See other 4play Articles
Title: NAACP calls for Mount Rushmore to be demolished
Source:
League of the South/Rebellion blog
URL Source: http://www.lsrebellion.blogspot.com/
Published: Apr 1, 2013
Author: Old Rebel
Post Date: 2013-04-01 21:39:12 by X-15
Keywords: None
Views: 3248
Comments: 127
At a hastily organized news conference today, the national president of the NAACP asserted that images of two of the presidents honored on Mount Rushmore, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, are "offensive and hurtful." National NAACP president Rev. William Barber claimed that he was shocked Friday when he was shown a picture of the monument. Upon researching the memorial's history on Wikipedia, he discovered what he described as "disturbing truths" that require the site's "total demolition." Both former presidents were slaveowners. One historian who disagrees is Civil War historian Kevin M. Levin. "I sympathize with Reverend Barber, and normally I do not disagree with black people, especially those who are bigger than me. But as a student of history, I think we need to appreciate Mount Rushmore in its historical context." These arguments have not changed Barber's mind. "He is right that it has a historical context," Barber said. "But what is that history? The history of racism. The history of lynchings. The history of death. The history of slavery. If you say that shouldn't be offensive, then either you don't know the history, or you are denying the history." When asked why the images of Lincoln and Roosevelt should suffer the same fate, Barber laughed. "They've been hangin' with George and Tom too long to be innocent. They had their chance."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-57) not displayed.
.
.
.
#58. To: lead.and.lag, All (#56)
Speak for your self, mate. If I were you, I'd find something else to do. You do ask challenging questions at times, but you can't meet the challenge of a discussion without turning on folks you disagree with and imputing attitudes and motivations of a doubtful sort that seem to have their origins in projections peculiar to your own big self. Take a pill. Know guns, know safety, know liberty. No guns, no safety, no liberty.
wonderful
randge is scared shitless it's starting to dawn on people that hitler didnt need the internet now it's becoming obvious that the internet is a bust... nothing has really changed . pretty fucking scary, isnt it?
randge is scared shitless of what? let's explore that Know guns, know safety, know liberty. No guns, no safety, no liberty.
you're scared because israel's actions and the actions of the israel lobby and its toadies in congress are confirming hitler's opinion of jews down the line somewhere, this is all gonna have consequences it's the consequences you're scared of
if you listen to this song... listen a couple levels down... we used to listen that way... the girl that wrote this song probably listened to it a million times herself, trying to figure out what she was saying... .
And yet you feel compelled to add post after post after post, like a moth drawn to a flame. we dont need these forums any more...
#59. To: randge (#58)
Take a pill.
#60. To: randge (#58)
(Edited)
#61. To: lead.and.lag (#60)
#62. To: randge (#61)
#63. To: All (#62)
(Edited)
#64. To: lead.and.lag (#56)
we dont need these forums any more... the truth is geting so obvious we dont need to debate... the truth is plain as the day on your face
-Alex Kurtagic
#65. To: lead.and.lag (#55)
who could blame her? Christine could always pull YOUR posting privileges -- in the interest of preserving her sanity!! I've got an idea: why don't you go debate at http://www.libertypost.org and tell Goldi-Lox that she should shut down her forum because debate isn't necessary?? if christine pulls the plug --in interest of preserving her sanity...
-Alex Kurtagic
#66. To: X-15 (#65) (Edited)
the problem is that christine seems to recognize that i've got a valid point of view... so she tolerates me, up to a point... i post here because i got nothing else to do . these music people dont have much to do when they're touring... they do the show, they're wired... if you think they're mental cripples because they're entertainers... the truth leaks into them, then it leaks out again in their songs
#67. To: lead.and.lag (#66)
You're an attention-whore.
-Alex Kurtagic
#68. To: X-15 (#67) (Edited)
name-calling is always a valid defense attention-whore
#69. To: lead.and.lag (#68)
. . . when the sobriquet fits what size shoe do you wear?? name-calling is always a valid defense
Know guns, know safety, know liberty. No guns, no safety, no liberty.
#70. To: randge (#69)
about the same size you wear what size shoe do you wear??
