Political Funny Pictures Thread, pt. 2

[jamil]

No, I'm not upset over a picture, I'm just pointing out the bad information of the meme. Ya know, if you wanted to be most correct, you could say "a bunch of people who neither fought for the Union nor the Confederacy." One isn't going to win over opposing viewpoints by placing blame so specifically (especially when most of the people actually fighting weren't people of color). That meme plays this up as Black Vs White, rather than a difference of ideologies.

That sounds an awful lot like the same argument against "Black Lives Matter".

 

[2A_Tom]

The agitators are comunists, since the 60's the agitarors have usually been comunists.

 

[Bill of Rights]

No, I'm not upset over a picture, I'm just pointing out the bad information of the meme. Ya know, if you wanted to be most correct, you could say "a bunch of people who neither fought for the Union nor the Confederacy." One isn't going to win over opposing viewpoints by placing blame so specifically (especially when most of the people actually fighting weren't people of color). That meme plays this up as Black Vs White, rather than a difference of ideologies.

That's fair, and is akin to saying not to paint with the broad brush. I can wrap my head around that. However...and I think you have to agree with me here... of the people fighting to remove those statues (in essence, those who wish to erase history) an overwhelming majority are Black, and those who are not are similar to the "beta male" at the "feminist" rally, telling other males that they should shut up, that they have no opinion that is valid unless it agrees with the "feminists".

The specific case that comes to mind for me is the school I attended and from which I graduated with my HS diploma. That school is named after General Lee.From 1959 when it opened until about 1986 or so, there was a Confederate Battle Flag on the side of the building and that image was used as the schools rallying symbol, much as our rival, named after Winston Churchill, used the Union Jack. (We fought a war with them, too, seeking to end liberties in this country, and I've heard nothing about that flag being unacceptable. Hmmm... Why does "taxation without representation" come to mind?) In 1985 or so, six students, all of whom were Black, raised the objection and the district capitulated to them against the wishes of many more students and families and alumni- my graduating class was over 500- and removed that symbol. Today, there is talk of changing the name of the school as well. I can't say the latter action is being driven by members of the Black community, as I just don't know, but I do know that I don't see much difference other than scale between removing the name of an American General from the school and removing "Huckleberry Finn" from the library. Both are censorship, and both are flat wrong, IMHO, being based on butthurt senselessness.

Those six high school students in 1985 would have been born about 1966-1969, over 100 years after slavery ended. Their grandparents or great-grandparents might have been slaves and those of their classmates might have been slaveowners, but not likely, and in any event, three and four generations is a bit much to suddenly claim offense. "Show us on the doll where the flag or the school name hurt you." comes to mind.

No, it is false to say that ALL people who placed those statues are Democrats. It is false to say that ALL people opposing their removal are White, and equally false to say that ALL people calling for that removal are Black. To speak in generalities, however, were I to take a bucket of water and throw it on the groups as defined here, the chance of a person of that description in those groups getting wet is 100% in all three cases, and the chance of everyone who gets wet being of those descriptions, respectively, is probably pretty high.

The removal of statues is nothing less than censorship on a grand scale.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[AtTheMurph]

The agitators are comunists, since the 60's the agitarors have usually been comunists.

Joe McCarthy was exactly right.

 

[2A_Tom]

Actually, he was a little ahead of his time, and a little overboard.

Antifa is spurred by agents provocature.

 

[sharkey]

 

[AtTheMurph]

Actually, he was a little ahead of his time, and a little overboard.

Antifa is spurred by agents provocature.

Those agents are the same ones that McCarthy identified 50 years ago. And he wasn't overboard. He just feared for the country of personal liberty. He didn't go far enough as history has now proven.

 

[Alpo]

It is a shame to lose any history. Even though we make new history each day, the past is extremely difficult to recover once lost. I'm not a Buddhist but I can appreciate a statue of the Buddha. I've been to Stone Mountain Georgia and even though I'm not a member of the KKK or a southern good ol' boy, I can appreciate the scale and artistry of the huge granite carving.

Lose yesterday and you lose a sense of direction into the future.

 

[Ericpwp]

 

[sharkey]

 

[OakRiver]

I see she shaved recently;

 

[Dockem]

For MC lovers:

 

[IndyTom]

For MC lovers:

View attachment 58899

Hey, he made it out to the west coast. Nice that he's able to travel.

 

[JettaKnight]

Meh.

A fashion editor commenting on a the appearance of a former fashion model.


Play ball!

 

[HoughMade]

Meh.

A fashion editor commenting on a the appearance of a former fashion model.

Play ball!

I think this a "consider the source" situation....

 

[Doug]

Meh.

A fashion editor commenting on a the appearance of a former fashion model.


Play ball!

Vogue? Isn't that the magazine that had an article for teens on how to do anal sex?

 

[JettaKnight]

Vogue? Isn't that the magazine that had an article for teens on how to do anal sex?

Maybe, I only read it for the pictures.


I'd place money on Cosmo, they seem to be wallowing in the cesspool these days.


Nevertheless, INGO spent a fair number of posts criticizing the previous First Lady's appearance, so let's not pretend we always take the high road.

 

[actaeon277]

Maybe, I only read it for the pictures.


I'd place money on Cosmo, they seem to be wallowing in the cesspool these days.


Nevertheless, INGO spent a fair number of posts criticizing the previous First Lady's appearance, so let's not pretend we always take the high road.

yup

 

[indiucky]

Nevertheless, INGO spent a fair number of posts criticizing the previous First Lady's appearance, so let's not pretend we always take the high road.

True...I never did but others did...

I think the point is that NO magazine, news show, talking head, etc... ever criticized the former First Lady or her looks...Totally opposite actually.....Every morning on the news we were showered with praise for her fashion sense, her beauty and oh those arms...What's interesting is that we have an actually former super model and I have not seen one story in MSM about the fact that we have another beautiful First Lady...Not one...Just harping about her foot wear and in another thread how she is a Eastern European hooker/porn star/lesbian.....

 

[HoughMade]

Vogue? Isn't that the magazine that had an article for teens on how to do anal sex?

No it was not. We have an obligation to be accurate. We shouldn't slander anyone no matter who they are. Accusing Vogue of running that article is going too far. Vogue is innocent and its name should be cleared. Personally, I think you should be ashamed of your false accusation.

It was Teen Vogue​.