Sorry, Cowford is anti-Vegan. It will never be PC enough for these social justice bots.

---

Seems funny to me that a certain group of posters posts a new thread about every little thing that happens but when Nazis are protesting in Charlottesville, a lot of you a very quiet.

Thoughts on what's happening?

Waiting on the dust to settle and for additional information to come out about all of this for clarity sake. Most people get caught up with eye catching headlines and sensationalism. That's not something I get drawn into. 

Personally, if you're waving an American Flag with a swastika on it you should probably have your teeth kicked in or your head checked for mental illness. Racism is racism. Don't care what color you are. If you think you're better than somebody simply because of the pigments in your skin you're a damned fool. 

I am still hunting around for news or movements regarding World wide affairs that occurred over the weekend or anything that may be down the pipeline. Always pay attention to the fine details my friend. Good old fashioned misdirection could be at work here. You never know these days. 

You go on Youtube and you find one video with 54 million hits and counting with people showing their faces up close on camera preaching hate this and hate that. Don't you think that's odd? Some of these people must have jobs, friends, families and so forth. So why risk all of that in front of a camera? 

Think about it. Some of these folks must be getting compensated or handed some type of monetary incentive to pull these outlandish stunts at these protests. Always try to follow the money trail. We all know it's plausible. Just look at what was revealed late last year and earlier this year where George Soros had some of his foundations and corporations paying people to go out and act a fool during these protests.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

The irony is most of those statues were erected as a push back to much needed social change, not as a spontaneous effort to honor heroes. Just like the Duval County schools which were named after Confederate generals following desegregation, they were petulant responses which never should have been erected in the first place.

General Lee was a traitor and a slave owner, a larger than life statue honoring him at a state university is not appropriate.

The KKK is a domestic terrorist organization with a long documented history of violence against their fellow citizens. How is it they are given a pass to openly rally?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

General Lee was a traitor and a slave owner, a larger than life statue honoring him at a state university is not appropriate.

Lee was NOT a slave owner, now Union General Grant was, and he didn't free them until after the constitution was changed.

As for being a traitor, Wrong again, he was loyal to His Home State of Virginia, and the South Didn't want to take over the entire USA, they just wanted to seccede and form their own little chuck of the earth. It was The Union Forces that invaded the south

Re-read your history

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

Seems a little wrong that the losers of the Civil War get statues erected in their honor.

---

The irony is most of those statues were erected as a push back to much needed social change, not as a spontaneous effort to honor heroes. Just like the Duval County schools which were named after Confederate generals following desegregation, they were petulant responses which never should have been erected in the first place.

General Lee was a traitor and a slave owner, a larger than life statue honoring him at a state university is not appropriate.

The KKK is a domestic terrorist organization with a long documented history of violence against their fellow citizens. How is it they are given a pass to openly rally?

I somewhat agree with you, but by the same token, these statues and monuments are also part of our history.  Instead of trying to remove them because they might be "offensive" to some people, why not use them as a teaching tool?  Explain to the younger generation (and quite frankly some of the older generation) exactly who General Lee was.  Explain how it was a different time in history and how their thinking was.

As far as the KKK, they haven't as an organization (to my knowledge) performed any terrorists acts in decades.  Do I agree with their message?  Of course not, however they do have every right to "openly rally" which is protected under the 1st Amendment.  They and the other extremest groups participating in the rally had a permit to do so.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Sorry, Cowford is anti-Vegan.  It will never be PC enough for these social justice bots.

They'll demand we change the name of the city to "Pat, FL" since it's gender neutral, not offensive to Vegans, requires less material to print so it's eco-friendly, has no racial implications, and it's easy to spell for the challenged folks.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Please note there's a local group called Take Em Down Jax who wants to remove statues and rename buildings, schools, bridges, etc., here in Jacksonville.  

I think we should go the other way and find homes here for all the statues taken down in other cities.  I wouldn't mind a giant bronze statue in my back yard.  Those things last longer than the stuff from Home Depot, and it's less grass I have to mow.

