Buck Randall
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2019
- Messages
- 2,697
- Reaction score
- 3,148
Wow, Cattle Today censors the declaration of independence. Who runs this commie site? :lol2:
Buck Randall said:Caustic Burno said:I can as you have to look as many believed that the state trumped the federal by the constitution. The power of a central government was a fear of the framers. This is the fathers and grandfathers of the Civil War vet.
If you read the constitution as it's written the federal government didn't have much power it's granted to the states. You have to understand your history here.
https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/federalist-papers
Yes, I suppose it makes sense if you subscribe to the idea that secession was a matter of "states rights". However, the supposed right in question was the ability to legalize slavery, a concept antithetical to the premise on which this country was founded as laid out in the declaration of independence. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights endowed be nice, and government exists to ensure those rights are maintained.
Buck Randall said:JWBrahman said:I see this a different way. We destroyed a lot of valuable art in Louisiana and never bothered to replace it with anything equally nice.
You know who destroys art?
The Taliban
Now the same people who want to destroy controversial art are the people who were defending the National Endowment For The Arts for spending millions on ridiculous turd paintings of the Virgin Mary.
I don't see the whole baggage of history. I see a nice sculpture that is technically a masterpiece. We've got to quit destroying our public treasures.
One man's art is another's symbol of oppression. I didn't hear a lot of complaining when US marines pulled down the Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad. I suppose someone may have been offended, but losers don't get statues. Life goes on.
Art is not sacred. If a person spray paints a landscape on the side of your house, you're not going to preserve it because destroying art is a slippery slope.JWBrahman said:Buck Randall said:JWBrahman said:I see this a different way. We destroyed a lot of valuable art in Louisiana and never bothered to replace it with anything equally nice.
You know who destroys art?
The Taliban
Now the same people who want to destroy controversial art are the people who were defending the National Endowment For The Arts for spending millions on ridiculous turd paintings of the Virgin Mary.
I don't see the whole baggage of history. I see a nice sculpture that is technically a masterpiece. We've got to quit destroying our public treasures.
One man's art is another's symbol of oppression. I didn't hear a lot of complaining when US marines pulled down the Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad. I suppose someone may have been offended, but losers don't get statues. Life goes on.
Buck there is a statue of Nick Saban on the University of Alabama that I find oppressive and hurts my feelings.
On the LSU campus we have a statue of Shaq, a guy who aggravates and antagonizes many people.
Art is supposed to inspire the brain to start working. Sometimes it makes our brains happy. Sometimes it makes our brain upset. It doesn't matter just as long as it makes you think. The statue of the marines at Iwo Jima probably isn't a big favorite with the Japanese. Should we year down that dedication to sacrifice and teamwork?
It's a slippery slope when we decide to destroy art instead of understanding art.
Buck Randall said:Art is not sacred. If a person spray paints a landscape on the side of your house, you're not going to preserve it because destroying art is a slippery slope.JWBrahman said:Buck Randall said:One man's art is another's symbol of oppression. I didn't hear a lot of complaining when US marines pulled down the Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad. I suppose someone may have been offended, but losers don't get statues. Life goes on.
Buck there is a statue of Nick Saban on the University of Alabama that I find oppressive and hurts my feelings.
On the LSU campus we have a statue of Shaq, a guy who aggravates and antagonizes many people.
Art is supposed to inspire the brain to start working. Sometimes it makes our brains happy. Sometimes it makes our brain upset. It doesn't matter just as long as it makes you think. The statue of the marines at Iwo Jima probably isn't a big favorite with the Japanese. Should we year down that dedication to sacrifice and teamwork?
It's a slippery slope when we decide to destroy art instead of understanding art.
If someone wants to build a museum with placards for the statues explaining their true purpose (they were constructed as monuments to racist pride in the 60s) I've got no problem with them continuing to exist as pieces of art. They have no place in town squares or government buildings.
They have underlying historic and artistic value, but they were built to send a message. Tearing them down sends a message, too.
Caustic Burno said:Buck Randall said:Caustic Burno said:Lincoln didn't give a hoot about slaves.
"In 1858, Lincoln expressed his opposition to racial equality and asserted the superiority of white people."
Look up his plan for them.
The only reason Lincoln freed the slave was to create a hardship for the south.
