Another shooting

[TSmith34, Inc.]

This is why I said their is not a profilaterion of weapons.

And this why you have it wrong, which seems to be your thing.  It is quite clear: more guns = more deaths.  It is quite simple, yet it eludes you.

[jesmu84]

Agree, but if we are going to tear down statues in this country, then there are some people that have been lionized that need a reexamination as well.

Was it washed over, or was it left out and not covered on purpose?  Media protecting their own?  How many stories do we in the general public never get to read about because the media chooses not to report it? Their power is unfettered and they can pick and choose who to lay waste to.

The Lion of the Senate, the great Ted Kennedy.   He was built up as a Mt. Rushmore of the left, but this is the kind of stuff that he was doing and dismissed as boys being boys.  The Waitress Sandwich with Chris Dodd, published in GQ because the normal mainstream media didn't want to bother with it.:

Brasserie I: In December 1985, just before he announced he would run for president in 1988, Kennedy allegedly manhandled a pretty young woman employed as a Brasserie waitress. The woman, Carla Gaviglio, declined to be quoted in this article, but says the following account, a similar version of which first appeared in Penthouse last year, is full and accurate:

It is after midnight and Kennedy and Dodd are just finishing up a long dinner in a private room on the first floor of the restaurant's annex. They are drunk. Their dates, two very young blondes, leave the table to go to the bathroom. (The dates are drunk too. "They'd always get their girls very, very drunk," says a former Brasserie waitress.) Betty Loh, who served the foursome, also leaves the room. Raymond Campet, the co-owner of La Brasserie, tells Gaviglio the senators want to see her.

As Gaviglio enters the room, the six-foot-two, 225-plus-pound Kennedy grabs the five-foot-three, 103-pound waitress and throws her on the table. She lands on her back, scattering crystal, plates and cutlery and the lit candles. Several glasses and a crystal candlestick are broken. Kennedy then picks her up from the table and throws her on Dodd, who is sprawled in a chair. With Gaviglio on Dodd's lap, Kennedy jumps on top and begins rubbing his genital area against hers, supporting his weight on the arms of the chair. As he is doing this, Loh enters the room. She and Gaviglio both scream, drawing one or two dishwashers. Startled, Kennedy leaps up. He laughs. Bruised, shaken and angry over what she considered a sexual assault, Gaviglio runs from the room. Kennedy, Dodd and their dates leave shortly thereafter, following a friendly argument between the senators over the check.

Eyewitness Betty Loh told me that Kennedy had "three or four" cocktails in his first half hour at the restaurant and wine with dinner. When she walked into the room after Gaviglio had gone in, she says, "what I saw was Senator Kennedy on top of Carla, who was on top of Senator Dodd's lap, and the tablecloth was sort of slid off the table 'cause the table was knocked over—not completely, but just on Senator Dodd's lap a little bit, and of course the glasses and the candlesticks were totally spilled and everything. And right when I walked in, Senator Kennedy jumped off…and he leaped up, composed himself and got up. And Carla jumped up and ran out of the room."

From all available evidence, God created our elected officials to drink and screw around.

According to Loh, Kennedy "was sort of leaning" on Gaviglio, "not really straddling but sort of off-balance so it was like he might have accidentally fallen…He was partially on and off…pushing himself off her to get up." Dodd, she adds, "said 'It's not my fault.' " Kennedy said something similar and added, jokingly, "Makes you wonder about the leaders of this country."

Giving Kennedy the benefit of the doubt, it's quite possible he did not intend an assault but meant to be funny, in a repulsive, boozehead way. Drunks are notoriously poor judges of distance, including the distance between fun and assault.

Brasserie II: On September 25, 1987, Kennedy and a young blonde woman—identified by several sources as a congressional lobbyist—allegedly got carried away at a wine-fueled lunch in a private room upstairs and succumbed to the temptations of the carpet, where they were surprised in a state of semi-undress and wholehearted passion by waitress Frauke Morgan. The room, located next to the restrooms, is secured only by a flimsy accordion door, which could not be fully closed. Morgan declined to be interviewed for this story or to comment on or refute the accounts of other sources.

However, waitress Virginia Hurt, who says Morgan described the scene to her shortly after witnessing it, recalls, "He was on the floor with his pants down on top of the woman, and he saw her and she just kind of backed away and closed the door. The girl didn't see Frauke. So Frauke went downstairs and told the manager and [another waitress] overheard."

