the ones that demand they come down. It hurts their feelings to see something they don't like.

That's why this whole Taliban Across America thing is guaranteed not to stop with Confederate monuments.

The real resentment here doesn't concern slavery. The real and poisonous resentment comes from the descendants of the immigrants who arrived when the Civil War was safely over.

The monumental achievements of the founding stock Americans--taming a continent and constructing a great nation on it, successfully ridding itself at enormous cost of the slavery scourge they inherited at the birth of the nation, devising a political and economic and social system so unique, so brilliant, and so advanced, no corner of the world has been untouched by emulation--these achievements are regarded with hatred and resentment by a particular kind of immigrant who came later. So the whole thing--at least any mention of the WASPs who created it-- must be torn down.

The real resentment here doesn't concern slavery. The real and poisonous resentment comes from the descendants of the immigrants who arrived when the Civil War was safely over...[people who at once despise and envy the achievements [of the founders and regard them] with hatred and resentment by a particular kind of immigrant who came later. So the whole thing--at least any mention of the WASPs who created it-- must be torn down.

As one of the WASPs who's descended from those founding colonists, I have no difficulty looking at the Confederacy and its icons and saying that they were wrong, that they were despicable and deplorable, and that they and the Confederacy for which they stood thus deserve no government sanctioned honoraria. Period.

General Lee's horse effectively had no choice. Erect a statue honoring the equine for it surely served its owner well. The owner, however, had a choice and he chose wrong. I don't want to remove Lee from the history books and museums, or even from Civil War battle sites where he participated, he belongs there. Where there are sculptures of him humbled and defeated, signing his army's surrender, fine, for that context shows him, his Confederacy and what it stood for and upon, as having been bested by the United States of America. I care only to see him removed from the pedestals, street signs, bridges, and so on that venerate him.

I don't have a problem with statues merely depicting Confederates and the Confederacy. I have a problem with the statues that exalt them and it.

 

[Conservative65]

This just makes you a liar.

Point out my lie- if you aren't a typical contard cowardly pussy.

That anyone is pissed because communities don't want to support my heros.

First lie. They are not My heroes.
Second lie. Some communities are not deciding this on their own, but are being threatened with violence.
Biggest lie. That this is anything other than censoring free speech.

Since I was responding to a post by someone else- why do you believe you are one of the cowardly pussies I was speaking about?

Note you haven't provided a single quote of mine that is a lie- just your own snowflake hurt feelings.

Once again- my position- which you snowflakes are so offended about:

1. All vandalism and violence is wrong- I am fine with vandals being arrested, and that murderers like the driver in Charlottesville was arrested.
2. Local communities should make their own decisions on which monuments to have.
3. That only a total idiot would think that removing a statue of Robert E. Lee is 'censoring free speech'

So symbols can't be considered part of free speech? The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Whose free speech is being censored by the removal of Robert E. Lee's statue?

Not the people who erected the statue. They are dead- and have no 'free speech rights'

Certainly a statue or any symbol can be someone's free speech- but it has to be a someone- not a something.

Those that want them to stay. They don't have to be the ones that put it up.

That's what I said. Symbols can be a part of free speech. The person can use them in doing that.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Lol, could you at least give the post number?

Sure; absolutely:

• Post 14

I did not make a claim that anyone is co-opting the meaning of the Civil War.

I am saying that a handful of quotes from people with an agenda at the time proves nothing other than that a few people had an agenda.

Post 38

The Confederacies laws on slavery prove nothing regarding racism when not all slaves were black and not all slave owners were white.

You are conflating two different issues.

Post 241

1. A person can think his race is superior to another without hating the other race. Lincoln thought that whites were superior to blacks and he certainly did not hate blacks as a race.

2. No subsistence farmer in the South ever thought he was going to own a slave. That is like saying that a mimimum wage fry cook has dreams about owning a Bentley. No, it does not happen, lol.

3. Heterosis is good for breeding and that was known then as well, so that was all slave owner rationale for keeping the races separated and had little basis in reality.

4. None of those posts addressed my specific points that Lincoln was willing to protect slavery by law and amendment, the South had large populations and famous leaders that opposed secession, but that negates the "slavery caused it" argument as, according to you, they all dreamed of one day owning a slave even if they didnt own one at the time.

5. None of those posts address why the South seceded in three different group, triggered by different events; A) Lincolns election without carrying a single Southern state, B) Texas leaving after the passage of the Morill Tariff, and C) Virginia, Tennessee and North Carolina leaving only after Lincoln took up extra-Constitutional powers by ordering the states to call up their militias to invade the Southern states.

6. None of these posts address why the North tolerated slavery all the way through the Civil War if that war was SOLELY about slavery, nor why Lincoln waited for two years to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

The only thing that answers these questions that THE CIVIL WAR WAS NOT JUST ABOUT SLAVERY!

IT, like all reality, was produced by a set of complex factors and reasons, all of which differed from one individual to the next.

There is more content in those linked documents than the specific bits that I used to support my refutations of the other member's assertions.

 

[Conservative65]

This just makes you a liar.

Point out my lie- if you aren't a typical contard cowardly pussy.

Point out where you told the truth - if you aren't the typical NL leftwing retard.

Point out my lie- if you aren't a typical racist cowardly pussy

Point out the truth you stated if you aren't a typical NL leftwing pussy.

Point out my lie- if you aren't a typical racist cowardly pussy

Point where you've spoken the truth - if you aren't the typical NL leftwing pussy.

Nothing racist about calling someone what they are, BOY.

 

[usmbguest5318]

No. The differences are already present. Insisting that people "stand up and be counted" merely tells us the extent of them. Knowing that, along with other things, helps inform us of how we might proceed and deal with the extant differences.

Sure there are racial differences, as there are gender differences, religious differences and so on.

But none of that outweighs what binds us together as civic nationalists, and American citizens.

View attachment 145649

none of that outweighs what binds us together as civic nationalists, and American citizens.

Yet another way in which standing up and being counted on this matter does not divide us.

 

[Darkwind]

I'm not the one demanding statues come down because I get my feelings hurt by looking at it. You want them down and support the pussies that approve of it.

Reading comprehension is not your strong point- along with being able to chew your food and walk.

I haven't once demanded that any statues come down.

You pussies just are pissed because some communities have decided to no longer honor your heroes.

This just makes you a liar.

Point out my lie- if you aren't a typical contard cowardly pussy.

That anyone is pissed because communities don't want to support my heros.

First lie. They are not My heroes.
Second lie. Some communities are not deciding this on their own, but are being threatened with violence.
Biggest lie. That this is anything other than censoring free speech.

Since I was responding to a post by someone else- why do you believe you are one of the cowardly pussies I was speaking about?

Note you haven't provided a single quote of mine that is a lie- just your own snowflake hurt feelings.

Once again- my position- which you snowflakes are so offended about:

1. All vandalism and violence is wrong- I am fine with vandals being arrested, and that murderers like the driver in Charlottesville was arrested.
2. Local communities should make their own decisions on which monuments to have.
3. That only a total idiot would think that removing a statue of Robert E. Lee is 'censoring free speech'

So, again you run an insult in item 3. In fact, only a total idiot would think that removing an inanimate object under the auspices of offensives speech is somehow not censorship.

Now, as to number 2. I've addressed it and you have yet to respond to the fact that local communities are NOT being permitted to make their own decisions on the monuments UNLESS those decisions match the will of the violent Antifa terrorists. If they do not comply, they have demonstrated that they will take action and take the matter out of their hands.

Now, stop being a pussy and acknowledge that fact.

 

[Conservative65]

The pussies are the ones that demand they come down. It hurts their feelings to see something they don't like.

That's why this whole Taliban Across America thing is guaranteed not to stop with Confederate monuments.

The real resentment here doesn't concern slavery. The real and poisonous resentment comes from the descendants of the immigrants who arrived when the Civil War was safely over.

The monumental achievements of the founding stock Americans--taming a continent and constructing a great nation on it, successfully ridding itself at enormous cost of the slavery scourge they inherited at the birth of the nation, devising a political and economic and social system so unique, so brilliant, and so advanced, no corner of the world has been untouched by emulation--these achievements are regarded with hatred and resentment by a particular kind of immigrant who came later. So the whole thing--at least any mention of the WASPs who created it-- must be torn down.

Another contard who can't tell the difference between a monument celebrating rebels against the United States- and monuments that celebrate the United States.

The states that seceded only wanted to leave. They're only considered rebels by those that wouldn't allow them to do so. Do you consider someone leaving when you don't want them to go as a rebel?

Exactly- they were rebels against the United States- and the Constitution of the United States.

So anyone that no longer wants to do something is a rebel? Interesting. If you ever decide to no longer be a n***** lover, does that make you one?

 

[Darkwind]

The people who want them to remain.

I'm sorry, but I've already referenced quite a lot of highly credible content in this thread that shows the Civil War was all about the South, the Confederates, successfully seceding from the United States and that the Confederacy was "all about" slavery. I 'm not going to repost or restate all that stuff.

