JosephM

Obama on 'Cancel Culture'. I would agree with him. 1 minute long ------> Cancel Culture

Unfortunately Time magazine is a left leaning periodical. Not a wimpier was heard during my lifetime til recently and suddenly now that many Americans have all kinds of free time with the coronavirus and fueled by left leaning media it has become a 'big thing'. The majority of Americans have no problem with historical monuments. The vocal minority is trying to push things onto the majority. It seems to me that each community should take a consensus of people in that area and if they don't want a monument then vote it out but this rampant destruction is offensive to every law abiding American. Communities have the power to peacefully remove what they deem offensive and i have no problem with that.

I guess you might not understand the statement concerning there being no winners. Yes Thomas, the Confederate army surrendered. Families were divided and the toll on both sides was horrific. There were no real winners. One could say the Blacks won freedom or argue the West won but to the Union and Confederacy the losses were great on both sides and The United States alone was the real winner which included both the Union soldiers and Confederate soldiers. That's when the healing started and that is history. To argue that the north really won in my view is open to debate and that simplistic view that either side won doesn't take a lot of factors into account. "Lincoln's decision to fight rather than to let the Southern states secede was not based on his feelings towards slavery. Rather, he felt it was his sacred duty as President of the United States to preserve the Union at all costs." ( From his Biography) If the issue was slavery alone would there have been a Civil War at that time? I don't know but from studying history, i doubt it.

By the Way, According to a sociologist ..... (This could include pulling down statues and defacing them) For one thing, looters and peaceful protesters aren’t typically the same people. Dana Fisher, a sociologist at the University of Maryland, has studied protests for 20 years, and she says it’s rare for peaceful protesters to start stealing and setting fires at random. People flock to the sites of protests with different motivations, and those who want peace tend to stay peaceful. “I’ve never seen somebody come in who’s peaceful and then it’s like, Hey, they just broke that window over there. I’m going to now start looting,” she told me. .... from the Atlantic news

There is mercy and there is justice and there is poetic justice. Here is an example of poetic justice for a couple of inexperienced potential property destroyers and looters. IMG_3343.mov

I think if you watch the entire video you will see it is applicable to what is happening today General Lee's statue is a part of history. Part of the evolution of our country and collective consciousness. There were no winners and losers of the Civil war in my view as Thomas seems to portray. There were differences and division in peoples thinking . Both sides lost and healing has been taking place ever since then. Of course some will today take offense at the statues but the majority of people have no problem with it and haven't for for over a hundred years. Statues, Nativity scenes, politically incorrect words, and other things seem to be bothering a minority of vocal people and they are demanding the majority comply. I think the video Burl presented says a lot about what is happening today and its not just about Christianity. The author may call it a new religion but it has no specific name and points to what seems applicable today with the riots, looting and statue destruction. Some people may just need to get over taking offence where none was intended.

"Cancel Culture" = people with too much time on ones hand. 🙂 History is history whether good or bad in peoples mind. People are defacing and pulling down not only confederate statues but statues of Lincoln and Jefferson and Andrew Jackson and more. If we just take them all down , do you think the people will be happy? You can't please everybody. Some are offended by nativity scenes , some by politically incorrect words, some by personal prejudices. Seems to me it time we get over such mental constructs and allowing ourselves to be 'harmed' over such trivial matters and learn to love and get along with our differences and preserve history as history.

Greetings Co-Exist, Love the name. We do have to co-exist and be more inclusive of others even if we don't agree on things. Welcome to the forum . Looking forward to hearing more of your ideas and any personal stories or inspirations you have had in your journey. Joseph

Thomas, You were just previously warned privately about quoting people by using out of context partial sentences etc. ......Now your carelessness in reading posts and quoting in the post immediately before this one has me quoted as saying something someone else said. You have 3 days to think about reading posts more carefully before misquoting. JosephM (as Moderastor)

Paul said it, not me. Read all the posts if you are going to comment . It's a few posts above this one..... He said ......."If you are talking about the DC instance, then I disagree with you. It was an over-reaction on your governments part to attack those peaceful protesters, at that time, and for the pedantic reason of wanting your President to go for a stroll. "

