Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:The thing is, in history what has happened when such thinking is made the "law of the land"?  North Korea anyone?

 

Look even closer into our own country's history.  Are we turning into the FLDS on a national level?  Perhaps, only by a different "religion" (or non-religion).  We are being told what to say, what to do and what to think.  History is being "re-written" and any evidence of our history is being taken away.

North Korea is just one example. 

 

You're right.  People are so offended by our history that they're not teaching it, and any reminders of it that they find offensive are being erased from view.  It's how they exert their power.  At some point that comes back to bite them.  One thing about history.  If you don't really know it, and you don't really understand your history, your destined to repeat the mistakes of the past. 

 

The funniest thing about this attempt to erase Confederate history from the map.  Look who is doing it.  It's the democrats.  Republicans who are supporting this are doing so because it's the politically expedient thing to do.  They don't want to be that candidate who stood up and defended something that someone found offensive, so rather than do so, they succumb to the pressure and give in.  We're seeing it all over the place.  The quest to keep power is far more important than doing what is actually the right thing.

 

So, democrats are trying to erase historical reminders about slavery.  They're demanding that the bodies of Nathaniel Bedford Forrest and his wife be moved off of public grounds where a memorial in their honor stands because it's too painful a reminder of our past. 

 

What's the problem with that?

 

Democrats built the monuments.  They installed the flag that is so offensive today over the capitols of several states.  Even in SC, where the flag was just removed, it was a democrat governor, Fritz Hollings who signed the bill putting that flag there in commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the War Between the States.  In Arkansas, it was Bill Clinton who did the same thing there.

 

Slavery and symbols are so offensive to some that they demanded the Confederate flag be removed from public view because they said it brought back painful memories of the horrors perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan.  In West Virginia, roadways and buildings and parks and landmarks all over the state are dedicated to Senator Robert Byrd.  He was a good democrat to the end.  He was considered the historian of the US Senate.  He was also a Grand Kleagle in the KKK back in the day, but as he said, it was okay because in those days, when you ran for public office in WV, you had to be a member of the Klan.  Of course, leading it was just the natural progression of things. 

 

When Civil Rights were being debated in congress, Byrd and other democrats including Bill Clinton's mentor, Senator William Fulbright, another good democrat from Arkansas, fought tirelessly to shut down debate and block it from happening.  Years earlier, this same Senator Fulbright fought desegregation in the schools.

 

In Alabama, Governor George Wallace (Democrat) stood in the doorway of the admission office for the University of Alabama and tried to block black students from enrolling.  Only a federal warrant and National Guard troops forced him out of the way.

 

I can go on.  Democrats are so offended by this history that they want it eradicated from existence, and with good reason.  They don't need people recognizing their history through the centuries. 

Quote:This really isn't a partisan issue, or left vs right argument here; it's about the future of this country. The trends that are happening in this country right now- along with the speed in which many of these social changes and policies are happening without a comprehensive debate taking place, is very disturbing.

I don't entirely disagree with you, but a lot of these social changes and policies have been in the national dialogue for decades, just repeatedly shoved to the back burner by the group of people that's suddenly lamenting the downfall of American society because those topics came back up and action was taken. I don't agree with all of the actions taken, btw, just so we know that I'm not a mindless liberal drone. In fact, being repeatedly lumped in with liberals simply because of my views on two issues has been a source of great entertainment for me.

This user comment from the article FBT posted was interesting to me and, I think, definitely shows the difference between how conservatives and liberals define equality. I don't have an issue with 'social equality' when it comes to basic human rights because that's the way it should be, but forcing me to see something as equal just because a certain group (and I mean any group) says that's what I'm to believe.....that's a no-go. I will not be cowed into group think. If I believe something it's because I choose to, not because someone forced me to. 

 

When we talk about equality in the American (conservative) sense, we're talking about equal rights and equal protection under the law. That we are all equal in the eyes of the creator and endowed with inalienable rights to life and liberty. This is a noble and just pursuit.