#71. To: All (#70) (Edited)
anyhow, the hasbara has failed, the israeli american empire seems to sink into deeper shit every day, and it's all becoming too obvious to deny it's hard to say what christine's agenda is... maybe she doesnt have one doesnt matter... the truth is creeping out
#72. To: X-15, farmfriend, randge, Original_Intent (#0)
State names road after Mount Rushmore sculptor - Rapid City Journal, Mar 29, 2013
"I am not one of those weak-spirited, sappy Americans who want to be liked by all the people around them. I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it." - William S Burroughs
#73. To: X-15, lead.and.lag, christine, Jethro Tull, James Deffenbach, Original_Intent, Tatarewicz, Lod, Buzzard, X-15 (#67)
You're an attention-whore. Any sufficiently advanced troll is indistinguishable from a genuine kook.[5] (Note Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law.) ___________________________________ lead.and.lag has an unhealthy fixation on christine's personal life which is sufficient to disqualify him/her/it from any polite dialogue with us. We should ignore "him" for the duration until chris tires of "his" heel nipping and again banishes "him" to "his" private asylum-mastubatorium,where "he" can fixate on her from afar.... To: lead.and.lag
#74. To: HOUNDDAWG (#73)
LOL! :-)
#75. To: HOUNDDAWG (#73)
He wants to be a moderator :-o
-Alex Kurtagic
#76. To: lead.and.lag (#11)
Sounds to me like you're speaking of Global Warming/Peak Oil agendists there. the continual barrage of chicken littles
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#77. To: GreyLmist (#76)
about this chicken little stuff... myabe we can start with areas of agreement... can we agree that there are people in the world that think they're entitled to run the world? can we agree that this entitlement is based on their belief in their racial superiority? can we agree that, so far and despite their supposed superiority, these people have not demonstrated enough sense to pour piss out of a boot? can we agree that production from individual oil wells peaks, then declines? can we agree that production from fields of oil wells peaks, then declines? can we agree that production from entrie countries peaks, then declines? can we agree that all this implies that global oil production will, someday, peak and then decline? can we agree that co2 warms the atmosphere? can we agree that burning a gallon of gas produces about 20 pounds of co2? can we agree that humans are putting over 30 billion tons of extra co2 into the atmosphere every year? can we agree that if we put all the co2 back in the atmosphere, we will eventually return to a tropical climate that will melt the ice in greenland and antarctica? can we agree that there's enough water locked up in that ice that, if melted, sea level will rise by 70 or 80 meters? can we agree that a 70 or 80 meter sea level rise would not be a good thing for "business as usual"? so it looks to me that there's enough real chicken little stuff to worry about without people manufacturing more chicken little stuff like chemtrails and hysteria about "global extinction events" like the gulf oil spill and fukushima. now then, these people who are convinced that they're entitled to run the world... what if they believe the evidence of peak oil and global warming? what if they're especially vulnerable to both peak oil and global warming? what if they staged an event in response to peak oil and global warming... a truly despicable event, but one that would serve as a pretext to grab control of the remaining oil before oil shortages cripple their support system? what if that staged event was just another in a succession of bad ideas? ...ideas that dont prove their superiority, but instead prove how haywire their basic philosophy is?
#78. To: All (#77) (Edited)
the worst part of it is this: peak oil and global warming would not be nearly so "chicken little" if we were not wasting so much time and money and good will in defense of peole who are demonstrably sick... driven nuts by thousands of years of goofy philosophy if instead we were using those resources --the time, the money, the will-- to deal with peak oil and global warming, we'd have a lot better chance of avoiding chicken little events but the phony chicken little scenarios are confusing some people so badly that they are eliminated from the "will" pool... they waste their will and their brains and their concern on shit that is destructive... their preoccupation with this phony stuff destroys the consensus needed to muster the will... ...which is exactly what it's intended to do
#79. To: All (#78) (Edited)
so we degenerate into whining and carping and bickering... we're ineffective because we cant agree on what's "real"... and that's exactly the way these assholes have planned it... the assholes who are convinced they're so powerful, so superior, they can create their own reality
#80. To: lead.and.lag (#77) (Edited)
Chaff Chemtrails Detected by NWS Louisville Radar: During the afternoon hours of 7 January 2006, the Louisville NEXRAD radar (KLVX) detected what appeared to be chaff. Weatherman Explains Chemtrails on Radar Weatherman Slips... CHEM TRAILS, page 1 at abovetopsecret.com [My note: video reference at 8:13-8:51] ...now they won't confirm that but i was in the marine corp for many years and i tell you right now, thats what it is It's chaff. As he says, used by the military and does in fact show up on doplar radar. It's no secret. Do a google search for "chaff on weather radar". NOAA talks about it. The FAA talks about it. Chaff has been around as long as radar has. Both the British and the Germans developed it during World War II as a countermeasure for radar. It is presently used to throw radar guided missiles off their target More from the Comments at abovetopsecret.com: "No worries people, your safe to breath in this particular aluminum and plastic.. in fact anything you call 'chaff' automatically becomes harmless." I think that last comment was sarcasm and the one above it is wrong. Can we agree on that? Edited for punctuation. ...it looks to me that there's enough real chicken little stuff to worry about without people manufacturing more chicken little stuff like chemtrails...
It has been documented in the past, particularly in western states, that NWS NEXRAD radar can detect chaff. What is that you ask? Chaff is a radar countermeasure used by military aircraft consisting of very small pieces of metal such as aluminum. It can appear as narrow bands of reflectivity on the radar since they are dispersed by planes flying at high speeds along a path.