The president of the city council and the mayor are both pandering sympathizers, so you can rest assured this movement is going to create an issue here.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Please note there's a local group called Take Em Down Jax who wants to remove statues and rename buildings, schools, bridges, etc., here in Jacksonville.  

I think we should go the other way and find homes here for all the statues taken down in other cities.  I wouldn't mind a giant bronze statue in my back yard.  Those things last longer than the stuff from Home Depot, and it's less grass I have to mow.

The president of the city council and the mayor are both pandering sympathizers, so you can rest assured this movement is going to create an issue here.

This getting beyond rediculous (as if it isn't already).

Should the city be renamed since it's named after Andrew Jackson (a slave owner)?

Should the Hart Bridge be renamed since it's named after Isaiah Hart, a plantation and slave owner?

Perhaps the St. Johns River, Saint Augustine and Ribalt High School should be renamed since the history of them comes from Catholicism.  After all, it might "offend" people of no faith or other religions.

My point is that I could go on-and-on regarding things that are named here in the Jacksonville area as well as throughout Florida that could possibly be deemed "offensive" by a vast minority of people.  Monuments of past Confederate Generals are there NOT because they were once slave owners, but because of how they were instrumental in developing our country to what it is.  Quite frankly, in some aspects veterans of the Confederate Army are considered U.S. Veterans and deserve the same respect as all other Veterans.

The "big story" about what happened this weekend is not about what actually happened, it's all about how President Trump supposedly "gave white supremacists  a pass" or "didn't use strong enough language against them".  Here is what he said.

"We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides," Trump said during a short statement from his private golf club in New Jersey. "It has been going on for a long time in our country -- not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama. It has been going on for a long, long time. It has no place in America."

Apparently that wasn't good enough for the left wing media.  He didn't specifically call out any right-wing hate groups.

Come on... really?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

― George Orwell, 1984

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

I somewhat agree with you, but by the same token, these statues and monuments are also part of our history.  Instead of trying to remove them because they might be "offensive" to some people, why not use them as a teaching tool?  Explain to the younger generation (and quite frankly some of the older generation) exactly who General Lee was.  Explain how it was a different time in history and how their thinking was.

The idea of removing a statue because it's "offensive" is no less repugnant than naming a school after the founder of the KKK as a reaction to the Civil Rights movement. That said, and even if we put the idea of being "offended" aside (we should), Confederate generals, officials, soldiers, they're all traitors. They all spent four years committing high treason against the United States. Their monuments and the flags that represent them should be removed from public land and donated to private museums, memorials, places where they can go to be teaching tools instead of government-sanctioned methods of honoring traitors.

---

I somewhat agree with you, but by the same token, these statues and monuments are also part of our history.  Instead of trying to remove them because they might be "offensive" to some people, why not use them as a teaching tool?  Explain to the younger generation (and quite frankly some of the older generation) exactly who General Lee was.  Explain how it was a different time in history and how their thinking was.

The idea of removing a statue because it's "offensive" is no less repugnant than naming a school after the founder of the KKK as a reaction to the Civil Rights movement. That said, and even if we put the idea of being "offended" aside (we should), Confederate generals, officials, soldiers, they're all traitors. They all spent four years committing high treason against the United States. Their monuments and the flags that represent them should be removed from public land and donated to private museums, memorials, places where they can go to be teaching tools instead of government-sanctioned methods of honoring traitors.

Again I ask.  Where does it stop?  We have renamed some schools here in Jacksonville because the name of the school was deemed "offensive".  I can somewhat agree with that, though I don't totally buy it.  RJ was correct in the fact that new schools were built and named after Confederate Generals or other figures as a result of the Civil Rights movement in the 1950's and 60's.

My question is this though.  Why is the name of said schools all of the sudden "offensive" 4 decades+ later?  Why rename the schools after all this time?  Are they not a part of the city's history?