 

When the left talks about equality, they're talking about a social equality enforced by a powerful state, in order to ensure that the subjects of that state become neither too poor nor too rich, and that redistributive action is employed in order to help facilitate this goal. The redistributive model has recently been expanded beyond economics to include the currency of 'feelings' and 'beliefs' that are perceived to disenfranchise one group in favor of another, in order to further regulate social 'equality' as they see it. It is a nefarious and invariably fascistic ideology, because it requires an overclass of elites to engineer society into their vision of perfection.

Quote:North Korea is just one example. 

 

You're right.  People are so offended by our history that they're not teaching it, and any reminders of it that they find offensive are being erased from view.  It's how they exert their power.  At some point that comes back to bite them.  One thing about history.  If you don't really know it, and you don't really understand your history, your destined to repeat the mistakes of the past. 

 

The funniest thing about this attempt to erase Confederate history from the map.  Look who is doing it.  It's the democrats.  Republicans who are supporting this are doing so because it's the politically expedient thing to do.  They don't want to be that candidate who stood up and defended something that someone found offensive, so rather than do so, they succumb to the pressure and give in.  We're seeing it all over the place.  The quest to keep power is far more important than doing what is actually the right thing.

 

So, democrats are trying to erase historical reminders about slavery.  They're demanding that the bodies of Nathaniel Bedford Forrest and his wife be moved off of public grounds where a memorial in their honor stands because it's too painful a reminder of our past. 

 

What's the problem with that?

 

Democrats built the monuments.  They installed the flag that is so offensive today over the capitols of several states.  Even in SC, where the flag was just removed, it was a democrat governor, Fritz Hollings who signed the bill putting that flag there in commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the War Between the States.  In Arkansas, it was Bill Clinton who did the same thing there.

 

Slavery and symbols are so offensive to some that they demanded the Confederate flag be removed from public view because they said it brought back painful memories of the horrors perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan.  In West Virginia, roadways and buildings and parks and landmarks all over the state are dedicated to Senator Robert Byrd.  He was a good democrat to the end.  He was considered the historian of the US Senate.  He was also a Grand Kleagle in the KKK back in the day, but as he said, it was okay because in those days, when you ran for public office in WV, you had to be a member of the Klan.  Of course, leading it was just the natural progression of things. 

 

When Civil Rights were being debated in congress, Byrd and other democrats including Bill Clinton's mentor, Senator William Fulbright, another good democrat from Arkansas, fought tirelessly to shut down debate and block it from happening.  Years earlier, this same Senator Fulbright fought desegregation in the schools.

 

In Alabama, Governor George Wallace (Democrat) stood in the doorway of the admission office for the University of Alabama and tried to block black students from enrolling.  Only a federal warrant and National Guard troops forced him out of the way.

 

I can go on.  Democrats are so offended by this history that they want it eradicated from existence, and with good reason.  They don't need people recognizing their history through the centuries. 

 

You can't bring ACTUAL history into the conversation.  You have to be shut off by the Imperial Federal Government, and all people should be taught otherwise.

Quote:You can't bring ACTUAL history into the conversation.  You have to be shut off by the Imperial Federal Government, and all people should be taught otherwise.

 

Fewer and fewer people KNOW actual history in comparison to 2, 3, or 4 decades ago.  We're too busy teaching our children how to take a test to bother with history or civics, and that's all by design. 

Quote:This user comment from the article FBT posted was interesting to me and, I think, definitely shows the difference between how conservatives and liberals define equality. I don't have an issue with 'social equality' when it comes to basic human rights because that's the way it should be, but forcing me to see something as equal just because a certain group (and I mean any group) says that's what I'm to believe.....that's a no-go. I will not be cowed into group think. If I believe something it's because I choose to, not because someone forced me to. 

 

When we talk about equality in the American (conservative) sense, we're talking about equal rights and equal protection under the law. That we are all equal in the eyes of the creator and endowed with inalienable rights to life and liberty. This is a noble and just pursuit.


