The Trump Presidency

mikey_dragon wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:So my question about Trump is, what has he said to make people believe he is a climate-change denier? What does the term climate-change denier even mean? I thought those who deny it weren't actually denying, they were denying that it is a man made phenomenon, and more of a natural one?

It's what he's done not said. Look at his cabinet.

Yeah he's lifted a lot of restrictions on use of fossil fuels, etc. previously put in place right? I was thinking more what guys like Dicaprio have said about him, that he denies science (in regards to climate change).  

mikey_dragon wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:May has -38 rating and Trump has a -18 one..

Miliband regularly polled in the minus 40s.

Compare those if you want.

Hey Trussman will you at least come out and condemn your man's non anti Nazi stance?

This thread is full of straw men and no men..

Happy to debate but please give me an argument to tuck into...

"We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides."

and

"Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including KKK, Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, and other hate groups are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans. Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America."

Muscular-mouse wrote:Problem is he should have condemned the racists in his first speech, the fact he never explicity mentioned is why he received a lot of criticism, especially considering they killed a young woman.

his second speech where he mentioned racism was some 2 days later and after he was getting a lot of bad press, yes he said it but he never meant it. He only said it in response to the negative press he was getting.

Muscular-mouse wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Please educate us, Mikey.

A peaceful protest ruined by BLM again, and then people got hurt, again. It's their right to protest whether you agree or disagree and the so-called good tolerant people didn't allow them that right. This isn't my perspective by the way. I'm lucky to have friends from all over the world and USA happens to be one part. Of course I may have misunderstood Gwlad too and the reply was unnecessary.

The KKK and the Nazi supporters turned up with assault rifles, baseball bats and other weapons and were marching through the town chanting racist slogans. It was not a peaceful march in the slightest.

Lets pretend that it was peaceful, and that they never turned up with weapons. Why can't BLM and normal folk who oppose racism turn up to counter protest? If I remember rightly the brown shirts (british union of fascists) in London tried to march through the streets chanting racist stuff. It was people who opposed racism who confronted them and showed that their racist views were not welcome. And thankfully due to people opposing racism we don't have the KKK or similer large organised racist groups in London ( although its unfortunately seeping back in).

you say it was their right to protest but I think some people confuse the meaning of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and hate speech are two very different things. Inciting violence or spreading racist views is not freedom of speech and thus should be opposed.

I'll leave you with a quote from Edmond burke;
'The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing'.

Hi mouse. As did ANTIFA and BLM; here's an interesting view on ANTIFA http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.html

They should oppose racism, but I don't think a statue of general lee, or a flag, is racist. I don't want hate speech to be aired either, but it's their right, and it's why we have had it in London too - just not often from white people. I agree with you that spreading racists views should be more opposed as hate speech often incites violence and more racist views.

Is that quote about a particular person? I actually have some questions about Trump, which is why I popped on here.

The issue with the statue is that this is a man who fought to keep slavery in the usa, he fought against black people and other minorities from being free men and having basic rights. Now what people didn't like was firstly having a statue honouring him and secondly making that statue be a public statue on public land resulting in the taxpayer (including black people and minorities) having their taxes used for the upkeep of this statue. That is why the statue was scheduled to be removed.

You don't see any Hitler statues in Germany because his views are something that the German people are extremely opposed to now and the same is of charlotesville, they don't want a statue of a man who killed black people just because of the colour of their skin and who fought to keep slavery in the usa.

Muscular-mouse wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:May has -38 rating and Trump has a -18 one..

Miliband regularly polled in the minus 40s.

Compare those if you want.

Hey Trussman will you at least come out and condemn your man's non anti Nazi stance?

This thread is full of straw men and no men..

Happy to debate but please give me an argument to tuck into...

"We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides."

and

"Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including KKK, Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, and other hate groups are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans. Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America."

Problem is he should have condemned the racists in his first speech, the fact he never explicity mentioned is why he received a lot of criticism, especially considering they killed a young woman.

his second speech where he mentioned racism was some 2 days later and after he was getting a lot of bad press, yes he said it but he never meant it. He only said it in response to the negative press he was getting.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Please educate us, Mikey.

A peaceful protest ruined by BLM again, and then people got hurt, again. It's their right to protest whether you agree or disagree and the so-called good tolerant people didn't allow them that right. This isn't my perspective by the way. I'm lucky to have friends from all over the world and USA happens to be one part. Of course I may have misunderstood Gwlad too and the reply was unnecessary.

The KKK and the Nazi supporters turned up with assault rifles, baseball bats and other weapons and were marching through the town chanting racist slogans. It was not a peaceful march in the slightest.

