I think he means “Rocky III”, where he fought Mr. T.
[quote=“manson1972, post:223, topic:912444, full:true”]
OK
I’m fairly certain that is sarcasm. Also, I don’t know what “up-an-coming-rags-to-riches in the second” means, since he fought the same guy in Rocky II that he fought in Rocky.
I mixed my Rockys. Yup, Mr. T in Rocky III
Also, Rocky defeated communism all by himself and we all changed, so that deserves a statue.[/quote]
Sure, he deserves it, but the commie pinkos will tear it down as a symbol of American imperialism
You know I mean street with “real” names. FDR, JFK, LBJ,
Why on earth would I “know” that? Those names are no more real than any other names.
He means streets named after people.
No they won’t. There’s a reason for this. The people calling for changing names and removing statues actually have a principled reason for doing so. They aren’t morons, they aren’t knee jerk liberals, they rightfully believe that our country should not be honoring traitors who fought to expand the institution of slavery.
When someone demands something stupid like the removal of a statue of Harriet Tubman, we can safely ignore them. This is in stark contrast to the pro-confederate-statue group, who cannot ignore the ignorant, as it’s their core constituency.
But we can’t safely ignore the removal of Thomas Jefferson or George Washington statues. I’m of the opinion that they were transformative figures in human history. Flawed as they might be in retrospect, They progressed human rights at their time. And I’m not sure Tom and George are safe from the chopping block in the current enviroment.
They might not be. But it’s a good thing that these days a broader range of people get a say in who gets honored in a publicly prominent place. You’re free to keep admiring them in your personal spaces. That doesn’t mean that your opinion gets to trump others’.
Of course we can. At least I can, which means you can, and any other American can. If Americans don’t ignore it, then it’s the will of the people. A half dozen angry people knock over a statue, you can repair it and put it back up, you just need the will to do it.
The reality is that our country has shamefully allowed the reverence of traitors who instigated the bloodiest war in our history for the express purpose of continuing to enslave millions of Americans.
TJ and GW and others may well be caught up in the fervor of trying to right this wrong, that blame doesn’t lie with the people trying to repair our shame, it lies with the people who perpetuated it.
So did Winston Smith hoard bottles of Mrs. Butterworth along with unused razor blades?
I forgets.
So you’d allow voting on statue removal?
I thought they said they did that and they stayed, yet people from outside of the locale want them down. We have already seen in this thread (I’ll paraphrase), ‘we gave them enough time, now the mob rules!’
So if enough of a mob wants not to pay taxes, school taxes for example and having no kids, then you’d be in favor?
For some reason I think not.
This position you and others are taking here flies directly in the face of what you would hold dear (ie, hypocritical)
It all comes down to whose ox gets gored.
Sure, why not?
Other way around. It was the people that lived in the city where they were that wanted them down, but it was people that didn’t live in the city who pushed the state to pass laws to override the wishes of the people who lived in the city.
You know, when you paraphrase, you should be careful, or you end up making a statement that no one has said, and you end up just holding a bale of straw.
Well, technically, that’s democracy. If enough of us want anything, and vote for it, then that’s how it works out.
If not democracy, what do you prefer?
Can’t disagree with this.
That’s the problem with falsely attributing a position to someone. Then when you then falsely attribute another conflicting position to them, then you start calling them hypocrites, when it is actually just a complete failure on your part to understand the most basic of concepts.
Accusing the other of “bothsidesism” is only an admission that your side does it, not evidence that your opponent does.
My high school - Lane Tech in Chicago, recently decided to replace it’s team name of Indians. A fellow alum sent me the following, which I found amusing:
I suggest the new mascot be “the square root of negative 1”, known in mathematics simply as ‘i’. Reasons abound as to why ‘i’ best represents Lane Tech in 2020.
- ‘i’, being a mathematical constant and concept learned in higher mathematics, maintains a connection to Lane’s heady days as a bastion of technical and scientific instruction.
- ‘i’ can be a letter or a mathematical constant (technically, a number) so it can self-identify as to whatever it needs to be at any time
- ‘i’ has no ethnicity, no sexual orientation or confusion, and has never oppressed nor been oppressed by other letters of the alphabet nor other mathematical constants.
- ‘i’ was invented solely for the purpose of taking math problems that don’t work, and making them work even if we have to create something that doesn’t exist to make it so. -1 doesn’t have a square root - at least not in the real world. So someone made up ‘i’ to solve an unsolveable problem.
- ‘i’ doesn’t really exist. In fact, it’s the basis of a whole system of numbers known as imaginary numbers. ‘i’ doesn’t belong to the world of real numbers, it is not rooted in reality…need I say more.
- ‘i’ is not only a letter and a math constant, it is the most personal personal pronoun in its own right. (“I want…”, “I feel…”, “I don’t like…”) It needs no other letters in order to spell a complete word. And when it stands alone it is always capitalized - showing it’s pride, prominence, selfishness and hubris over all other letters.
I do see problems however.
- ‘e’ (mathematical constant for 2.7182818284…) may object. After all, ‘e’ is also both a letter and a mathematical symbol. We’ll have to tell ‘e’ to be real, and stop being irrational.
- pi will also likely object, since pi is also a letter and a mathematical constant. But dealing with pi is like going around in circles.
Even old New York
Was once New Amsterdam
Why they changed it, I can’t say –
People still like it better that way!
Take me back to Constantinople . . .