A waitress to whom Morgan spoke just after the incident says, "She told me…she went up to offer them coffee and when she opened the door…there they were on the floor." Morgan said explicitly, the other waitress goes on, that Kennedy had his pants down and his date "had her dress up," and the two " 'were screwing on the floor.' "

Says another waitress to whom Morgan immediately related the episode, "She said she had walked in to ask them if they needed anything else before she gave them the check, and she just sort of found Senator Kennedy on top of this [woman] on the floor and they were sort of half under the table and half out."

A copy of La Brasserie's reservation list for that day shows that a luncheon table for two in the back room was reserved for Kennedy. A copy of the check, signed "Edward M. Kennedy," shows he was billed for two bottles of Chardonnay.

Holy crap.

I literally just said do the right thing on both sides and throw them all out.

Holy unnatural carnal knowledge. I can't believe I had to repeat it.

This equivalency stuff is so outrageous.

[real chili 83]

Al Franken sighting....on a milk carton.

[Tugg Speedman]

Heisey, I said mass shootings are not new to the last 5 years but dramatically increased in the last five years. And if you think 1.5 mass shootings a year is not a problem,  that's a problem.

I don't know how many guns is appropriate.  But since we are number one in guns per capita and our number is nearly double the country in second it's probably less than we currently have.

First, you say we cannot stop all of them, then you call 1.5/year to many and demand more gun restrictions.

The only way they are going to zero is a total ban.  But you don't want that.

Make up your mind.

[forgetful]

Holy crap.

I literally just said do the right thing on both sides and throw them all out.

Holy unnatural carnal knowledge. I can't believe I had to repeat it.

This equivalency stuff is so outrageous.

I've said this for a long time too, but is seems some people don't get it.  Throw them all out.  If they broke the law, through them all in jail.  It seems a lot of people aren't actually concerned with the crimes, and assaults these people commit, they are more worried about if they can personally benefit from person X being in office. 

[Tugg Speedman]

I've said this for a long time too, but is seems some people don't get it.  Throw them all out.  If they broke the law, through them all in jail.  It seems a lot of people aren't actually concerned with the crimes, and assaults these people commit, they are more worried about if they can personally benefit from person X being in office.

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/ben-shapiro/ben-shapiro-what-are-our-representatives-supposed-do

During America's founding era, a significant debate took place about the nature of representation in a democratically elected government. Were representatives supposed to act as simple proxies for their constituents? Or were they supposed to exercise independent judgment?

Edmund Burke was a forceful advocate for the latter position: A representative, he said, was supposed to exercise his "mature judgment, his enlightened conscience. And "he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living." John Stuart Mill, too, believed that representatives ought to act independently; he said: "A person whose desires and impulses are his own...is said to have a character. One whose desires and impulses are not his own, has no character, no more than a steam-engine has a character."

Then there were those who argued that to exercise independent judgment would be to betray voters, that they sent you there with a mission, and your job is to fulfill that mission. This so-called delegate view of representation is supremely transactional — we only bother electing representatives in this view in order to do the work we're not willing to do. They aren't elected to spend time learning about the issues or broaden their perspective beyond the regional. They're there to do what you want them to do.

This debate has finally come to a head recently, not because sectional representatives have forgone their voters but because characterless people are running for office more and more. Those who believe in the Burkean model oppose such people — we say that to put those without character in charge of policy is to leave our future in the hands of the untrustworthy. Those who believe in the delegate model can embrace such people — they say that so long as the representative votes the right way on the issues, they can murder dogs in the backyard or allegedly molest young girls.

Nina Burleigh's perspective on then-President Bill Clinton falls into this second camp. "I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal," she said. So does Rep. Mo Brooks' perspective on Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore. He said: "Roy Moore will vote right ... That's why I'm voting for Roy Moore."

There's a certain freedom to this perspective. It allows us to forgo discussion about the nature of the people we support — so long as they're not lying about how they vote, we can trust them in office. The founders, however, would have rejected this perspective. The Federalist Papers are replete with explanations of just why a good government would require good men. The founders greatly feared the constraints of a parchment barrier against characterless men; they didn't trust human nature enough to believe those child molesters or puppy torturers would be bound by simple conformity with the public will.

And the founders were right. History has shown that bad men in positions of power rarely get better; they often get worse. They tend to abuse power. They tend to exercise their judgment — or lack thereof — even when they pledge to do otherwise. That means that we must measure our candidates for character as well as position. "May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof," President John Adams prayed regarding the White House. He didn't pray that they agree with him on tariffs.