Lets pretend that it was peaceful, and that they never turned up with weapons. Why can't BLM and normal folk who oppose racism turn up to counter protest? If I remember rightly the brown shirts (british union of fascists) in London tried to march through the streets chanting racist stuff. It was people who opposed racism who confronted them and showed that their racist views were not welcome. And thankfully due to people opposing racism we don't have the KKK or similer large organised racist groups in London ( although its unfortunately seeping back in).

you say it was their right to protest but I think some people confuse the meaning of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and hate speech are two very different things. Inciting violence or spreading racist views is not freedom of speech and thus should be opposed.

I'll leave you with a quote from Edmond burke;
'The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing'.

Hi mouse. As did ANTIFA and BLM; here's an interesting view on ANTIFA http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.html

They should oppose racism, but I don't think a statue of general lee, or a flag, is racist. I don't want hate speech to be aired either, but it's their right, and it's why we have had it in London too - just not often from white people. I agree with you that spreading racists views should be more opposed as hate speech often incites violence and more racist views.

Is that quote about a particular person? I actually have some questions about Trump, which is why I popped on here.

The issue with the statue is that this is a man who fought to keep slavery in the usa, he fought against black people and other minorities from being free men and having basic rights. Now what people didn't like was firstly having a statue honouring him and secondly making that statue be a public statue on public land resulting in the taxpayer (including black people and minorities) having their taxes used for the upkeep of this statue. That is why the statue was scheduled to be removed.

You don't see any Hitler statues in Germany because his views are something that the German people are extremely opposed to now and the same is of charlotesville, they don't want a statue of a man who killed black people just because of the colour of their skin and who fought to keep slavery in the usa.

Well I'm not going to say you have it all wrong, but you certainly have an agenda. Are you familiar with Walter E Williams; "These are but a few examples of the important role that blacks served, both as slaves and freemen in the Confederacy during the War Between the States. The flap over the Confederate Flag is not quite as simple as the nation's race experts make it. They want us to believe the flag is a symbol of racism. Yes, racists have used the Confederate Flag, but racists have also used the Bible and the U.S. Flag. Should we get rid of the Bible and lower the U.S. Flag? Black civil rights activists and their white liberal supporters who're attacking the Confederate Flag have committed a deep, despicable dishonor to our patriotic black ancestors who marched, fought and died to protect their homeland from what they saw as Northern aggression. They don't deserve the dishonor." I think he's a lot more clued up on this than you.

https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2015/07/15/historical-ignorance-n2024814
http://walterewilliams.com/blacks-and-the-confederacy/

Robert E Lee and Hitler is such an apple and orange comparison. And it sounds as if you've watched Django too much? Good movie though.

Muscular-mouse wrote:
ok I never mentioned the confederate flag, I only spoke about the statue of general lee, a man who fought to keep slavery.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

GSC wrote:Sometimes an adult needs to take a mic/twitter off Trump for his own sake. This is one of those times.

Looking at Corbyn I think we are in new times..

Social media killed the Tories at 2017..

But Trump needs to think before he tweets for sure.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:
ok I never mentioned the confederate flag, I only spoke about the statue of general lee, a man who fought to keep slavery.

Oh, well you might not have, but it's very much interlinked with the statue of Lee. Here's a different perspective on Lee, taken from Lee.

Robert E. Lee and every man that fought in the Civil War were great men and Americans. Every man on both sides. Although, by todays standards, the South fighting to preserve slavery was wrong, we cannot judge them by todays standards.

The men on both sides had their beliefs and fought for those beliefs. To their deaths if need be. This makes all of them great men and Americans.

Lee did not fight to preserve slavery. He fought for his State. No different than us fighting for our country today.

Read this letter to his sister. It explains it all.


"With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword....." Lee in a letter to his sister, April 20, 1861

Yes Lee did own slaves. Here is the info on that.

Lee as slave holder
As a member of the Virginia aristocracy, Lee lived in close contact with slavery before he joined the Army, but he never held more than about a half-dozen slaves under his own name. When Lee's father-in-law, George Washington Parke Custis, died in October 1857, Lee's wife inherited 63 slaves. Lee was executor of the will that required them to be freed after five years. The slaves were eager for emancipation but Lee needed the money so he kept them for five years. He tried without success to hire out the slaves, and failed to find a plantation manager. So he took a two-year leave of absence from the army in order to manage the plantation.

When three ran away and were recaptured, he hired them out to work on railroad construction in Richmond and Alabama. According to Freeman, "That probably was the extent of the punishment imposed on them. There is no evidence, direct or indirect, that Lee ever had them or any other Negroes flogged. The usage at Arlington and elsewhere in Virginia among people of Lee's station forbade such a thing. But false stories were spread." About the letters in the New York Tribune falsely accusing him of abusing the slaves, Freeman notes, "This was Lee's first experience with the extravagance of irresponsible antislavery agitators. The libel, which was to be reprinted many times in later years with new embellishments, made him unhappy, but it did not lead him to any violent retort.[1] Lee released the slaves after the end of the five year period in the winter of 1862, filing the deed of manumission on December 29, 1862[2].

mikey_dragon wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:No mention of the terrorist that drove his car into protesters then? Doesn't sound very peaceful to me.