 

When the left talks about equality, they're talking about a social equality enforced by a powerful state, in order to ensure that the subjects of that state become neither too poor nor too rich, and that redistributive action is employed in order to help facilitate this goal. The redistributive model has recently been expanded beyond economics to include the currency of 'feelings' and 'beliefs' that are perceived to disenfranchise one group in favor of another, in order to further regulate social 'equality' as they see it. It is a nefarious and invariably fascistic ideology, because it requires an overclass of elites to engineer society into their vision of perfection.

 

That really is it in a nutshell. 

 

Things have gotten muddled up by the progressives in both parties who are more focused on maintaining power than doing what needs to be done to lead this nation, but at the end of the day, that is the main difference between true conservatives and true progressives.  Not the jelly spined people in the middle who don't dare take a side.

Quote:That really is it in a nutshell. 

 

Things have gotten muddled up by the progressives in both parties who are more focused on maintaining power than doing what needs to be done to lead this nation, but at the end of the day, that is the main difference between true conservatives and true progressives.  Not the jelly spined people in the middle who don't dare take a side.

Yep. That was the basic discussion my husband and I had the other day along with the one previously mentioned. Power is a nasty thing when in the hands of a rabid majority. We can look back as recently as Hitler and the issues in Somalia to see that.

 

And I've recently been called a variation of your jelly spined people because I'm not so hell bent on my POV or opinion that I don't try to see another's POV (God forbid I actually try to see the other side of a story even if I disagree/end up disagreeing. Heck, I might actually learn something!). It's sad that people can't have a broad view of things without being bullied by either side.

 

I've lived a life not confined to a 'box' of ideals and circumstances. I've lived in a foreign country, lived in every single neighborhood/part of town in Duval county (Riverside being my favorite with those old houses), lived in the country and the city in different states, had friends from every spectrum of race, color and creed, had jobs that spanned serving my country in the Army to working construction at Habitat for Humanity to a daycare center, among many others. That's just the basics and doesn't lend itself to being close-minded or wishy washy as some here would paint me to be. I just have a larger view than most. It's like the difference between what you see on the tenth floor of a building as opposed to the 90th floor. Your perspective changes quite a bit. And because of this I'm not PC therefore not liberal friendly to most.

Quote:....from federal law. 

 

"The most bizarre gambit is a bill that has been introduced in the House by two dozen Democrats that would eliminate the words “husband” and “wife” from federal law, as reported Thursday by the Washington Examiner.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Proximo Nova', 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Proximo Nova', 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:16px;">Apparently the use of “gendered” terms is considered discriminatory by the Democrats, led by Rep. Lois Capps, D-California. The offending terms would be replaced with a gender neutral word like “spouse” which is considered not discriminatory. The measure would have the benefit, according to Capps, of equalizing the treatment of men and women under the law. For instance, it is illegal to threaten the wife of the president, but not her husband. This could be a problem if Hillary Clinton or some other woman were ever to be elected to the presidency......"

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Proximo Nova', 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Proximo Nova', 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:16px;">I don't get it. Are people really wanting to go this far? If you're going to do this then you need to eliminate the words caucasian, african american, hispanic, asian, etc., as well because someone somewhere finds those to be discriminatory. May as well eliminate male and female, too for good measure. And what about folks who aren't married, where is their word? 

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Proximo Nova', 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Proximo Nova', 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:16px;">I mean, where does it end? I get that progress is being made for equal rights for folks but this is a fine line to walk before things get out of hand.

 

I don't see what's wrong with amending laws to replace "husband" and "wife" with gender-neutral terms.  

 

Please leave aside any rants about "PC" and "liberals" and "where does it all end?"  and explain what is wrong with the specific proposal to replace "husband" and "wife" with gender-neutral terms.  

Quote:I don't see what's wrong with amending laws to replace "husband" and "wife" with gender-neutral terms.


Please leave aside any rants about "PC" and "liberals" and "where does it all end?" and explain what is wrong with the specific proposal to replace "husband" and "wife" with gender-neutral terms.

Personally I think it's a silly waste of our taxpayer resources. Just write all new legislation that way and move on to important things.

Quote:Personally I think it's a silly waste of our taxpayer resources. Just write all new legislation that way and move on to important things.

 

How much does it cost?   Serious question. 

Quote:How much does it cost? Serious question.