[Tugg Speedman]

One more thing about Franken being the subject of an ethics investigation ....

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/04/senate-ethics-panel-has-issued-no-punishments-9-years/79704196/

Between 2007 and 2015 the Senate ethics committee received 613 allegations of wrongdoing.  Only 75 made it to a preliminary investigation being opened.  The rest were dismissed without getting this far.

So, how many of these 75 preliminary investigations resulted in punishment?  Answer, ZERO.

Franken has nothing to worry about.

[Hards Alumni]

Agree, but if we are going to tear down statues in this country, then there are some people that have been lionized that need a reexamination as well.

Was it washed over, or was it left out and not covered on purpose?  Media protecting their own?  How many stories do we in the general public never get to read about because the media chooses not to report it? Their power is unfettered and they can pick and choose who to lay waste to.

The Lion of the Senate, the great Ted Kennedy.   He was built up as a Mt. Rushmore of the left, but this is the kind of stuff that he was doing and dismissed as boys being boys.  The Waitress Sandwich with Chris Dodd, published in GQ because the normal mainstream media didn't want to bother with it.:

Brasserie I: In December 1985, just before he announced he would run for president in 1988, Kennedy allegedly manhandled a pretty young woman employed as a Brasserie waitress. The woman, Carla Gaviglio, declined to be quoted in this article, but says the following account, a similar version of which first appeared in Penthouse last year, is full and accurate:

It is after midnight and Kennedy and Dodd are just finishing up a long dinner in a private room on the first floor of the restaurant's annex. They are drunk. Their dates, two very young blondes, leave the table to go to the bathroom. (The dates are drunk too. "They'd always get their girls very, very drunk," says a former Brasserie waitress.) Betty Loh, who served the foursome, also leaves the room. Raymond Campet, the co-owner of La Brasserie, tells Gaviglio the senators want to see her.

As Gaviglio enters the room, the six-foot-two, 225-plus-pound Kennedy grabs the five-foot-three, 103-pound waitress and throws her on the table. She lands on her back, scattering crystal, plates and cutlery and the lit candles. Several glasses and a crystal candlestick are broken. Kennedy then picks her up from the table and throws her on Dodd, who is sprawled in a chair. With Gaviglio on Dodd's lap, Kennedy jumps on top and begins rubbing his genital area against hers, supporting his weight on the arms of the chair. As he is doing this, Loh enters the room. She and Gaviglio both scream, drawing one or two dishwashers. Startled, Kennedy leaps up. He laughs. Bruised, shaken and angry over what she considered a sexual assault, Gaviglio runs from the room. Kennedy, Dodd and their dates leave shortly thereafter, following a friendly argument between the senators over the check.

Eyewitness Betty Loh told me that Kennedy had "three or four" cocktails in his first half hour at the restaurant and wine with dinner. When she walked into the room after Gaviglio had gone in, she says, "what I saw was Senator Kennedy on top of Carla, who was on top of Senator Dodd's lap, and the tablecloth was sort of slid off the table 'cause the table was knocked over—not completely, but just on Senator Dodd's lap a little bit, and of course the glasses and the candlesticks were totally spilled and everything. And right when I walked in, Senator Kennedy jumped off…and he leaped up, composed himself and got up. And Carla jumped up and ran out of the room."

From all available evidence, God created our elected officials to drink and screw around.

According to Loh, Kennedy "was sort of leaning" on Gaviglio, "not really straddling but sort of off-balance so it was like he might have accidentally fallen…He was partially on and off…pushing himself off her to get up." Dodd, she adds, "said 'It's not my fault.' " Kennedy said something similar and added, jokingly, "Makes you wonder about the leaders of this country."

Giving Kennedy the benefit of the doubt, it's quite possible he did not intend an assault but meant to be funny, in a repulsive, boozehead way. Drunks are notoriously poor judges of distance, including the distance between fun and assault.

Brasserie II: On September 25, 1987, Kennedy and a young blonde woman—identified by several sources as a congressional lobbyist—allegedly got carried away at a wine-fueled lunch in a private room upstairs and succumbed to the temptations of the carpet, where they were surprised in a state of semi-undress and wholehearted passion by waitress Frauke Morgan. The room, located next to the restrooms, is secured only by a flimsy accordion door, which could not be fully closed. Morgan declined to be interviewed for this story or to comment on or refute the accounts of other sources.

However, waitress Virginia Hurt, who says Morgan described the scene to her shortly after witnessing it, recalls, "He was on the floor with his pants down on top of the woman, and he saw her and she just kind of backed away and closed the door. The girl didn't see Frauke. So Frauke went downstairs and told the manager and [another waitress] overheard."

A waitress to whom Morgan spoke just after the incident says, "She told me…she went up to offer them coffee and when she opened the door…there they were on the floor." Morgan said explicitly, the other waitress goes on, that Kennedy had his pants down and his date "had her dress up," and the two " 'were screwing on the floor.' "

Says another waitress to whom Morgan immediately related the episode, "She said she had walked in to ask them if they needed anything else before she gave them the check, and she just sort of found Senator Kennedy on top of this [woman] on the floor and they were sort of half under the table and half out."

A copy of La Brasserie's reservation list for that day shows that a luncheon table for two in the back room was reserved for Kennedy. A copy of the check, signed "Edward M. Kennedy," shows he was billed for two bottles of Chardonnay.

Ah, there's Jamie.

[Jockey]

Al Franken sighting....on a milk carton.

Do pedophiles and serial assaulters bother you as well?

[Jockey]

Agree, but if we are going to tear down statues in this country, then there are some people that have been lionized that need a reexamination as well.

Serious question.

Why is it important to you to keep statues of traitors to the US? They definitely have their place in museums and Nat'l Parks such as Gettysburg and others where they are marking history. But why do favor having them in other places?

Also do you know when the majority of these statues were erected?

[Tugg Speedman]

Serious question.

Why is it important to you to keep statues of traitors to the US? They definitely have their place in museums and Nat'l Parks such as Gettysburg and others where they are marking history. But why do favor having them in other places?

Also do you know when the majority of these statues were erected?

Do you want to go down this road?  Whatever emotional reaction we have this week decides who stays and who goes?

Becuase NYC is thinking about tearing down Columbus Circle.  Jefferson is also at risk.

How about Che Guevara in Central Park?  Can we tear him down too?  How about the Stephen Douglass tomb/memorial on Chicago's Southside?  When Feminist start objecting to the Picasso in Daley Plaza, will that go too?

Point is once you go down this road, over time different people will have different "visions of history" and they will all come down.

Otherwise, tell me the standard by which some go (Confederate soldiers) and some stay (Columbus)?  Or, do you want all the above to go?

[Jockey]

Do you want to go down this road?  Whatever emotional reaction we have this week decides who stays and who goes?

Becuase NYC is thinking about tearing down Columbus Circle.  Jefferson is also at risk.

How about Che Guevara in Central Park?  Can we tear him down too?  How about the Stephen Douglass tomb/memorial on Chicago's Southside?  When Feminist start objecting to the Picasso in Daley Plaza, will that go too?

Point is once you go down this road, over time different people will have different "visions of history" and they will all come down.

Otherwise, tell me the standard by which some go (Confederate soldiers) and some stay (Columbus)?  Or, do you want all the above to go?

I figured a serious question would get a silly response.

[Tugg Speedman]

I figured a serious question would get a silly response.

Actually, it was a serious response.  Your problem is you see the name and you always judge books by the cover, which is one of your many issues.

So, answer the questions, or is beyond your ability.  What is the standard and when do we say no?

And here start with this ... in Charlottesville, the home of the University of Virginia, the school that Thomas Jefferson founded, his statue has been covered up.

These protestors apparently agree with you when you said Why is it important to you to keep statues of traitors to the US?

You agree with them?  Was "TJ" a rapist and racist?  Are you going to defend their right to tear this down?



http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41258592
Dozens of people staged the protest on Tuesday, reportedly posting a sign reading "TJ is a racist and rapist".
The act happened exactly one month after a far-right rally was held against plans to remove the statue of a Confederate general in the town's park.

[Tugg Speedman]

I figured a serious question would get a silly response.

Tackle this one too wise one.  Does Columbus fit your standard of Why is it important to you to keep statues of traitors to the US?


New York mayor considers Christopher Columbus statue removal
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/25/new-york-christopher-columbus-statue-de-blasio
Bill de Blasio, the New York mayor, has said he may order the removal of the landmark statue of Christopher Columbus that has overlooked Manhattan’s Columbus Circle since it was erected as part of the city’s 1892 commemoration of the 400th anniversary of the explorer landing in the Americas.

And this ... is he a traitor too?

Chicago pastor urges mayor to remove George Washington statue, rename park over slavery
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/16/rahm-emanuel-urged-by-chicago-pastor-to-remove-geo/
Bishop James E. Dukes of Chicago’s Liberation Christian Center made headlines in the Windy City on Wednesday for calling on Mayor Rahm Emanuel to rename Washington Park and remove a statue of the first U.S. president over his ties to slavery. Mr. Dukes told his Facebook flock that “it’s time” after Mr. Trump sparred with reporters over efforts to expunge Civil War-era monuments from existence.

[forgetful]

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/ben-shapiro/ben-shapiro-what-are-our-representatives-supposed-do

Your whole diatribe (typical mostly cut and paste) is fatally flawed.  It assumes that those voting right or left are doing so because of the constituents and not because they are voting their free independent mind. 

People like Moore have plenty of character.  Bad character.  He has consistently been vocal about race and sex issues, and voted consistently with his personal beliefs.  His actions indicate he believes in how he voted on race and sex issues.  People are voting for him, because his character for the most part matches theirs.  They also believe the same things he has spoken out about race and sex issues.  They then excuse away these allegations (wholly consistent with his character), as attacks from their vile opposition.

People vote in people with plenty of character, bad character, and they then vote for their own self-interest (not their constituents).

It reminds me of a colleague of mine, who just yesterday said he didn't believe any of these allegations against Moore (or similarly Trump), and that women are lying because it doesn't happen that often.  He said he knows this because of his three daughters only his oldest ever had anything happen to her, when a construction worker smacked her on the ass when she was wearing short shorts.  He explained, that when she told them, they properly told her she just can't go around wearing shorts like that...they blamed her.  He then explained that she never, nor her sisters ever had any problems, cause they would tell him everything.

Well, no they wouldn't, not when they were blamed when it happened to them.  This is the problem.

[rocket surgeon]

  "People are voting for him, because his character for the most part matches theirs."

  this is NOT the way i see it nor i doubt the, let's just say, 50% of alabama voters see it.  if this were true, do you apply the same toward BC and/or HRC ?? and then, anyone else who has obvious character flaws?

your story about your colleague, may i add, is also way way in the minority.  this doesn't sound like one of your best posts forgetful

[MU82]

Ah, the old slippery slope argument.

If we get rid of the statues of traitors who killed scores of Americans just so they could keep enslaving an entire race of humans ... then that will open the floodgates to statues of Jefferson and Washington being removed.

You know what, Smuggles? It's a risk I'm willing to take.

Let's deal with one issue at a time. Let's take the statues of traitors - and there is no other word for them - to museums where they belong and then we can deal with other issues on a case-by-case basis.

I have a feeling that if we do that, we won't be getting rid of Jefferson and Washington statues. But maybe we will; we'll see.

And for those who really get pissed off if statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson get taken down and sent to museums ... I send them my thoughts and prayers.

[Tugg Speedman]

Your whole diatribe (typical mostly cut and paste) is fatally flawed.  It assumes that those voting right or left are doing so because of the constituents and not because they are voting their free independent mind. 

People like Moore have plenty of character.  Bad character.  He has consistently been vocal about race and sex issues, and voted consistently with his personal beliefs.  His actions indicate he believes in how he voted on race and sex issues.  People are voting for him, because his character for the most part matches theirs.  They also believe the same things he has spoken out about race and sex issues.  They then excuse away these allegations (wholly consistent with his character), as attacks from their vile opposition.

People vote in people with plenty of character, bad character, and they then vote for their own self-interest (not their constituents).

It reminds me of a colleague of mine, who just yesterday said he didn't believe any of these allegations against Moore (or similarly Trump), and that women are lying because it doesn't happen that often.  He said he knows this because of his three daughters only his oldest ever had anything happen to her, when a construction worker smacked her on the ass when she was wearing short shorts.  He explained, that when she told them, they properly told her she just can't go around wearing shorts like that...they blamed her.  He then explained that she never, nor her sisters ever had any problems, cause they would tell him everything.

Well, no they wouldn't, not when they were blamed when it happened to them.  This is the problem.

This is a partisan response.  as this read as Moore and Trump are terrible people but not Franken, both Clintons and Bob Mendedez.

[Tugg Speedman]

Ah, the old slippery slope argument.

If we get rid of the statues of traitors who killed scores of Americans just so they could keep enslaving an entire race of humans ... then that will open the floodgates to statues of Jefferson and Washington being removed.

You know what, Smuggles? It's a risk I'm willing to take.

Let's deal with one issue at a time. Let's take the statues of traitors - and there is no other word for them - to museums where they belong and then we can deal with other issues on a case-by-case basis.

I have a feeling that if we do that, we won't be getting rid of Jefferson and Washington statues. But maybe we will; we'll see.