No it isn't peaceful, but that was my point. It was peaceful until BLM and ANTIFA turned up to cause trouble, then the white supremacists retaliated. For some reason only the one culprit gets singled out again and it isn't BLM or ANTIFA. The right wing protestors could have had their say but the left wing didn't want to allow them that; once the left stop viewing the right (not far right extremism, just right wing) as the anti-Christ then I feel we'll have some peace and unity .

Muscular-mouse wrote:

He was definitely pro slavery, the civil war in essence was over giving slaves the right to be free and general lee chose the side opposing freedom of saves. I would also add that when he was in command of southern states his forces under his command would capture black people who were free and enslave them.

Muscular-mouse wrote:He was definitely pro slavery, the civil war in essence was over giving slaves the right to be free and general lee chose the side opposing freedom of saves. I would also add that when he was in command of southern states his forces under his command would capture black people who were free and enslave them.

navyblueshorts wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:No mention of the terrorist that drove his car into protesters then? Doesn't sound very peaceful to me.

No it isn't peaceful, but that was my point. It was peaceful until BLM and ANTIFA turned up to cause trouble, then the white supremacists retaliated. For some reason only the one culprit gets singled out again and it isn't BLM or ANTIFA. The right wing protestors could have had their say but the left wing didn't want to allow them that; once the left stop viewing the right (not far right extremism, just right wing) as the anti-Christ then I feel we'll have some peace and unity .

Actually, I don't think that's true. Knowing that Nazi morons were coming, counter protesters were already in the park where Lee's statue was. On arrival, the Nazi morons apparently forced their way through the counter-protesters using force i.e. fists and bats. The Nazi morons came wanting violence - what a surprise when it broke out. They're scum and it's nothing whatsoever to do with their 'history' being removed.

Scottrf wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:So my question about Trump is, what has he said to make people believe he is a climate-change denier? What does the term climate-change denier even mean? I thought those who deny it weren't actually denying, they were denying that it is a man made phenomenon, and more of a natural one?

It's what he's done not said. Look at his cabinet.

Muscular-mouse wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Please educate us, Mikey.

A peaceful protest ruined by BLM again, and then people got hurt, again. It's their right to protest whether you agree or disagree and the so-called good tolerant people didn't allow them that right. This isn't my perspective by the way. I'm lucky to have friends from all over the world and USA happens to be one part. Of course I may have misunderstood Gwlad too and the reply was unnecessary.

The KKK and the Nazi supporters turned up with assault rifles, baseball bats and other weapons and were marching through the town chanting racist slogans. It was not a peaceful march in the slightest.

Lets pretend that it was peaceful, and that they never turned up with weapons. Why can't BLM and normal folk who oppose racism turn up to counter protest? If I remember rightly the brown shirts (british union of fascists) in London tried to march through the streets chanting racist stuff. It was people who opposed racism who confronted them and showed that their racist views were not welcome. And thankfully due to people opposing racism we don't have the KKK or similer large organised racist groups in London ( although its unfortunately seeping back in).

you say it was their right to protest but I think some people confuse the meaning of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and hate speech are two very different things. Inciting violence or spreading racist views is not freedom of speech and thus should be opposed.

I'll leave you with a quote from Edmond burke;
'The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing'.

Hi mouse. As did ANTIFA and BLM; here's an interesting view on ANTIFA http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.html

They should oppose racism, but I don't think a statue of general lee, or a flag, is racist. I don't want hate speech to be aired either, but it's their right, and it's why we have had it in London too - just not often from white people. I agree with you that spreading racists views should be more opposed as hate speech often incites violence and more racist views.

Is that quote about a particular person? I actually have some questions about Trump, which is why I popped on here.

The issue with the statue is that this is a man who fought to keep slavery in the usa, he fought against black people and other minorities from being free men and having basic rights. Now what people didn't like was firstly having a statue honouring him and secondly making that statue be a public statue on public land resulting in the taxpayer (including black people and minorities) having their taxes used for the upkeep of this statue. That is why the statue was scheduled to be removed.

You don't see any Hitler statues in Germany because his views are something that the German people are extremely opposed to now and the same is of charlotesville, they don't want a statue of a man who killed black people just because of the colour of their skin and who fought to keep slavery in the usa.

Muscular-mouse wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:May has -38 rating and Trump has a -18 one..

Miliband regularly polled in the minus 40s.

Compare those if you want.

Hey Trussman will you at least come out and condemn your man's non anti Nazi stance?

This thread is full of straw men and no men..

Happy to debate but please give me an argument to tuck into...

"We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides."

and

"Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including KKK, Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, and other hate groups are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans. Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America."

Problem is he should have condemned the racists in his first speech, the fact he never explicity mentioned is why he received a lot of criticism, especially considering they killed a young woman.

his second speech where he mentioned racism was some 2 days later and after he was getting a lot of bad press, yes he said it but he never meant it. He only said it in response to the negative press he was getting.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Please educate us, Mikey.

A peaceful protest ruined by BLM again, and then people got hurt, again. It's their right to protest whether you agree or disagree and the so-called good tolerant people didn't allow them that right. This isn't my perspective by the way. I'm lucky to have friends from all over the world and USA happens to be one part. Of course I may have misunderstood Gwlad too and the reply was unnecessary.

The KKK and the Nazi supporters turned up with assault rifles, baseball bats and other weapons and were marching through the town chanting racist slogans. It was not a peaceful march in the slightest.

Lets pretend that it was peaceful, and that they never turned up with weapons. Why can't BLM and normal folk who oppose racism turn up to counter protest? If I remember rightly the brown shirts (british union of fascists) in London tried to march through the streets chanting racist stuff. It was people who opposed racism who confronted them and showed that their racist views were not welcome. And thankfully due to people opposing racism we don't have the KKK or similer large organised racist groups in London ( although its unfortunately seeping back in).

you say it was their right to protest but I think some people confuse the meaning of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and hate speech are two very different things. Inciting violence or spreading racist views is not freedom of speech and thus should be opposed.

I'll leave you with a quote from Edmond burke;
'The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing'.

Hi mouse. As did ANTIFA and BLM; here's an interesting view on ANTIFA http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.html

They should oppose racism, but I don't think a statue of general lee, or a flag, is racist. I don't want hate speech to be aired either, but it's their right, and it's why we have had it in London too - just not often from white people. I agree with you that spreading racists views should be more opposed as hate speech often incites violence and more racist views.

Is that quote about a particular person? I actually have some questions about Trump, which is why I popped on here.

The issue with the statue is that this is a man who fought to keep slavery in the usa, he fought against black people and other minorities from being free men and having basic rights. Now what people didn't like was firstly having a statue honouring him and secondly making that statue be a public statue on public land resulting in the taxpayer (including black people and minorities) having their taxes used for the upkeep of this statue. That is why the statue was scheduled to be removed.

You don't see any Hitler statues in Germany because his views are something that the German people are extremely opposed to now and the same is of charlotesville, they don't want a statue of a man who killed black people just because of the colour of their skin and who fought to keep slavery in the usa.

Well I'm not going to say you have it all wrong, but you certainly have an agenda. Are you familiar with Walter E Williams; "These are but a few examples of the important role that blacks served, both as slaves and freemen in the Confederacy during the War Between the States. The flap over the Confederate Flag is not quite as simple as the nation's race experts make it. They want us to believe the flag is a symbol of racism. Yes, racists have used the Confederate Flag, but racists have also used the Bible and the U.S. Flag. Should we get rid of the Bible and lower the U.S. Flag? Black civil rights activists and their white liberal supporters who're attacking the Confederate Flag have committed a deep, despicable dishonor to our patriotic black ancestors who marched, fought and died to protect their homeland from what they saw as Northern aggression. They don't deserve the dishonor." I think he's a lot more clued up on this than you.

https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2015/07/15/historical-ignorance-n2024814
http://walterewilliams.com/blacks-and-the-confederacy/

Robert E Lee and Hitler is such an apple and orange comparison. And it sounds as if you've watched Django too much? Good movie though.

Muscular-mouse wrote:
He was definitely pro slavery, the civil war in essence was over giving slaves the right to be free and general lee chose the side opposing freedom of saves. I would also add that when he was in command of southern states his forces under his command would capture black people who were free and enslave them.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:So my question about Trump is, what has he said to make people believe he is a climate-change denier? What does the term climate-change denier even mean? I thought those who deny it weren't actually denying, they were denying that it is a man made phenomenon, and more of a natural one?

It's what he's done not said. Look at his cabinet.

Actually, it's both, but here's some links to quotes:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/08/politics/trump-global-warming/index.html

The man's an idiotic narcissist, but a dangerous one given his position.

navyblueshorts wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Please educate us, Mikey.

A peaceful protest ruined by BLM again, and then people got hurt, again. It's their right to protest whether you agree or disagree and the so-called good tolerant people didn't allow them that right. This isn't my perspective by the way. I'm lucky to have friends from all over the world and USA happens to be one part. Of course I may have misunderstood Gwlad too and the reply was unnecessary.

The KKK and the Nazi supporters turned up with assault rifles, baseball bats and other weapons and were marching through the town chanting racist slogans. It was not a peaceful march in the slightest.

Lets pretend that it was peaceful, and that they never turned up with weapons. Why can't BLM and normal folk who oppose racism turn up to counter protest? If I remember rightly the brown shirts (british union of fascists) in London tried to march through the streets chanting racist stuff. It was people who opposed racism who confronted them and showed that their racist views were not welcome. And thankfully due to people opposing racism we don't have the KKK or similer large organised racist groups in London ( although its unfortunately seeping back in).

you say it was their right to protest but I think some people confuse the meaning of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and hate speech are two very different things. Inciting violence or spreading racist views is not freedom of speech and thus should be opposed.

I'll leave you with a quote from Edmond burke;
'The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing'.

Hi mouse. As did ANTIFA and BLM; here's an interesting view on ANTIFA http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.html

They should oppose racism, but I don't think a statue of general lee, or a flag, is racist. I don't want hate speech to be aired either, but it's their right, and it's why we have had it in London too - just not often from white people. I agree with you that spreading racists views should be more opposed as hate speech often incites violence and more racist views.

Is that quote about a particular person? I actually have some questions about Trump, which is why I popped on here.

The issue with the statue is that this is a man who fought to keep slavery in the usa, he fought against black people and other minorities from being free men and having basic rights. Now what people didn't like was firstly having a statue honouring him and secondly making that statue be a public statue on public land resulting in the taxpayer (including black people and minorities) having their taxes used for the upkeep of this statue. That is why the statue was scheduled to be removed.

You don't see any Hitler statues in Germany because his views are something that the German people are extremely opposed to now and the same is of charlotesville, they don't want a statue of a man who killed black people just because of the colour of their skin and who fought to keep slavery in the usa.

Well I'm not going to say you have it all wrong, but you certainly have an agenda. Are you familiar with Walter E Williams; "These are but a few examples of the important role that blacks served, both as slaves and freemen in the Confederacy during the War Between the States. The flap over the Confederate Flag is not quite as simple as the nation's race experts make it. They want us to believe the flag is a symbol of racism. Yes, racists have used the Confederate Flag, but racists have also used the Bible and the U.S. Flag. Should we get rid of the Bible and lower the U.S. Flag? Black civil rights activists and their white liberal supporters who're attacking the Confederate Flag have committed a deep, despicable dishonor to our patriotic black ancestors who marched, fought and died to protect their homeland from what they saw as Northern aggression. They don't deserve the dishonor." I think he's a lot more clued up on this than you.

https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2015/07/15/historical-ignorance-n2024814
http://walterewilliams.com/blacks-and-the-confederacy/

Robert E Lee and Hitler is such an apple and orange comparison. And it sounds as if you've watched Django too much? Good movie though.

Yeah, because the majority of Black slaves in the South would have had so much free choice in their fighting against the Union troops wouldn't they?

mikey_dragon wrote:...Robert E. Lee and every man that fought in the Civil War were great men and Americans. Every man on both sides. Although, by todays standards, the South fighting to preserve slavery was wrong, we cannot judge them by todays standards.

The men on both sides had their beliefs and fought for those beliefs. To their deaths if need be. This makes all of them great men and Americans.

Lee did not fight to preserve slavery. He fought for his State. No different than us fighting for our country today.......

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:No mention of the terrorist that drove his car into protesters then? Doesn't sound very peaceful to me.

No it isn't peaceful, but that was my point. It was peaceful until BLM and ANTIFA turned up to cause trouble, then the white supremacists retaliated. For some reason only the one culprit gets singled out again and it isn't BLM or ANTIFA. The right wing protestors could have had their say but the left wing didn't want to allow them that; once the left stop viewing the right (not far right extremism, just right wing) as the anti-Christ then I feel we'll have some peace and unity .

Actually, I don't think that's true. Knowing that Nazi morons were coming, counter protesters were already in the park where Lee's statue was. On arrival, the Nazi morons apparently forced their way through the counter-protesters using force i.e. fists and bats. The Nazi morons came wanting violence - what a surprise when it broke out. They're scum and it's nothing whatsoever to do with their 'history' being removed.

Why can't you accept free speech rather than calling people morons because their views differ from yours?

navyblueshorts wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:No mention of the terrorist that drove his car into protesters then? Doesn't sound very peaceful to me.

No it isn't peaceful, but that was my point. It was peaceful until BLM and ANTIFA turned up to cause trouble, then the white supremacists retaliated. For some reason only the one culprit gets singled out again and it isn't BLM or ANTIFA. The right wing protestors could have had their say but the left wing didn't want to allow them that; once the left stop viewing the right (not far right extremism, just right wing) as the anti-Christ then I feel we'll have some peace and unity .

Actually, I don't think that's true. Knowing that Nazi morons were coming, counter protesters were already in the park where Lee's statue was. On arrival, the Nazi morons apparently forced their way through the counter-protesters using force i.e. fists and bats. The Nazi morons came wanting violence - what a surprise when it broke out. They're scum and it's nothing whatsoever to do with their 'history' being removed.

Why can't you accept free speech rather than calling people morons because their views differ from yours?

Well, their view differs from mine (lots of people's views differ from mine and I don't mind), but these are morons. OK, what shall I say? Nazis? Is that better? Racists? Ignorant? Xenophobes? How's that?

mikey_dragon wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:So my question about Trump is, what has he said to make people believe he is a climate-change denier? What does the term climate-change denier even mean? I thought those who deny it weren't actually denying, they were denying that it is a man made phenomenon, and more of a natural one?

It's what he's done not said. Look at his cabinet.

Actually, it's both, but here's some links to quotes:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/08/politics/trump-global-warming/index.html

The man's an idiotic narcissist, but a dangerous one given his position.

I'll give it a read, but will ignore your classy statement

mikey_dragon wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Please educate us, Mikey.

A peaceful protest ruined by BLM again, and then people got hurt, again. It's their right to protest whether you agree or disagree and the so-called good tolerant people didn't allow them that right. This isn't my perspective by the way. I'm lucky to have friends from all over the world and USA happens to be one part. Of course I may have misunderstood Gwlad too and the reply was unnecessary.

The KKK and the Nazi supporters turned up with assault rifles, baseball bats and other weapons and were marching through the town chanting racist slogans. It was not a peaceful march in the slightest.

Lets pretend that it was peaceful, and that they never turned up with weapons. Why can't BLM and normal folk who oppose racism turn up to counter protest? If I remember rightly the brown shirts (british union of fascists) in London tried to march through the streets chanting racist stuff. It was people who opposed racism who confronted them and showed that their racist views were not welcome. And thankfully due to people opposing racism we don't have the KKK or similer large organised racist groups in London ( although its unfortunately seeping back in).

you say it was their right to protest but I think some people confuse the meaning of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and hate speech are two very different things. Inciting violence or spreading racist views is not freedom of speech and thus should be opposed.

I'll leave you with a quote from Edmond burke;
'The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing'.

Hi mouse. As did ANTIFA and BLM; here's an interesting view on ANTIFA http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.html

They should oppose racism, but I don't think a statue of general lee, or a flag, is racist. I don't want hate speech to be aired either, but it's their right, and it's why we have had it in London too - just not often from white people. I agree with you that spreading racists views should be more opposed as hate speech often incites violence and more racist views.

Is that quote about a particular person? I actually have some questions about Trump, which is why I popped on here.

The issue with the statue is that this is a man who fought to keep slavery in the usa, he fought against black people and other minorities from being free men and having basic rights. Now what people didn't like was firstly having a statue honouring him and secondly making that statue be a public statue on public land resulting in the taxpayer (including black people and minorities) having their taxes used for the upkeep of this statue. That is why the statue was scheduled to be removed.

You don't see any Hitler statues in Germany because his views are something that the German people are extremely opposed to now and the same is of charlotesville, they don't want a statue of a man who killed black people just because of the colour of their skin and who fought to keep slavery in the usa.

Well I'm not going to say you have it all wrong, but you certainly have an agenda. Are you familiar with Walter E Williams; "These are but a few examples of the important role that blacks served, both as slaves and freemen in the Confederacy during the War Between the States. The flap over the Confederate Flag is not quite as simple as the nation's race experts make it. They want us to believe the flag is a symbol of racism. Yes, racists have used the Confederate Flag, but racists have also used the Bible and the U.S. Flag. Should we get rid of the Bible and lower the U.S. Flag? Black civil rights activists and their white liberal supporters who're attacking the Confederate Flag have committed a deep, despicable dishonor to our patriotic black ancestors who marched, fought and died to protect their homeland from what they saw as Northern aggression. They don't deserve the dishonor." I think he's a lot more clued up on this than you.

https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2015/07/15/historical-ignorance-n2024814
http://walterewilliams.com/blacks-and-the-confederacy/

Robert E Lee and Hitler is such an apple and orange comparison. And it sounds as if you've watched Django too much? Good movie though.

Yeah, because the majority of Black slaves in the South would have had so much free choice in their fighting against the Union troops wouldn't they?

So you're going to start denying an African-American who is more clued up on it now then? I mean, I'm not sure how you can....

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:No mention of the terrorist that drove his car into protesters then? Doesn't sound very peaceful to me.

No it isn't peaceful, but that was my point. It was peaceful until BLM and ANTIFA turned up to cause trouble, then the white supremacists retaliated. For some reason only the one culprit gets singled out again and it isn't BLM or ANTIFA. The right wing protestors could have had their say but the left wing didn't want to allow them that; once the left stop viewing the right (not far right extremism, just right wing) as the anti-Christ then I feel we'll have some peace and unity .

Actually, I don't think that's true. Knowing that Nazi morons were coming, counter protesters were already in the park where Lee's statue was. On arrival, the Nazi morons apparently forced their way through the counter-protesters using force i.e. fists and bats. The Nazi morons came wanting violence - what a surprise when it broke out. They're scum and it's nothing whatsoever to do with their 'history' being removed.

Why can't you accept free speech rather than calling people morons because their views differ from yours?

Well, their view differs from mine (lots of people's views differ from mine and I don't mind), but these are morons. OK, what shall I say? Nazis? Is that better? Racists? Ignorant? Xenophobes? How's that?

Any of those are fine, thanks.

navyblueshorts wrote:So, you're suggesting that Southern slaves, loving their lot, masters and the South so much, all joined up of their own free will? Laughable. I'm not saying some didn't (I'm sure propaganda played its part then, as now) or that I know more about American race issues than this guy Williams, but to imply (as you did via that link) that significant (majority?) numbers did as was suggested is beyond credible.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Corbyn has 1.4m followers...May has 380,000..

LionsV2 wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

He was definitely pro slavery, the civil war in essence was over giving slaves the right to be free and general lee chose the side opposing freedom of saves. I would also add that when he was in command of southern states his forces under his command would capture black people who were free and enslave them.

Any proof of that beyond him being a confederalist general?

Scottrf wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Corbyn has 1.4m followers...May has 380,000..

Are you saying fewer followers helps you to win an election?

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Yes he owned slaves after the period that Lincoln abolished it and he captured free black men and forced them into slavery and he stated in letters that slavery was the will of God.

But yes being the general of the southern states who were fighting a civil war primarily based on opposition to freeing slaves shows that this is a man who should not have a statue of him paid for by the taxpayer

mikey_dragon wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:
He was definitely pro slavery, the civil war in essence was over giving slaves the right to be free and general lee chose the side opposing freedom of saves. I would also add that when he was in command of southern states his forces under his command would capture black people who were free and enslave them.

But there's several accounts that state otherwise? I just feel that, like Walter E Williams, if people can except the statue and flag as a heritage symbol rather than a racist one then part of the problem will be solved and we don't have any violent outbreaks. Not that I'm denying the KKK, Neo-nazi's btw, I fully agree with the Whitehouse statement on them.

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Corbyn has 1.4m followers...May has 380,000..

Are you saying fewer followers helps you to win an election?

No one won the last election. There is an argument May won considering she ended up with the most seats and there is an argument corbyn won considering before the election he was forecast to lose massively and he ended up in the space of 6 weeks removing Mays majority and weakening her.

but no one technically won.

LionsV2 wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Yes he owned slaves after the period that Lincoln abolished it and he captured free black men and forced them into slavery and he stated in letters that slavery was the will of God.

But yes being the general of the southern states who were fighting a civil war primarily based on opposition to freeing slaves shows that this is a man who should not have a statue of him paid for by the taxpayer

I suggest you read up on it a bit before commenting, we'll ignore all the evidence that shows he was anti slavery and simplify the argument to him being a southern states general his reasons for being so having nothing to do with slavery. It's very easy in 2017 Britain to apply our morals to his time but it doesn't work like that.

Scottrf wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Corbyn has 1.4m followers...May has 380,000..

Are you saying fewer followers helps you to win an election?

No one won the last election. There is an argument May won considering she ended up with the most seats and there is an argument corbyn won considering before the election he was forecast to lose massively and he ended up in the space of 6 weeks removing Mays majority and weakening her.

but no one technically won.

May won. Exceeding expectations isn't winning or someone could win the 100m in the Olympics by setting a new PB.

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Corbyn has 1.4m followers...May has 380,000..

Are you saying fewer followers helps you to win an election?

No one won the last election. There is an argument May won considering she ended up with the most seats and there is an argument corbyn won considering before the election he was forecast to lose massively and he ended up in the space of 6 weeks removing Mays majority and weakening her.

but no one technically won.

May won. Exceeding expectations isn't winning or someone could win the 100m in the Olympics by setting a new PB.

So if May won how come she can't get any laws through without the help of other parties?

Muscular-mouse wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:So my question about Trump is, what has he said to make people believe he is a climate-change denier? What does the term climate-change denier even mean? I thought those who deny it weren't actually denying, they were denying that it is a man made phenomenon, and more of a natural one?

It's what he's done not said. Look at his cabinet.

Yeah he's lifted a lot of restrictions on use of fossil fuels, etc. previously put in place right? I was thinking more what guys like Dicaprio have said about him, that he denies science (in regards to climate change).  

You only have to look at what he has said to know he is a climate change denier

'The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive'.


He also pulled out of the Paris climate change agreement.

Muscular-mouse wrote:

I stated that he captured free black men and forced them into slavery and he owned slaves after it was abolished and he stated that slavery was the will of god and thus should be kept.

But yes being a general on the side that fought to KEEP slavery means that you don't have a statue of you paid for by those very people whose ancestors were slaves. Complicated reasons or not it doesn't matter as this is taxpayers money and a statue on public ground so its up to the taxpayers of 2017 to decide if they want the statue and they decided they didn't.

Scottrf wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Corbyn has 1.4m followers...May has 380,000..

Are you saying fewer followers helps you to win an election?

No one won the last election. There is an argument May won considering she ended up with the most seats and there is an argument corbyn won considering before the election he was forecast to lose massively and he ended up in the space of 6 weeks removing Mays majority and weakening her.

but no one technically won.

May won. Exceeding expectations isn't winning or someone could win the 100m in the Olympics by setting a new PB.

So if May won how come she can't get any laws through without the help of other parties?

She can. You think every MP turns up to every vote?

profitius wrote:Those so called deniers happen to have alternative evidence that most people are not aware of. Things like evidence that other planets in the solar system are also heating up! Maybe the hot ball of fire in the sky might have something to do with it.

LionsV2 wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

I stated that he captured free black men and forced them into slavery and he owned slaves after it was abolished and he stated that slavery was the will of god and thus should be kept.

But yes being a general on the side that fought to KEEP slavery means that you don't have a statue of you paid for by those very people whose ancestors were slaves. Complicated reasons or not it doesn't matter as this is taxpayers money and a statue on public ground so its up to the taxpayers of 2017 to decide if they want the statue and they decided they didn't.

Did they have a referendum about it then?

Whether he fought for the confederacy or not does not alone make him pro slavery, his actual reason was out of loyalty to his home state of Virginia not actually anything to do with slavery.

Muscular-mouse wrote:No one won the last election and what makes it worse for the tories is they had a majority and had over 3 years left with that majority but May gambled and lost the majority. It weakened her party and it weakened her position as leader. To claim any side won the last election is stupid and highlights the lack of knowledge of the british political system.

The myth of Lee goes something like this: He was a brilliant strategist and devoted Christian man who abhorred slavery and labored tirelessly after the war to bring the country back together.

There is little truth in this. Lee was a devout Christian, and historians regard him as an accomplished tactician. But despite his ability to win individual battles, his decision to fight a conventional war against the more densely populated and industrialized North is considered by many historians to have been a fatal strategic error.

But even if one conceded Lee’s military prowess, he would still be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in defense of the South’s authority to own millions of human beings as property because they are black. Lee’s elevation is a key part of a 150-year-old propaganda campaign designed to erase slavery as the cause of the war and whitewash the Confederate cause as a noble one. That ideology is known as the Lost Cause, and as historian David Blight writes, it provided a “foundation on which Southerners built the Jim Crow system.”

There are unwitting victims of this campaign—those who lack the knowledge to separate history from sentiment. Then there are those whose reverence for Lee relies on replacing the actual Lee with a mythical figure who never truly existed.

In the Richmond Times Dispatch, R. David Cox wrote that “For white supremacist protesters to invoke his name violates Lee’s most fundamental convictions.” In the conservative publication Townhall,  Jack Kerwick concluded that Lee was “among the finest human beings that has ever walked the Earth.” John Daniel Davidson, in an essay for The Federalist, opposed the removal of the Lee statute in part on the grounds that Lee “arguably did more than anyone to unite the country after the war and bind up its wounds.” Praise for Lee of this sort has flowed forth from past historians and presidents alike.

This is too divorced from Lee’s actual life to even be classed as fan fiction; it is simply historical illiteracy.

White supremacy does not “violate” Lee’s “most fundamental convictions.” White supremacy was one of Lee’s most fundamental convictions.

Lee was a slaveowner—his own views on slavery were explicated in an 1856 letter that it often misquoted to give the impression that Lee was some kind of an abolitionist. In the letter, he describes slavery as “a moral & political evil,” but goes on to explain that:

   I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy.

The argument here is that slavery is bad for white people, good for black people, and most importantly, it is better than abolitionism; emancipation must wait for divine intervention. That black people might not want to be slaves does not enter into the equation; their opinion on the subject of their own bondage is not even an afterthought to Lee.

Lee’s cruelty as a slavemaster was not confined to physical punishment. In Reading the Man, the historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor’s portrait of Lee through his writings, Pryor writes that “Lee ruptured the Washington and Custis tradition of respecting slave families,” by hiring them off to other plantations, and that “by 1860 he had broken up every family but one on the estate, some of whom had been together since Mount Vernon days.” The separation of slave families was one of the most unfathomably devastating aspects of slavery, and Pryor wrote that Lee’s slaves regarded him as “the worst man I ever see.”

Scottrf wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:No one won the last election and what makes it worse for the tories is they had a majority and had over 3 years left with that majority but May gambled and lost the majority. It weakened her party and it weakened her position as leader. To claim any side won the last election is stupid and highlights the lack of knowledge of the british political system.

No it doesn't and you ignored my inconvenient question. Fact is she can get laws through even if the DUP stay in NI.