Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Does the article list the game of chess as being among them? Because I've recently heard from crazy leftists that it is clearly racist as well because the player of the white pieces always gets to move first lol.You may think I'm joking but I swear I'm not.
It sure does list chess as racist.
Originally posted by cdtm
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/us/white-couple-arrested-black-lives-matter-mural.htmlCome on!
A couple paints over graffiti, and they get charged with a hate crime? A year in jail?
The same article even says a "White Lives Matter" graffiti is an illegal painting.
What are the standards of hate crime here? Any and all rejection if Black Lives Matter and their message?
Because that's insane. I don't care how vile someones beliefs are, you can't force acceptance of an ideaology. That's exactly what this looks to be, arresting someone for even a remote appearance of racist belief.
**** that. Keep it up, and you'll get that damned revolution the lefts always wanted. But I don't think any of the radicals backing it will survive the thing.
The BLM folks played the political game: they got permission. Obviously, the city council would approve it.
This couple did NOT get permission and it constitutes vandalism if not felony vandalism depending on the costs.
Stupid games, prizes, etc.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The BLM folks played the political game: they got permission. Obviously, the city council would approve it.This couple did NOT get permission and it constitutes vandalism if not felony vandalism depending on the costs.
Stupid games, prizes, etc.
How is it not discrimination tho if a city approves black lives matter stuff but denies a white lives matter stuff? Cuz we both know they would.
Sadly I'm sure there is some pathetic reason why, but it's wrong.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The BLM folks played the political game: they got permission. Obviously, the city council would approve it.This couple did NOT get permission and it constitutes vandalism if not felony vandalism depending on the costs.
Stupid games, prizes, etc.
They didn't care when the rioters tore down statues
Originally posted by Surtur
How is it not discrimination tho if a city approves black lives matter stuff but denies a white lives matter stuff? Cuz we both know they would.Sadly I'm sure there is some pathetic reason why, but it's wrong.
Originally posted by Silent Master
They didn't care when the rioters tore down statues
Then you pursue those things within the legal system. Play the games. Win.
This vid is too too perfect for this thread:
Originally posted by Silent Master
By what means, suing the city or trying to vote them out?
Yes and yes.
As I understand it, this is what happened in Charlottsville with their statues: the people voted to keep the statues but then voted to not keep it (the city council did):
Straight for Wikipedia:
In April 2016, the City Council decided to appoint a special commission, named the Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Monuments and Public Spaces, to recommend to city officials how to best handle issues surrounding statues of Stonewall Jackson (Thomas Jonathan Jackson) in Court Square and Lee in Lee Park, as well as other landmarks and monuments. Early in November 2016, the Blue Ribbon Commission voted 6–3 to let both statues remain in place.[7] On November 28, 2016, it voted 7–2 to remove the Lee statue to McIntire Park in Charlottesville and 8–1 to keep the Jackson statue in place,[8] delivering a final report with that recommendation to Charlottesville City Council in December.[8]
On February 6, 2017, Charlottesville's five-member City Council voted three votes to two to remove the Lee statue and, unanimously, to rename Lee Park.[9]
In response, a lawsuit was filed on March 20 by numerous plaintiffs, including the Monument Fund Inc, the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and descendants of the statue's donor and sculptor, to block the removal of the Lee and Jackson statues. The lawsuit sought a temporary injunction to halt the removal, arguing that Charlottesville City Council's decision violated a state law designed to protect American Civil War monuments and memorials, and that the council had additionally violated the terms of McIntire's gift to Charlottesville of the statue and the land for Lee Park.[10] The city responded by asking that the temporary injunction be denied, arguing that the two statues were not erected to commemorate the Civil War and therefore the Virginia statute protecting war monuments does not apply.[11]
In April 2017, the City Council voted three to two (exactly along the lines of the February vote) that the statue be removed completely from Charlottesville and sold to whoever the Council chooses.[12]
On May 2, 2017, Judge Richard Moore issued a temporary injunction blocking the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue for six months, in the public's interest, pending a court decision in the suit.[11]