Perhaps it possible but highly unlikely 4 times. Fine. Sueing through the court system is the peaceful and proper way to challenge it. Good luck with it. But for now the order was lawful unless proven otherwise and in a law and order society must be obeyed or is subject to consequences. We = Everybody for the last few weeks that read newspapers, watch TV, or talk to others. People like George Floyd and others both black and white and other will for as long as people are not perfect angels, continue. As i said in other posts, it is getting better and yes more can and will be done but as long as humans do the policing there will always be problems such as this. A lot of change has happened that is positive concerning civil rights and police brutality since the 1960's and Martin Luther King. And it will continue Judge all you want. and disagree. It's your right. I don't see it that way but admit if you read our mainline news it is easy to form that opinion of yours. Now you have Trump going for a stroll when in fact he went there to make a statement against the backdrop of damage to a historical church in DC the night before which many non-vocal people support as do i. Just my 2 bobs worth. 😄

It is not up to you or me to say whether an order is or is not lawful. If people questioned up front every order they disagreed with from police we would have serious problems and lawlessness. Accountability comes afterwards not during orders. You being a past policeman must know that if you give a command to someone you perceive breaking the law you can't allow his disagreement to not comply. That leaves the officer with no authority. Comply and take it up with the court system later Because that is a 'red herring' argument. Trump did not say the man was an ANTIFA provacateur. He only suggested that he "could be". He is a private citizen on twitter and has that right whether you or i like it or not. If you carefully watch 2 videos from different angles you would see the man acting very odd advancing toward police trying to clear the way and actually touching one. The police are trying to do their job andd pushed him away not knowing what he was doing and it appears he touched the police on the right and could have been reaching for a weapon. Who knows? He was in the wrong place at the wrong time messing with the police in my view. His act as president to clear the area in the first paragraph i quoted you is lawful. Heck, the president has the authority to pardon criminals and even greater authority. His order through Barr was lawful whether we deem it poor judgement or whatever. Truely peaceful protesters that believe in law and order would in my view comply. And the majority did.

Nothing wrong with a life long protester especially if peaceful and not in violation of a law. No , it doesn't mean your innocent , it just means they dropped the charges. He wouldn't have been arrested if he wasn't in violation and many big cities just book em and then release em. Too much trouble and backup to prosecute. No it wasn't in place but disobeying the direct order of Park police is against the law even without a curfew. That can be challenged afterwards but in this case they would lose as it was cleared for the protection of the president by the attorney general and whether one thinks it is right or wrong for him to do so makes no difference legally.. I won't disagree with you that there are laws that are prejudicial and sometimes it takes defiance to lead to change. And yes, civil disobedience has led to change. But in this case, we get the message and the violence seems a bit of an over reaction to me as i see improvement when i look at the numbers for police brutality on both white , black and other. I am persuaded that the individuals doing alot of the burning and looting have little to do with the message of the majority of protesters . Those responsible for Floyd's death, and other recent ones now have been charged and will have their day in court. Being a policeman has to be a very stressful job dealing with much of the criminal element.My belief is the great majority of them are outstanding people. The American people are on the whole sympathetic to the issue and official are willing to talk but if violence persists by protesters support will be lost. Yes, I agree sometimes breaking the law is not only the higher thing to do but the only thing to do. That's what led to the formation of our nation. Do i think it is the higher thing to do in this case? No.

Paul, BTW. The old man Martin Gugino has been a lifelong protester if you study his background. His own blogs show him arrested 4 times but never convicted. He believes curfews are a violation of our right to assemble and curfews are illegal. That is why he defies police orders. The curfew law has been challenged many times. Here is what our Supreme court has said ..... The Supreme court stated: "the real question is whether an ordinance such as this bears a sufficiently close relation to the peace, safety and welfare of the public so far as to justify the inconvenience to which law abiding citizens may occasionally be submitted." The court found that the ordinance bears a reasonable relation to the evil at which it is directed. Not everyone will agree with the Supreme courts assessment and its assessment depends on whether the ordinance fits into this category . In this case, the curfews didn't start til after the rioting and looting and welfare of the public justified it. But protesters who disagree have the right to afterwards challenge through the court system or they can defy the curfew order as Martin did and put themselves in harms way where it is possible they will be hurt as in this case.

