Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Getting back to the root of this thread, it's about the Statue in Lee's park. Whether it sould be torn down or not and the protest that followed from both sides. MY thoughts on all the monuments to confederate military heros is as follows........
Those statues and monuments depicting heroic warriors defending the southern Confederacy were all put in place between 1878 and the 1920s. None were erected prior to that time or after except the mountain wall carving in Georgia, which is like a white supremacist meeting place. Jim Crow laws came into being in 1877. Hmmmmmmm.
They were a direct reminder of Jim Crow laws to the people and were a constant reminder in those towns of who represented the people that ruled that town. They were symbols and constant reminders to the people of Jim Crow, segregation and white supremacy.
There's not one monument ever erected depicting black southern individuals in heroic poses.
That being said, I don't think there should be some national purging of the monuments. It should be up to the local people to decide if they want to keep it or not. People who go around ripping them down or defacing them are nothing better than common vandals no matter what principle they are trying to establish.
My honest thoughts on the monument controversy.
Tidbit about Emancipation Park, where the Lee statue is located: It was originally called Lee Park and set aside for the enjoyment of white Charlottesville residents.
Tidbit about Emancipation Park, where the Lee statue is located: It was originally called Lee Park and set aside for the enjoyment of white Charlottesville residents.
Oh, good grief, no. I showed the video of violence-crazed counter-protesters throwing cement-filled soda cans at people, and committing other violent acts. Self-defense is a reasonable response to that.
Are you purposely ignoring what I wrote? That videos show the Nazis attacking the counter-protesters unprovoked. You cannot claim that they were acting only in self-defence when they were initiating the violence in many instances.
So... The Dodge never plowed into the crowd. It plowed into another stopped car the driver couldn't see because the jaywalking counter-protesters were blocking his view. And that happened AFTER his car was attacked from behind. I've already shown video of the violence-crazed counter-protest mobs throwing cement-filled soda cans at and kicking cars, causing the drivers to accelerate and nearly collide in their panic to flee further attack. It was the mobs' modus operandi.
And... They scared another driver (of the Dodge) into accelerating forward to flee them. Why would that surprise anyone given the violence-crazed mobs' documented attacking behavior?
Kind of hard to misinterpret lit brake lights when the car was approaching the crowd, followed by a violence-crazed counter-protester attacking the car.
\
Notice that the pedestrians attacked his car AFTER he plowed over people.
When people say it has nothing to do with racism, just the preservation of history, they are delusional. It's all about racism, which is why the Unite movement chose the park as its rally site. To argue otherwise is absurb.
Informed Consent wants us all to focus on 1 frame of a video and disregard the discussion of the overall events that transpired in Charlottesville and what it represents to America. So far he/she has succeeded at making us all focus on the shiny object and lose sight of the real discussion. For almost 35 pages.
"No! No!, it's not about white supremacy, racism and hate, it's about a stick, a tail light and a poor lost boy just trying to get home."
That video shows AFTER his car slammed into the other car. THE FOLLOWING images are from before that. Note that there are NO other cars in front of the Dodge. PLUS, note that he brakes for the crowd:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
More still frames:
The acceleration into the stopped cars is after the flagpole attack. The initial image shows the driver braking to allow the armed person and others out of the way. The armed attacker is able to get out of the way while the car brakes. Steps behind it and then swings his flagpole striking the car.
The initial attacker is seen here in the background (in the blue shirt, behind the guy with the backpack) of the image as the car brakes:
Then the acceleration occurs. The audio of the video has the strike to the car then the rev of the engine.
The timeline is: brake for crowd in street -> strike from the rear by the counter-protester in the blue shirt who had been in front of the car when it slowed for the crowd -> forward acceleration to flee attack.
Note that there is enough time for the attacker to get out of the way and step behind the vehicle to strike it. Contraindicates high rate of speed into stopped cars until AFTER his car was struck from behind. He was fleeing attack.
There's no way to prosecute this driver. VERY reasonable doubt given the video and still frame evidence.
That video shows AFTER his car slammed into the other car. THESE images are from before that. Note that there are NO other cars in front of the Dodge. PLUS note that he brakes for the crowd:
No more soup for you! (Soup Nazi has spoken)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