Sometime overnight between Friday July 7 and Saturday July 8, 2017, the statue was vandalized by being daubed in red paint.[13] It had been vandalized before; in June 2016 the pedestal was spray painted with the words "Black Lives Matter".[6]
On August 20, 2017, the City Council unanimously voted to shroud the statue, and that of Stonewall Jackson, in black. The Council "also decided to direct the city manager to take an administrative step that would make it easier to eventually remove the Jackson statue."[14] The statues were covered in black shrouds on August 23, 2017.[15] On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 Charlottesville Circuit Court Judge Richard Moore ruled that the City of Charlottesville must remove the black tarps covering the statues, and the city complied removing the shrouds a day later.[16]
In 2018, the monument was placed on the Make It Right Project's[citation needed] list of ten Confederate monuments it most wanted to see removed.[17]
In 2019, Judge Moore ruled that removing the Lee statue would violate a state historic preservation statute. He issued a permanent injunction preventing its removal and extended it to a separate monument to Confederate general Stonewall Jackson that city leaders wanted to get rid of.[18] In 2020, Virginia modified the historic preservation statute that Moore cited to give localities the ability to remove or re-contextualize their Confederate monuments and the plaintiffs in the case asked the judge to partially dissolve the injunction.[19]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee_Monument_(Charlottesville,_Virginia)
In that case, just let the statue be taken down. Let a confederate group buy the statue, and then they can put it up on their property. It becomes private property and no amount of democracy can bring it down under the first amendment.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Then you pursue those things within the legal system. Play the games. Win.
We won't win if the city is run by Dems
Also they are doing a blm mural in front of Trump tower in New York city.
I know it pisses him off, but I love it. They don't even believe in it anymore they just wanna use it as a cudgel to bludgeon Trump. So bizarre.
Originally posted by Surtur
We won't win if the city is run by DemsAlso they are doing a blm mural in front of Trump tower in New York city.
I know it pisses him off, but I love it. They don't even believe in it anymore they just wanna use it as a cudgel to bludgeon Trump. So bizarre.
If they do it legally good for them, they imo should still punish anyone that destroyed property though.
Honestly though statues are just token pieces like the onion piece I posted, appease them don't create any change of significance to make their lives better blah blah is all that will happen.
Originally posted by Surtur
We won't win if the city is run by Dems
You won't get any sympathy from me about this: move.
Vote with your dollars. If your city is being turned to shit, do what hundreds of millions of Americans have done since 1776: move.
"But you can't expect entire families to uproot their homes and go elsewhere."
Yes I can. If statues getting removed bothers you that much, move. We have the internet: there's no excuse to not find a city and a job that matches with your preferences.
Originally posted by Surtur
Also they are doing a blm mural in front of Trump tower in New York city.
Good. This is America. Freedom of Speech, b*tch. 🙂
Just like you have the freedom of speech to install a hearty flag pole on your private property with a giant-ass flag that says, "Black People Suck."*
*But you must not exceed "elevation" and authorization requirements for residential areas. You can't install a 200ft flag pole, for example, without local, state, and FAA approval.
Originally posted by Surtur
I know it pisses him off, but I love it. They don't even believe in it anymore they just wanna use it as a cudgel to bludgeon Trump. So bizarre.
That is indeed correct. It is because Trump dared to be a Republican and he dared to fight against the choke-hold the MSM had on politics in the US. That's literally the only reason and it has nothing to do with his politics. I am not kidding.
Oh and its not even just that a white lives matter mural need be allowed. If tax payer funds payed for the BLM mural they gotta pay for ones for other races too. There will be no "city can dedicate a mural to one race and private citizens are free to pay for one for another".
They will pay for them all. And with a smile.
Originally posted by Surtur
Let's say he was. Do you feel the city would pay for it?
I don't get it.
What is your actual question?
If the city votes to put in a WLM statue or mural, yes the city would pay for it. Is that your question?
Or are you saying Trump should put a WLM mural/statue on White House property? He can't: that's public property. He could get away with an executive order, maybe. But, like all memorials like that, it'd ultimately get approved by Congress.