They did not attack everybody. Most peaceful protesters left when they were given the order. Only those who defied the order were cleared out. More like a hundred than a thousand from the videos. The protesters are now more organized and policing their own protesters that have been ruining the message and appearance of a peaceful protest. That's positive action and i think it will better promote their cause. I have seen videos of them now stopping non-peaceful protesters by words and force and turning them over to police. No argument from me on whether it was a lawful order or not. If you exclude biased and partisan newspapers on both sides, i think you will find a large majority of American citizens believe comply with the police now and sort out things (lawful / unlawful order) later is the best route to take. Also everyone i know personally and have been in contact with denounce the action of the police in George Floyd's case and say that the majority of police should not be condemned over the actions of a minority of ones that should not be wearing a badge. On the old man Martin Gugino, forget what trump said , the old man was past curfew and looking for trouble touching the police with what looked like his ( phone?) and reaching close to one officers waist all while instructed to leave and while they were clearing after curfew and they didn't just walk away from him as news reported. After he fell the supervisor told the officer who stopped to continue on and he radioed for medical help and had others attend to the man when you viewed it from a video taken from across the street. News here paints a saint picture of victims to support the media's partisan cause. The picture they put in the paper of Martin (the old man) was from another protest in 2019 that was peaceful and had a saintly look. Some so called 'victims' actions i have found invite trouble. While the action of the Police with George Floyd is inexcusable, it would not have happened if he had not been passing counterfeit bills or been high on illegal drugs. That of course is a 'red herring' and has nothing to do with the improper actions the police took but it makes a point that we are largely responsible for ourselves and when we knowingly place ourselves in certain conditions of lawlessness, we may be inviting drama, harm and pain in our lives. The majority of Americans are law abiding and peaceful and sympathize with peaceful protests but even among those a few bad apples screaming crazy things like defund and abolish the police and rioting and looting do nothing to convince us of their cause. Crime in America by police against unarmed whites and blacks and others has been getting better since 2013. It's impossible to solve overnight but it is improving as more police departments use citizens as an oversight committee along with other improvements in training , etc. It takes time but it will get better.

In context of the days of violence before and in using force to clear the area of the park they were in whether before or after curfew makes no difference to me. I will not second guess the reasons of the authority. They also extended the buffer areas protecting the Whitehouse from a rush by those who would damage it as they did other memorials in DC the previous days. A lawful order and warning was given to clear the area before curfew and it is lawlessness that kept the ones there that had to be cleared out by force. The order and warning was given 3 times and those remaining defied authorities and left them in my opinion no reasonable option. After billions of dollars in damage nationwide and many police injured and killed trying to protect the property of American business owners and citizens i do not object to the use of force shown to remove those so called 'peaceful protesters' who refuse to comply with orders. that pose no real danger or harm to them such as the one to clear that area of the park. In fact, some were still filling the streets beyond that point well after curfew was in effect and had to be cleared for traffic. The videos go on for an hour after curfew.

Never said it is a totally acceptable way to police.. Only said it is wiser to comply rather than second guess and risk harm. It seems to me wiser to not assume the leaders possible misguided intentions and follow orders rather than risk harm in such a case . Things can be sorted out later and more peaceable actions taken.

As i said Thomas... Not trying to ignore you but your responses as the one above seem to me to be totally misreading the context of my posts so i will not respond to you.

Paul, Rather than approaching the DC thing from a legal angle let us reason together. I was raised to obey my parents and law enforcement people . As i grew i have come to realize things are not so black and white as i once thought so i have modified my behavior concerning obeying both parents and law enforcement with what i believe is wisdom. I have been personally involved in peaceful protests as a protester in the 80's so i am not unfamiliar with them. I respect the rights of others and am thankful for the great majority of police and law enforcement personnel who put their lives on the line to serve and protect society and me. Certainly we can agree there are those who wear the badge who as a society we would be better off if they didn't. That is a complex problem to be remedied and worked on. However, wisdom tells me that if an officer gives me an order whether there is a curfew or not and that if that order does not put me in personal danger or harm i will always give the officer the benefit of any doubt i may have of his legitimacy or of a violation of my rights, I will comply and take up the issue with my elected officials later if i believe my rights were violated. I will not second guess the issue of legitimacy after i have been warned to move or that action will be taken if i don't comply.To me it would be foolish to stick around with the threat of arrest or bodily harm when i can walk away from it. So lets forget the falacious 'red herring' of a photo op some people use and follow police instructions if those instructions are not harmful to us. Not following them is in my view, inviting unnecessary trouble. And that is a change that we as protesters can bring change to right now. PS Interesting video of Black lady in NYC scolding 'peaceful protesters' who had more than peaceful protests on their mind. (Graphic language) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8380231/You-profiting-pain-New-Yorker-blasts-rioters-powerful-speech-amid-devastation.html