Here we have an Anchorman/Weather Man explaining in detail Chaff that is ejected from Military aircraft
That is not rain, that is not snow. Believe it or not, military aircraft flying through the region dropping chaft(sp?). Small bits of allummanim, plastic or sometimes metalized paper products
"nothing to do with chemtrails"
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#81. To: GreyLmist (#80) (Edited)
ah now chemtrails are not barium or aluminum , or sulfur or whatever other flavor of the day is in fashion now they're "allummanim, plastic or sometimes metalized paper products" and they're not intended to poison us all or geoengineer a cooler climate (and that's a relief, because global warming doesnt exist, anyhow) nope, chemtrails are radar countermeasures
#82. To: lead.and.lag (#81) (Edited)
So are we in agreement, then, that such radar countermeasures don't amount to chicken little hysteria (as you've characterized the concerned) but do account to some extent as actual chemtrails containing aluminum and other metals? Edited punctuation. chemtrails are radar countermeasures
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#83. To: GreyLmist (#82) (Edited)
i picked the wrong day to forget a sarcasm tag... chaff has been around for since WWII, they used it in the vietnam war... not that it makes any difference . the problem you guys got is that you're unable to prove the existence of chemtrails chemtrails are radar countermeasures /sarc
#84. To: lead.and.lag (#83)
No, you're unable to admit that such radar countermeasures prove the existence of chemtrails to some extent. the problem you guys got is that you're unable to prove the existence of chemtrails
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#85. To: GreyLmist (#84)
we can get bogged down in legal hairsplitting about the definition of chemtrails, if you want to. are those chemtrails or contrails or chaff? 
#86. To: lead.and.lag (#85)
You tell me: Are those just contrails or are they chaff-chemtrails? are those chemtrails or contrails or chaff?
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#87. To: GreyLmist (#86)
probably contrails... i'd say with 99.99% certainty... . now then, we might as well be methodical about this... starting with: "what percentage of observed trail phenomena are chemtrails?" Are those just contrails
#88. To: lead.and.lag (#87)
starting with: "what percentage of observed trail phenomena are chemtrails?" I don't know. Do you? we might as well be methodical about this...
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#89. To: GreyLmist (#88) (Edited)
so you dont belong to the wudidiz/original_intent "i know a chemtrail when i see one" school of thought I don't know
#90. To: All (#89)
...the point being, if you cant tell the difference between a chemtrail and a contrail, how do you know that all "chemtrails" are not really contrails?
#91. To: lead.and.lag, wudidiz, Original_Intent (#90)
I haven't studied the subject of chemtrails as extensively as others but have seen what I suspected were lingering chemtrails rather than contrails. You didn't answer my question, though. Do you know what percentages of observed trail phenomena are contrails or chemtrails?
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#92. To: GreyLmist (#91) (Edited)
everything i've observed (including making my own contrails at sea level in the arctic, starting at about 35 below and colder) can be explained as contrails. there's ton of air going into those big engines every second, and a ton of co2 and nitrogen, plus a gallon of water, vaporized, coming out every second that water vapor is distributed evenly throughout the ton of co2 and nitrogen you got to ask yourself how much space a ton of co2, nitrogen and water vapor occupies at 30,000 or 40,000 feet... when the temperature, humidity and pressure are right, you get varying types of contrails, including persistant contrails. all this has been common knowledge in aviation circles since WWII you know what percentages of observed trail phenomena are contrails or chemtrails?
#93. To: All (#92)
i got to think that your chaff theory is lacking, mostly in visibility... if chaff were visible enough to be mistaken for contrails, there'd be pictures of the stuff... but i cant find any pictures... lots of pictures and videos of white phosphorus flares, though, but they are going off at low altitudes where contrails are not forming. ...white phosphorus because it's burning, and is effective against heat- seekers... cant be mistaken for contrails
#94. To: lead.and.lag (#92)
Are you licensed to shill or simply a freelancer ?
We should all be livid. Stop acting like docile, mentally castrated pussies and grow a pair. It's time to get in their face. Why should we speak in hushed tones and act all polite when we are being raped every day?
#95. To: noone222 (#94) (Edited)
i was licensed to fly helicopters until 2001... and i got a good education in navy flight school, and flew helicopters commerically until the summer of 2000. when you fly helicopters commercially, one of the first things you learn is that the customers will try to kill you ...they simply dont know any better so you learn to tell yourself the truth or you dont survive Are you licensed to shill
#96. To: lead.and.lag (#93)
Well, I did link to pictures of the stuff on weather radar screens. Ordinary contrails wouldn't show up so. if chaff were visible enough to be mistaken for contrails, there'd be pictures of the stuff
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#97. To: GreyLmist (#96) (Edited)
well, you'd expect radar countermeasures to show up on radar, wouldnt you? you might even expect chemtrails to show up on radar if they existed... seeing as how they're supposedly composed of aluminum and barium... or sulfur or silver iodide or whatver the fact remains: other than eyewitness reports, you guys have no evidence of chemtrails' existence... no evidence with a solid provenance you're unwilling to hire a jet and take samples directly from a supposed chemtrail, you're unwilling to acknowledge that you need temperature, humidity and altitude information to tell if contrails, including persistent contrails, are likely to form. there's just no evidence at all from reliable sources it's as simple as that Ordinary contrails wouldn't show up so.
.
.
.
Comments (98 - 127) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest