Voters Oppose Removing Confederate Monuments

[Picaro]

How so? Detail. Be specific as to the enumerated power in conflict..

Don't be silly; he's never read the Constitution, and you know he can't. lol lol lol

 

[Picaro]

You people are obsessed with irrelevant deflections.

Now this is irony ...

 

[Avatar4321]

If the local towns vote for the statues let them. If they vote to take them down. Let them

Their community is their community. Let them govern how they see fit and stay out of mine.

Mind your own business. Fix the problems in your community. Let others take care of theirs.

 

[jknowgood]

You do know if you really want to erase history, you will need to remove MLK monuments next? I mean if you really want to be consistent.

You learn history in books, not by gawking at statues.

By your 'reasoning' the city of Charlottesville should be required to put up a statue of U. S. Grant, because the absence of one is 'erasing history'.

No you claim you want to erase the racist history of the United states that also includes the civil rights ers. Affirmative action also since we are all created equal.

I have no interest in erasing any aspect of history as long as it's the truth.

You can't find one example of me ever saying or doing anything to the contrary.

You support taking down confederate monuments?

I support letting the authorities with the proper legal jurisdiction decide.

So you would support them if they took a MLK monument down?

 

[Papageorgio]

So if this is a local issue, then why are the lefty nutters trying to force the Washington Redskins to change their nickname? Isn't that a local issue? Native Americans don't seem to care but the lefty nutters have been working to change the name because they claim it is offensive.

Are polls only relevant to the left when the poll supports their viewpoint and not any other time. Sort of like state's rights. The left seems to be against the state's deciding who and who cannot marry, they are pushing for marijuana reform over the state's selecting on their own. However they cite state's rights in this issue. So I guess I am wondering why the inconsistency.

You people are obsessed with irrelevant deflections.

Just asking, I am not against the removing of the statues, it is not in my local community. I have no vested interest. However, I apply it to other issues as well. Why does the left want to force others to comply with changing a nickname when they have no vested interest.

 

[Picaro]

Yeah, no one wants to get rid of the Jefferson Memorial.

lol of course they do; you don't read much, do you? Well, maybe Madonna biographies and stuff like that.

 

[Papageorgio]

How so? Detail. Be specific as to the enumerated power in conflict..

Don't be silly; he's never read the Constitution, and you know he can't. lol lol lol

That is why he hasn't answered the question.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You learn history in books, not by gawking at statues.

By your 'reasoning' the city of Charlottesville should be required to put up a statue of U. S. Grant, because the absence of one is 'erasing history'.

No you claim you want to erase the racist history of the United states that also includes the civil rights ers. Affirmative action also since we are all created equal.

I have no interest in erasing any aspect of history as long as it's the truth.

You can't find one example of me ever saying or doing anything to the contrary.

You support taking down confederate monuments?

I support letting the authorities with the proper legal jurisdiction decide.

So you would support them if they took a MLK monument down?

Acknowledging authority and supporting or opposing specific actions aren't the same thing.

 

[Avatar4321]

A number of snowflakes in this forum have said that the voters should decide whether Confederate moderates should be taken down. It appears the voters want them left alone. ANTIFA and BLM are a small fringe, and they do not represent the will of the majority. Does anyone believe the left would desist in their attacks on these monuments if a referendum were held and the voters decided to all them to stay?

Voters Oppose Removing Confederate Monuments - Rasmussen Reports™

Four Confederate monuments were removed from New Orleans earlier this month following complaints that they celebrate racism, and now the city of Baltimore has plans to follow suit. But most voters oppose taking away these remnants of the past even if they are unpopular with some.

While proposals have been made to get rid of monuments such as the Jefferson Memorial and the carving on Stone Mountain in Georgia because they honor men who practiced or defended slavery, just 19% of Likely U.S. Voters think the United States should erase symbols of its past history that are out of line with current sentiments. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 69% oppose erasing these historical symbols. Twelve percent (12%) are undecided.​

Maryland has numerous monuments and Civil War era attractions.

I'm going to become an ass and demand every single reference to the Civil War be erased from Maryland history.

I've been calling and writing my Representatives demanding the removal of these racist monuments.

You're going to call to remove union monuments?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Argument #1. States that ratified the Constitution became bound to it. The Supremacy Clause forbids states from passing laws that contradict the Constitution.
No state can ever secede without violating the Supremacy Clause.

Yes, you're just delusional. Thought so.

You have no idea what the Supremacy Clause is or says, do you?