How long have these Confederate statues and monuments stood?  Why is it that they are somehow all of the sudden "offensive" and need to be removed?  As far as The Confederate Generals, officials, soldiers they were exorcising their right under the Declaration of Independence at the time.  They never committed "high treason" against the United States.  As a refresher, take a look at this bit.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 

The Confederacy was simply following the Declaration of Independence.

Putting that argument aside though, where does it end?  Should the Hart Bridge be renamed?  Should the city be renamed?  Should the river be renamed since it does have ties to Catholicism?

Where does the madness and PC stuff stop?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

The idea of removing a statue because it's "offensive" is no less repugnant than naming a school after the founder of the KKK as a reaction to the Civil Rights movement. That said, and even if we put the idea of being "offended" aside (we should), Confederate generals, officials, soldiers, they're all traitors. They all spent four years committing high treason against the United States. Their monuments and the flags that represent them should be removed from public land and donated to private museums, memorials, places where they can go to be teaching tools instead of government-sanctioned methods of honoring traitors.

Again I ask.  Where does it stop?  We have renamed some schools here in Jacksonville because the name of the school was deemed "offensive".  I can somewhat agree with that, though I don't totally buy it.  RJ was correct in the fact that new schools were built and named after Confederate Generals or other figures as a result of the Civil Rights movement in the 1950's and 60's.

My question is this though.  Why is the name of said schools all of the sudden "offensive" 4 decades+ later?  Why rename the schools after all this time?  Are they not a part of the city's history?

How long have these Confederate statues and monuments stood?  Why is it that they are somehow all of the sudden "offensive" and need to be removed?  As far as The Confederate Generals, officials, soldiers they were exorcising their right under the Declaration of Independence at the time.  They never committed "high treason" against the United States.  As a refresher, take a look at this bit.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 

The Confederacy was simply following the Declaration of Independence.

Putting that argument aside though, where does it end?  Should the Hart Bridge be renamed?  Should the city be renamed?  Should the river be renamed since it does have ties to Catholicism?

Where does the madness and PC stuff stop?

In my mind, and I know I'm probably one of three people whose minds work this way, it's not about PC or offense when it comes to Confederate monuments. It's about the notion of commemorating the actions of a traitor.

Think of it this way: would you support erecting a statue to Edward Snowden? I seem to recall you considering him a traitor, but he has far, far less American blood on his hands than Robert E. Lee.

---

How is it treason to wish to rid yourself of an abusive partner? The Confederates just wanted to govern themselves rather than get dictates from the north.

Did you know there was a very strong and vocal secessionist movement in Massachusetts in the early 1800s? The high-brow city and town folks in New England hated the Virginians and they had a serious fit when the Louisiana Purchase happened in 1803. Nobody ever made the case these states could not secede if they wanted to. What doomed the New England secessionist movement were their own U.S. Senators, who betrayed their state legislatures. The Senators didn't want to be leaders in the proposed much smaller country, they wanted prominent positions in the expanding American empire.

---

How is it treason to wish to rid yourself of an abusive partner?  The Confederates just wanted to govern themselves rather than get dictates from the north.

Did you know there was a very strong and vocal secessionist movement in Massachusetts in the early 1800s?  The high-brow city and town folks in New England hated the Virginians and they had a serious fit when the Louisiana Purchase happened in 1803.  Nobody ever made the case these states could not secede if they wanted to.  What doomed the New England secessionist movement were their own U.S. Senators, who betrayed their state legislatures.  The Senators didn't want to be leaders in the proposed much smaller country, they wanted prominent positions in the expanding American empire.

Dude, loading up a cannon and firing on a US military installation while denouncing the country is pretty much the definition of "treason". There is no other term for opening fire on your fellow Americans purely because they are Americans.

---

Again I ask.  Where does it stop?  We have renamed some schools here in Jacksonville because the name of the school was deemed "offensive".  I can somewhat agree with that, though I don't totally buy it.  RJ was correct in the fact that new schools were built and named after Confederate Generals or other figures as a result of the Civil Rights movement in the 1950's and 60's.

My question is this though.  Why is the name of said schools all of the sudden "offensive" 4 decades+ later?  Why rename the schools after all this time?  Are they not a part of the city's history?