And for those who really get pissed off if statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson get taken down and sent to museums ... I send them my thoughts and prayers.

And I'll put you down as "yes" to tearing down Columbus, Jefferson, and Washington.

[forgetful]

This is a partisan response.  as this read as Moore and Trump are terrible people but not Franken, both Clintons and Bob Mendedez.

You are grossly misrepresenting my statements, like usual.

My colleague I'm referring to is a huge GOP supporter.  I wrote that from his perspective on what "he didn't believe".  He wholly believes that Clinton, Franken and Menendez should all be thrown in jail immediately.  He doesn't believe the same about Trump and Moore.

I've made it clear on here, and even posted today, that I think we should throw them all out and those that have committed crimes should be thrown in jail. 

So your statement, again, is way off base. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

First, you say we cannot stop all of them, then you call 1.5/year to many and demand more gun restrictions.

I never said we cannot stop all of them. I reject that belief. Other countries have been mass shooting free for years. We can figure it out to. What you may have mistaken for me saying that was that the goal of my suggestions wasn't necessarily to stop all mass shootings tomorrow, but to slowly eradicate our country's unhealthy obsession with guns and violence with the eventual goal eliminating all mass shootings. There is nothing that can be done to eliminate mass shootings overnight, not even a total ban. It will take a culture change which takes time. Passing stricter gun control laws can help that culture change.

The only way they are going to zero is a total ban.  But you don't want that.

Make up your mind.

Two things with this. First, thank you. This is the first time you've suggested something to help end mass shootings. So far you've just called everyone else's ideas stupid without contributing any possible solutions. I'm glad you are now trying to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

2nd, why do you assume I don't want a total gun ban? I absolutely do. But that can't happen in today's political climate and gun obsessed culture. So in the meantime, I will take smaller measures that can help limit the damage that guns can do and help change that culture over time. Eventually, I hope we get to a place as a country where we look at guns and say "You know what, we don't need these. In fact, we don't even want these." I know that seems like a crazy/impossible vision at the point, but I believe it could one day happen. When seat belts where introduced, there were plenty who vowed never to embrace them. Now it is something that most people don't even thinking about. Big tobacco seemed like a permanent part of our culture but they are losing more and more power every day. The battle over guns will be more difficult than either of these, but I think it will happen one day.

To further explain my comments above, I don't want to see the government and take everyone's guns. That is part of our Bill of Rights and that shouldn't be changed unless it is the true will of the people. I want us to get to a place where we the people ask the government to take our guns because they are no longer wanted or needed.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Confederate generals are famous for being traitors who attacked America.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are famous for being Presidents of the United States who also happen to be flawed individuals who committed immoral acts.

To me there is a pretty easy line to draw between the two.

Columbus is a more interesting case study. He is famous for "discovering" America...but part of that discovery involved the murder of hundreds? thousands? (honestly not sure how many to attribute to Columbus) of native peoples. I can see both sides to that argument.

Typically, I'm a fan of keeping the statues up but making sure that the plaque that goes with the statue encompasses the 360 degree view of the individual and not just the good stuff.

[jesmu84]

Heisy has gotten absolutely off his rocker with the logical fallacies and misrepresenting what people say. It's comical at this point. Impossible to have any sort of discussion with him, that's for sure.

[Jockey]

Heisy has gotten absolutely off his rocker with the logical fallacies and misrepresenting what people say. It's comical at this point. Impossible to have any sort of discussion with him, that's for sure.

His arguments remind me of people who argue that gay marriage will lead to man-on-dog relationships.

A waste of all of our times.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Do you want to go down this road?  Whatever emotional reaction we have this week decides who stays and who goes?

Becuase NYC is thinking about tearing down Columbus Circle.  Jefferson is also at risk.

How about Che Guevara in Central Park?  Can we tear him down too?  How about the Stephen Douglass tomb/memorial on Chicago's Southside?  When Feminist start objecting to the Picasso in Daley Plaza, will that go too?

Point is once you go down this road, over time different people will have different "visions of history" and they will all come down.

Otherwise, tell me the standard by which some go (Confederate soldiers) and some stay (Columbus)?  Or, do you want all the above to go?

We can't remove statues of traitors to the U.S who wanted to continue to enslave people--statues that were erected specifically to let those now ex-slaves know that they would never be equal--because in the future we might also decide that there are other statues that are no longer worthy of being the public square?

And in your little mind you think this makes the tiniest bit of sense?  smh