I don't know, but any time, money, or labor spent on such a thing is a waste imo. Our even discussing it means it's consumed too much of the GDP already.

Quote:Pretty soon we may be genderless as well as raceless and whatever they can come up with. 

 

Ironically, a certain sect of people retain too much power when they use gender and race as reasons why they're unequal. I'm not sure it'll ever get passed a certain point, and then they'll offender someone else and move the needle back a little bit.

 

Quote:I don't see what's wrong with amending laws to replace "husband" and "wife" with gender-neutral terms.  

 

Please leave aside any rants about "PC" and "liberals" and "where does it all end?"  and explain what is wrong with the specific proposal to replace "husband" and "wife" with gender-neutral terms.  

 

What is wrong with leaving it that way it is now?

Quote:I don't see what's wrong with amending laws to replace "husband" and "wife" with gender-neutral terms.  

 

Please leave aside any rants about "PC" and "liberals" and "where does it all end?"  and explain what is wrong with the specific proposal to replace "husband" and "wife" with gender-neutral terms.  

Why is there a need for gender neutral terms? A man and woman who are married are in fact husband and wife. And the fact that these words are considered offensive is beyond something I can wrap my head around. If it's same sex couples who are offended then what they want to call each other is what can be added to whatever law this pertains to. 

Quote:Ironically, a certain sect of people retain too much power when they use gender and race as reasons why they're unequal. I'm not sure it'll ever get passed a certain point, and then they'll offender someone else and move the needle back a little bit.

 

 

 

Yep. 

Quote:Why is there a need for gender neutral terms? A man and woman who are married are in fact husband and wife. And the fact that these words are considered offensive is beyond something I can wrap my head around. If it's same sex couples who are offended then what they want to call each other is what can be added to whatever law this pertains to.

They're not offensive. This is one idiot lawmaker trying to secure herself a job with a hypothetical Hillary Clinton administration.

It never fails to amaze me how many people cite actions by either major political party decades ago and assume the current versions are the same. The Dixiecrats who raised the Confederate flag over southern state capitol buildings and named schools after Confederate generals in defiance of desegregation would be Republicans today.

Quote:They're not offensive. This is one idiot lawmaker trying to secure herself a job with a hypothetical Hillary Clinton administration.

 

But she is a liberal and all liberals think and act as if of one mind, therefore it is an epidemic of incorrect thought.

 

Try to keep up.

Quote:They're not offensive. This is one idiot lawmaker trying to secure herself a job with a hypothetical Hillary Clinton administration.

Apparently the people (or lawmakers) of California found those words offensive because last year they passed a bill that did this very thing on the state level.

Quote:Why is there a need for gender neutral terms? A man and woman who are married are in fact husband and wife. And the fact that these words are considered offensive is beyond something I can wrap my head around. If it's same sex couples who are offended then what they want to call each other is what can be added to whatever law this pertains to. 

 

It's not that they are considered offensive, it's that in this day and age when we are trying to treat people as equals regardless of sex, the laws should not be written in a way that treats men and women differently.   Why does it matter to the law if a person is a husband and not a wife or vice versa?   It shouldn't.   Hence the need to refer to "spouse" and not "husband" or "wife."  

Quote:It's not that they are considered offensive, it's that in this day and age when we are trying to treat people as equals regardless of sex, the laws should not be written in a way that treats men and women differently.   Why does it matter to the law if a person is a husband and not a wife or vice versa?   It shouldn't.   Hence the need to refer to "spouse" and not "husband" or "wife."

But men and women ARE different. That's why men are called men (or boys or male) and women are called women (or girls or female). If you're for true 'equality' then you would have to do away with everything that identifies people as different be it gender or race/ethnicity for the purpose of this discussion. But in general fat or skinny, athletic or not, tall or short..... The list goes on. If we were all supposed to be the same then God or whatever you believe in would have made it so.


Hitler thought everyone should be blonde haired and blue eyed white folks and we all know how that worked out. My point is we are different and should embrace it. Why would we want to be like everyone else whether in flesh or on a piece of paper? I personally like my uniqueness.