Who had a voice in them going up? Are they any different then statues of Stalin?

You'd have to read the history of each to determine who had a voice in putting them up. I do know that tearing them down and waging a campaign of violence to intimidate these communities to take them down is nothing less than an attempt to censor people.

Let them go away and state that no more violence will be issued toward them, and then see if these communities vote to take these statues down. However, before they do that, I think they should hold a series of public forums (local community ONLY) to ensure that is the true will of the people.

Removing them without the consent of the City council (tearing them down as they did in Durham), or waging a war of intimidation is NOT the right way to do this.

I am advocating that for every community that elects to bow down to these violent intimidations, that America boycott spending any dollars in the community at all. Let their tourist dollars dry up.

Removing them without the consent of the City council (tearing them down as they did in Durham), or waging a war of intimidation is NOT the right way to do this.

One of the tenets of republican governance is that elected leaders must sometimes do things because they are the right thing to do, because they think it best, even though at the time they are unpopular things to do. One may not like that, but the fact remains that it is the case. Republics are not variously direct democracies when it's convenient and republics when that is convenient. They are republics or they are not.

"Heavy is the head that wears the crown" applies to more than just monarchs. It is the burden of leadership at all levels. Be that as it may, we elect our leaders to carry that burden, so carry it they must.

yes, I understand how representative republicanism works. When a group of terrorists tear down a statue, or a council folds to the threats of violence, then the representatives of the people are not doing their job and should be replaced, bypassed, or simply taken out of office in favor of representatives with courage.

This is not a matter of having a disagreement with the value of an elected representative. The entire equation changes when coercion is involved.

Which councils have 'folded' due to threats of violence?

Who are those 'terrorists' trying to 'terrorize' by pulling down a statue of a dead guy?

Who? Antifa are the terrorists. They have demonstrated and have threatened communites with violence if they do not get their way in this matter.

Don't believe Me?

www.google.com

Try getting outside your blinders and look.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Censor who?

The people who want them to remain.

Of course they did *I* posted the links to their stories, but all of them (except for W Virginia) still fought to protect their homes from Union hordes.

Which once again demonstrates that the American Civil War was NOT ALL about slavery, hence the statues are not either ALL about slavery.

I'm sorry, but I've already referenced quite a lot of highly credible content in this thread that shows the Civil War was all about the South, the Confederates, successfully seceding from the United States and that the Confederacy was "all about" slavery. I 'm not going to repost or restate all that stuff.

Who had a voice in them going up? Are they any different then statues of Stalin?

You'd have to read the history of each to determine who had a voice in putting them up. I do know that tearing them down and waging a campaign of violence to intimidate these communities to take them down is nothing less than an attempt to censor people.

Let them go away and state that no more violence will be issued toward them, and then see if these communities vote to take these statues down. However, before they do that, I think they should hold a series of public forums (local community ONLY) to ensure that is the true will of the people.

Removing them without the consent of the City council (tearing them down as they did in Durham), or waging a war of intimidation is NOT the right way to do this.

I am advocating that for every community that elects to bow down to these violent intimidations, that America boycott spending any dollars in the community at all. Let their tourist dollars dry up.

Removing them without the consent of the City council (tearing them down as they did in Durham), or waging a war of intimidation is NOT the right way to do this.

One of the tenets of republican governance is that elected leaders must sometimes do things because they are the right thing to do, because they think it best, even though at the time they are unpopular things to do. One may not like that, but the fact remains that it is the case. Republics are not variously direct democracies when it's convenient and republics when that is convenient. They are republics or they are not.

"Heavy is the head that wears the crown" applies to more than just monarchs. It is the burden of leadership at all levels. Be that as it may, we elect our leaders to carry that burden, so carry it they must.

yes, I understand how representative republicanism works. When a group of terrorists tear down a statue, or a council folds to the threats of violence, then the representatives of the people are not doing their job and should be replaced, bypassed, or simply taken out of office in favor of representatives with courage.

This is not a matter of having a disagreement with the value of an elected representative. The entire equation changes when coercion is involved.

When a group of terrorists tear down a statue, or a council folds to the threats of violence, then the representatives of the people are not doing their job and should be replaced, bypassed, or simply taken out of office in favor of representatives with courage.

I believe the remark to which I responded had to with removing the statues without a city council's approbation. I believe that's exactly what Madison's mayor did. It seems also to have been the case in Birmingham, AL. (I don't say that with certainty because the stories I've seen about it don't address that aspect, and I haven't checked further.) That is the sort of thing I had in mind, even though I suppose it isn't what you had in mind.