You apparently do not.

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

And secession is a conflicting exercise of state power.

How so? Detail. Be specific as to the enumerated power in conflict..

Paying federal taxes for starters.

 

[Correll]

Rasmussen? Hilarious! Cite something credible.

That's called an "ad hominem" argument - a logical fallacy.

Logical Fallacies are really all they have. And a short list of them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How so? Detail. Be specific as to the enumerated power in conflict..

Don't be silly; he's never read the Constitution, and you know he can't. lol lol lol

Some of the first acts by the seceding states was to seize federal property within the states. That was as clear as violation of federal law as one could have.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rasmussen? Hilarious! Cite something credible.

That's called an "ad hominem" argument - a logical fallacy.

Logical Fallacies are really all they have. And a short list of them.

Go read the question they asked.

 

[Correll]

Rasmussen? Hilarious! Cite something credible.

That's called an "ad hominem" argument - a logical fallacy.

Logical Fallacies are really all they have. And a short list of them.

Go read the question they asked.

If it was a slanted question, then post it and explain why it is slanted or misleading.

If it was worded as stated in the op, then the op's point is valid.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No you claim you want to erase the racist history of the United states that also includes the civil rights ers. Affirmative action also since we are all created equal.

How is moving a statue from a public park to a museum "erasing history"?

Apparently, once the statue is taken down, every American forgets that Robert E. Lee ever existed.

Quite possible, since history is no longer taught in the public school system.

Find me all the public schools that do not teach American history, or teach American history while omitting the Civil War.

All of them. They teach revisionist crap, and a kindergarten version of that. Howard Zinn's nonsense is the primary model.

You're referring to this, for example?

How Texas is whitewashing Civil War history

 

[Freewill]

You do know if you really want to erase history, you will need to remove MLK monuments next? I mean if you really want to be consistent.

You learn history in books, not by gawking at statues.

By your 'reasoning' the city of Charlottesville should be required to put up a statue of U. S. Grant, because the absence of one is 'erasing history'.

No you claim you want to erase the racist history of the United states that also includes the civil rights ers. Affirmative action also since we are all created equal.

I have no interest in erasing any aspect of history as long as it's the truth.

You can't find one example of me ever saying or doing anything to the contrary.

You support taking down confederate monuments?

I support letting the authorities with the proper legal jurisdiction decide.

So you are all for those who took the initiative and tore down a statue going to jail?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rasmussen? Hilarious! Cite something credible.

That's called an "ad hominem" argument - a logical fallacy.

Logical Fallacies are really all they have. And a short list of them.

Go read the question they asked.

If it was a slanted question, then post it and explain why it is slanted or misleading.

If it was worded as stated in the op, then the op's point is valid.

Are you an invalid?

They asked people about removing the Lincoln Memorial and based on the answer concluded that most Americans want to preserve Confederate monuments.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You learn history in books, not by gawking at statues.

By your 'reasoning' the city of Charlottesville should be required to put up a statue of U. S. Grant, because the absence of one is 'erasing history'.

No you claim you want to erase the racist history of the United states that also includes the civil rights ers. Affirmative action also since we are all created equal.

I have no interest in erasing any aspect of history as long as it's the truth.

You can't find one example of me ever saying or doing anything to the contrary.

You support taking down confederate monuments?

I support letting the authorities with the proper legal jurisdiction decide.

So you are all for those who took the initiative and tore down a statue going to jail?

If they broke the law they must face the rule of law and the consequences. Even MLK went to jail.

 

[bripat9643]

Better read it again.............

I don't have to. I've won this argument so many times I feel like I should step back and let someone else here win it.

You have a vivid imagination. You've never won.

You want to debate the right of secession or lack thereof of the states in the Union?

Go for it.

Argument #1. States that ratified the Constitution became bound to it. The Supremacy Clause forbids states from passing laws that contradict the Constitution.
No state can ever secede without violating the Supremacy Clause.

Secession doesn't contradict the Constitution.

 

[Correll]

Rasmussen? Hilarious! Cite something credible.

That's called an "ad hominem" argument - a logical fallacy.

Logical Fallacies are really all they have. And a short list of them.

Go read the question they asked.

If it was a slanted question, then post it and explain why it is slanted or misleading.

If it was worded as stated in the op, then the op's point is valid.

Are you an invalid?

They asked people about removing the Lincoln Memorial and based on the answer concluded that most Americans want to preserve Confederate monuments.

Post the question.