Paul, The context was for the protesters to move back out of the park where fires and damage had raged the night before. The order to clear that area and the warnings that were given have legal jurisdiction over the curfew law. Maybe its different in Australia? Most cleared. The ones who stayed were not peaceful but rather breaking the law here but you won't see that in the news. Here are the results after cleanup of some so called "peaceful protests in NY city. You don't see this side much shown in the NY Times. https://www.facebook.com/djalexpushkin/videos/2852225351542899/?t=414 Here is what Democrats are proposing we replace Trump with. https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1265106469579444224/pu/vid/640x360/Nr0RnWjkA6NmDX6N.mp4?tag=10

Sorry Thomas, I don't mean to ignore your posts but your view is clearly stated so i know where you stand. Unfortunately, its difficult for me to communicate with you since you seem to me, to pull my words out of context, misquote me, and fail to get my meaning in my post. I said "Most republicans rejected the notion that protesters were acting peacefully" I did not say they rejected MOST protesters were acting peacefully. We are talking about the ones who didn't leave when the order was given to clear the street . At that point the peaceful ones (most) complied and the others dared them to remove them. And since you see a contradiction where i see none and obviously believe my comments "come from the trumpeter's playbook since it is contradictory, illogical. self-serving and un-empathetic." , there is no need for discussing it further with you. You obviously must know everything i would have to say.

Most republicans rejected the notion that protesters were acting peacefully since protesters can't ignore what law enforcement officers are telling them to do for the security of the president or anybody else. Should the President have gone to the church for a photo-op that led to tear gas and other measures to be used on the protesters? The media and others who are never going to find any good or any positive development in anything Trump does. So you can characterize it the way you want, but obviously the President is free to go where he wants and to hold up a Bible if he wants," calling it a "civil message." Videos showed most protesters left and others stayed on and taunted police. . The video is worth a thousand words.

Paul, With the exception of Fox news most all the other new agencies just copy the first one reporting and repeat the same thing. And yes New York has approximately 40,000 police force and they have National guard that the governor controls and was not used or called in by the New York Mayor in the 7 days of rioting. The New York mayor refused to use the New York National Guard and as a result New York lost businesses, lives and billions of dollars of property and potential jobs. NYC seems to be a strange very liberal city in their response. Among other things in NYC ...... https://abc7ny.com/the-trump-administration-border-patrol-sanctuary-cities-like-new-york-and-newark-la-colmena/5961405/ Also, it is not uncommon for the police typically try to clear out people ahead of the curfew so the streets will be clear by curfew time. Most peaceful protesters leave peacefully when asked. Troublemakers stick around and taunt the police. Police provide them 3 warnings and and state their non-compliance is a violation of law then start to clear the street . A direct order from a law enforcement officer or public safety officer will trump a curfew law. So those who remained were breaking the law.

What was done to George Floyd was as agreed by everyone i know, inexcusable. Action for justice was quickly taken and charges now upgraded to murder 2 and other officers present also charged for not intervening on Floyd's behalf. People have been through a lot with the coronavirus shutdown and the virus impact on peoples lives and livelihood. Still, we cannot allow this destroying of businesses , destruction of property and beatings and killings of police officers , innocent store owners and other people as retaliation to continue. We get the message of the peaceful protesters and the riots and violence just make things worse. The majority of protesters are peaceful but there are people both black and white that want to start a revolution and are trying to do so by using this event to destroy what ordinary citizens have spent their life's work building. It serves no useful purpose in advancing change to allow people with other agendas to incite others to commit such acts . These videos are not what the Floyd family wanted. https://www.vogue.com/article/terence-floyd-brother-george-floyd-calls-for-violence-to-end

Paul, The report on using the military was out of context from what i heard him say. He was speaking to the State cities and governors and American people to assure them he would not tolerate anymore looting , killing burning of cities and physical violence and that if their police and other resources available to them couldn't protect its citizens and business from further violence, destroying of property, etc he would invoke an old law we have to use the military to get the job done. As a citizen, in my view he telling them to do their job and protect the people against violent demonstrators who are inciting others to commit crimes.and if not he would intervene. I hope it is not necessary but i support his decision and think the news put a negative slant on what he actually said for political reasons..