Ticked off citizens, no matter the nobility of their intentions do not have the authority to just tear down or otherwise destroy the damn things. Thus I disregarded the Durham incident because (1) it was lawless and (2) the perps have been charged for their misdeed. In my mind, that's what is supposed to happen to vandals; it's the rule of law working as it's intended to. I don't have a problem with that, but neither does it strike me as something that needs to be expounded upon for I'm the sort who deals with "nails that stick up" and "squeaky wheels."

The problem I have (or will or might) would be with whomever has the authority to remove the damn things refraining from ordering the removal. If a mayor, governor, county executive, etc. doesn't need a city or county council's or state assembly's imprimatur, nihil obstat, take the things down.

 

[Asclepias]

I grew up in Maryland - kind of an "in between" state..

I've lived in Maryland for nearly 50 years.
Maryland was not 'in between'. It was a southern state coopted by the north because of its proximity to DC.
The fascist academics on the U of MD campus removed the state song's melody from the campus chapel's clock chimes because some democrat fascist pointed out that the lyrics, written in 1847 or so, made reference to the 'tyranny of the north'.
Marylanders during the Civil War used the red and white Crossland portion of the state flag as their confederate battle flag.
If Maryland Democrat fascists want to be taken seriously then they need to be consistent and remove all vestiges of red and white from the campus and its sports teams, too. Good luck with that. Too much money at risk for the billion dollar sports industry there that Curley Byrd generated in the 1940's. Oh, BTW, the Democrat Nazis took Byrd's name off of the football stadium a couple of years back because he favored 'separate but equal' back in the 1950's. This was in spite of the tons of money he directed towards Maryland's black universities.

Calling the Confederacy what it is/was does not include denying what its VP explicitly described as its "cornerstone."

You anti-whites always quote the Vice President of the Confederacy. Why not the President? or the Secretary of State, who, to "preserve the Confederacy as military defeat made its situation increasingly desperate, he advocated freeing and arming the slaves, but his proposals were not accepted until it was too late."

Do you have a link to this? Never heard of anyone from the confederacy wanting to free the enslaved which they stated was the foundation of their repugnant society.

Out of curiosity, do you call any other society "repugnant"?

yes

 

[Asclepias]

Among other things, you'll find that Davis wasn't talking at all and that Stevens wasn't talking about plantation owners, he was talking to them.

It was without a doubt a war about slavery in the minds of the slave owners and their bought and paid for politicians.

But they are not the only ones involved in the war.

If it was all about slavery then why did so many Southerners vote against secession?

If it was all about slavery, then why did Lincoln in his inaugural address say he was fine with letting slavery continue to exist in the South?

Why did Lincoln wait so long to declare the Emancipation of slaves?

Why were six states in the Union allowed to maintain slavery throughout the war?

Why did General Grant have two slave man servants throughout the war?

The claim that the Civil War is all about slavery is simplistic at best, revisionism at worst.

1. Because most southern whites were poor and didnt own any slaves.

2. for the north it wasnt about slavery until they used the media to make it about slavery. Hell. Lincoln was about to sign an amendment to keep Blacks enslaved forever.

3. Because Lincoln was a racist himself. Again it was about slavery for the south not the north.

4. See above.

5. Its only revisionism if the south didnt document what it was about in the cornerstone speech. Only the ignorant pretend it wasnt about slavery for the south. So you see they wrote down why they were leaving. They wanted to keep their slaves. There are too many quotes proving the point.

“Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. "
-Alexander H. Stephens



"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. [Applause.] This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. "
-Alexander Stephenson

 

[Marion Morrison]

I tell ya wut, boy, when I was in college, it was me and my black friend Calvin against all of them.

They sought to deny Christ and all kinda crazy stuff. Only one that ever backed me up was Calvin. God bless him

Lots of Blacks still suffer from the step and fetch it syndrome. The survival instinct is strong in a lot of Blacks so some adapt and become sellouts. Any Black guy that sided with a white guy against another Black guy is like Clarence Thomas.

Way to be a sellout and promote the American Communists, fucktard.

The bond between me and Calvin is Christ and growing up together.

Your porch monkey ass cannot separate that bond.


Enjoy your frustration, derpy doodle.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Compare General Lee to General Sherman and you will see who was the better man.

 

[eagle1462010]

Should we ban the songs too.

Kiss my REBEL ASS LIBS.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Do any of the above support placing statues of Robert Philip Hanssen and Edward Joseph Snowden in Central Parks all around are nation?