He did not have altruistic motivation.
To say that Lincoln didn't give a hoot about slaves isn't really true, just as it's untrue to paint him as a flawless liberator fighting for racial justice. He opposed slavery, but didn't believe abolition was possible without upending the political system and stability of the country. The secession of the South forced his hand.
His views on race evolved over the course of his presidency, and he had a notable friendship with Frederick Douglass, who argued for equality of all races. That friendship and the performance of free blacks in the army did eventually convince Lincoln that black people could be worthy of US citizenship and voting rights.
Like most people, he was neither all good nor all bad, but his ability to lead while learning and keeping an open mind is a rare one.
We'll agree his views changed but the emancipation proclamation was about placing a hardship on the South' War efforts, not any other altruistic motive.
Only Clinton won with a smaller percentage of the popular vote, he did carry a majority of the states unlike Lincoln.
Caustic Burno said:You're so far left you can't even see right. Those are the same ideologies just happen to be the ones as leaders have had that lead us to the civil war, WWI,WWII,Korea and Vietnam.
The Democrats started the Civil, Wilson took us into WWI Roosevelt WWII, Truman Korea and Kennedy Vietnam.
See a trend here?
And Johnson enhanced and it ended under Nixon.sstterry said:Caustic Burno said:You're so far left you can't even see right. Those are the same ideologies just happen to be the ones as leaders have had that lead us to the civil war, WWI,WWII,Korea and Vietnam.
The Democrats started the Civil, Wilson took us into WWI Roosevelt WWII, Truman Korea and Kennedy Vietnam.
See a trend here?
I am trying my best to stay out of these threads, but Vietnam was Eisenhower. Kennedy inherited it.
I don't disagree with that at all. Just saying it started under Eisenhower. I do not have the energy or time to get into the whole history of it, but the present-day Iran problems started with the CIA under Eisenhower too. That is also what led to Vietnam. Not being political, just a fact of what actually happened.ccr said:And Johnson enhanced and it ended under Nixon.sstterry said:Caustic Burno said:You're so far left you can't even see right. Those are the same ideologies just happen to be the ones as leaders have had that lead us to the civil war, WWI,WWII,Korea and Vietnam.
The Democrats started the Civil, Wilson took us into WWI Roosevelt WWII, Truman Korea and Kennedy Vietnam.
See a trend here?
I am trying my best to stay out of these threads, but Vietnam was Eisenhower. Kennedy inherited it.
https://www.history.com/news/us-presidents-vietnam-war-escalation
sstterry said:Caustic Burno said:You're so far left you can't even see right. Those are the same ideologies just happen to be the ones as leaders have had that lead us to the civil war, WWI,WWII,Korea and Vietnam.
The Democrats started the Civil, Wilson took us into WWI Roosevelt WWII, Truman Korea and Kennedy Vietnam.
See a trend here?
I am trying my best to stay out of these threads, but Vietnam was Eisenhower. Kennedy inherited it.
TexasBred said:Caustic Burno said:Buck Randall said:To say that Lincoln didn't give a hoot about slaves isn't really true, just as it's untrue to paint him as a flawless liberator fighting for racial justice. He opposed slavery, but didn't believe abolition was possible without upending the political system and stability of the country. The secession of the South forced his hand.
His views on race evolved over the course of his presidency, and he had a notable friendship with Frederick Douglass, who argued for equality of all races. That friendship and the performance of free blacks in the army did eventually convince Lincoln that black people could be worthy of US citizenship and voting rights.
Like most people, he was neither all good nor all bad, but his ability to lead while learning and keeping an open mind is a rare one.
We'll agree his views changed but the emancipation proclamation was about placing a hardship on the South' War efforts, not any other altruistic motive.
Only Clinton won with a smaller percentage of the popular vote, he did carry a majority of the states unlike Lincoln.
CB can't help but notice you're used the above comment a number of times even though it is basically meaningless since Lincoln had a huge majority of electoral votes. Hope you noticed he carried all but three states in his 2nd term and 55% of the popular vote.. Carry on
jltrent said:Columbus's head got chopped off. I recon he was a raciest too for discovering American. Statue companies are going to need a bail out.
https://boston.cbslocal.com/2020/06/10/christopher-columbus-statue-beheaded-boston-massachusetts/