How long have these Confederate statues and monuments stood?  Why is it that they are somehow all of the sudden "offensive" and need to be removed?  As far as The Confederate Generals, officials, soldiers they were exorcising their right under the Declaration of Independence at the time.  They never committed "high treason" against the United States.  As a refresher, take a look at this bit.


The Confederacy was simply following the Declaration of Independence.

Putting that argument aside though, where does it end?  Should the Hart Bridge be renamed?  Should the city be renamed?  Should the river be renamed since it does have ties to Catholicism?

Where does the madness and PC stuff stop?

In my mind, and I know I'm probably one of three people whose minds work this way, it's not about PC or offense when it comes to Confederate monuments. It's about the notion of commemorating the actions of a traitor.

Think of it this way: would you support erecting a statue to Edward Snowden? I seem to recall you considering him a traitor, but he has far, far less American blood on his hands than Robert E. Lee.

You're comparing apples to oranges.  Those are two totally different situations that happened in two totally different points in time.

When you look back in history and consider the time-frame, the U.S. was not the same as the modern U.S..  I'm not going to say that the Confederate states were right in seceding, but it was well within their right to do so.  I wouldn't necessarily consider them "traitors" or committing "treason" back then.

On the other hand, what Edward Snowden (and Bradly Manning) did was in fact treason and they were traitors.  Releasing government secrets should never be taken lightly, no matter the content.  That's a whole other argument and discussion though.

Look at why the Civil War was fought and what each side believed in, and consider the time.  It's not like it was fought in 2017, we're talking the 1800's.  The world was very different back then.  Contrary to popular belief, it wasn't all about slavery.  It had more to do with State Rights.  Of course, part of the "State Rights" included slavery, but slavery alone wasn't the reason for it.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

The Civil War was fought over money and power. The northern states were growing in both wealth and influence because they had growing industries while the southern states waned because they were falling behind and had no industry to speak of. The southern states thrived on agriculture, and agriculture was only good business if labor was free, so they were naturally dependent upon slavery. With free states gaining in power, the southern US saw its only real method of maintaining a competitive economy being stripped away and leaving it in the dust, and in a hissy fit following the 1860 election, they took up arms against their fellow Americans (treason). It wasn't a war about racism or white power--there was plenty of that going on regardless of which side of the Mason-Dixon line one was on--but it was absolutely 100% about slavery. Without slavery, the south was an economic wasteland, so the southern states committed treason on a grand scale to protect their right to enslave others.

---

The Civil War was fought over money and power. The northern states were growing in both wealth and influence because they had growing industries while the southern states waned because they were falling behind and had no industry to speak of. The southern states thrived on agriculture, and agriculture was only good business if labor was free, so they were naturally dependent upon slavery. With free states gaining in power, the southern US saw its only real method of maintaining a competitive economy being stripped away and leaving it in the dust, and in a hissy fit following the 1860 election, they took up arms against their fellow Americans (treason). It wasn't a war about racism or white power--there was plenty of that going on regardless of which side of the Mason-Dixon line one was on--but it was absolutely 100% about slavery. Without slavery, the south was an economic wasteland, so the southern states committed treason on a grand scale to protect their right to enslave others.

Oh jeez, not this [BLEEP] again.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Who closed the road?  The cops who weren't there?  The protesters who had no permit?

We have video proof that the driver's car was attacked BEFORE he accelerated - https://streamable.com/21gc9

We also have proof his car was attacked after he hit the other cars - https://youtu.be/v1HfnX9BGqY

I wonder why the participants of the peaceful march had helmets and baseball bats?

---

And why are his brake lights on?

That's interesting. You can see someone throw something at the car just before it accelerated. It was surrounded right after the accident. 

I don't see this guy getting off of these charges because there's too much political pressure coming down, but if he thought he was getting shot / attacked by a mob, then he would've been justified in doing what he did.

It doesn't help that he's a huge racist though.

---

I'm still wondering about the guy with no pants on. Or is that a girl with....I dunno.

---