Arlington has asked Virginia to rename Jefferson Davis Highway

[Anonymous]

Washington was also proposing that blacks be colonized outside the borders of the US. Is that not racist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious, what do you people personally have against Jefferson Davis?

Personally? Nothing. I just don't think we should name roads after the leaders of U.S. enemies. Do you?

Well, he was more things than just an enemy of the US. He was also a US representative, senator, and US Secretary of War. I would also say that a civil war or uprising is much different than a war with a foreign country. Given your rule of thumb the US shouldn't have anything named after any Indian, any Confederate, any British, any French, any German, any Russian, any Spanish, any Mexican, etc.

Basically nothing named after anyone or any area involved with these US enemies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

Is that what your saying?

Well, Benedict Arnold distinguished himself in the American army during the Revolutionary War before switching over to the British side. Should we name a few highways and schools after him?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good LORD. Do you know how fortunate you have to be for this and other 'racist' issues to be such a big deal to you. How much money does it cost to make these changes, and wouldn't that money be better served helping poor citizens in that county/town/state?

Liberal idiocy.

Did you cry this loud when National Airport got renamed Reagan National Airport and all the money had to be spent changing signs and metro stops?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good LORD. Do you know how fortunate you have to be for this and other 'racist' issues to be such a big deal to you. How much money does it cost to make these changes, and wouldn't that money be better served helping poor citizens in that county/town/state?

Liberal idiocy.

Idiocy? Bullshit. Street signs get replaced all the time, it's not some "great expense." Most street signs get replaced roughly every 10 years regardless of name changes because they get weathered, lose reflectivity, get damaged, stolen, whatever.

And suddenly you want to help poor citizens when you didn't give a shit about them before the sign thing came up? Typical right wing hypocrite. People like you only care about the cost of things, but cannot understand the value of anything.

Again, do you understand that people who have very little don't pay these things much attention because they are too busy trying to survive? Y'all need more to do.

And God forbid the working class folks have any pride in their state history. They need to be indoctrinated with the social justice Warriors' mantra 24/7.

I never understood the "pride in your history" thing when your history is that of defending an institution like slavery. Germans don't take pride in their Nazi past. They acknowledge how shameful it was. That's the honorable thing to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious, what do you people personally have against Jefferson Davis?

Personally? Nothing. I just don't think we should name roads after the leaders of U.S. enemies. Do you?

Well, he was more things than just an enemy of the US. He was also a US representative, senator, and US Secretary of War. I would also say that a civil war or uprising is much different than a war with a foreign country. Given your rule of thumb the US shouldn't have anything named after any Indian, any Confederate, any British, any French, any German, any Russian, any Spanish, any Mexican, etc.

Basically nothing named after anyone or any area involved with these US enemies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

Is that what your saying?

Well, Benedict Arnold distinguished himself in the American army during the Revolutionary War before switching over to the British side. Should we name a few highways and schools after him?

Even Arnold has some tributes to him - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_Arnold#Tributes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious, what do you people personally have against Jefferson Davis?

Personally? Nothing. I just don't think we should name roads after the leaders of U.S. enemies. Do you?

Well, he was more things than just an enemy of the US. He was also a US representative, senator, and US Secretary of War. I would also say that a civil war or uprising is much different than a war with a foreign country. Given your rule of thumb the US shouldn't have anything named after any Indian, any Confederate, any British, any French, any German, any Russian, any Spanish, any Mexican, etc.

Basically nothing named after anyone or any area involved with these US enemies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

Is that what your saying?

Well, Benedict Arnold distinguished himself in the American army during the Revolutionary War before switching over to the British side. Should we name a few highways and schools after him?

Even Arnold has some tributes to him - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_Arnold#Tributes

At least two of those markers don't actually mention his name, another one is in London. A plaque is not the same as a highway or a school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I never understood the "pride in your history" thing when your history is that of defending an institution like slavery. Germans don't take pride in their Nazi past. They acknowledge how shameful it was. That's the honorable thing to do.

There's a pretty big difference between slavery and ethnic cleansing. Slavery is pretty much a historical part of every culture and nationality, it's not unique to US history. Ethnic cleansing is much more heinous and not anywhere near as prevalent as slavery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious, what do you people personally have against Jefferson Davis?

Personally? Nothing. I just don't think we should name roads after the leaders of U.S. enemies. Do you?

Well, he was more things than just an enemy of the US. He was also a US representative, senator, and US Secretary of War. I would also say that a civil war or uprising is much different than a war with a foreign country. Given your rule of thumb the US shouldn't have anything named after any Indian, any Confederate, any British, any French, any German, any Russian, any Spanish, any Mexican, etc.

Basically nothing named after anyone or any area involved with these US enemies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

Is that what your saying?

Well, Benedict Arnold distinguished himself in the American army during the Revolutionary War before switching over to the British side. Should we name a few highways and schools after him?

Even Arnold has some tributes to him - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_Arnold#Tributes

At least two of those markers don't actually mention his name, another one is in London. A plaque is not the same as a highway or a school.

So you would be okay with a statue or plaque of Davis along the highway instead?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good LORD. Do you know how fortunate you have to be for this and other 'racist' issues to be such a big deal to you. How much money does it cost to make these changes, and wouldn't that money be better served helping poor citizens in that county/town/state?

Liberal idiocy.

Did you cry this loud when National Airport got renamed Reagan National Airport and all the money had to be spent changing signs and metro stops?

I don't believe that was done to make a bunch of people feel better about themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good LORD. Do you know how fortunate you have to be for this and other 'racist' issues to be such a big deal to you. How much money does it cost to make these changes, and wouldn't that money be better served helping poor citizens in that county/town/state?

Liberal idiocy.

Idiocy? Bullshit. Street signs get replaced all the time, it's not some "great expense." Most street signs get replaced roughly every 10 years regardless of name changes because they get weathered, lose reflectivity, get damaged, stolen, whatever.

And suddenly you want to help poor citizens when you didn't give a shit about them before the sign thing came up? Typical right wing hypocrite. People like you only care about the cost of things, but cannot understand the value of anything.

Again, do you understand that people who have very little don't pay these things much attention because they are too busy trying to survive? Y'all need more to do.

What a totally lameass argument. Dude, median household income for Arlington County where they want to change the signs is $101,000. That means they aren't people who are going to go hungry if they have to change a few road signs.

So because median income is 101K, there is no poor in Arlington County? What about South Arlington, where the 'riches' don't want their kids to go to school?

Must to correct the record, there are plenty of wealthy families in south Arlington who send their kids to public school.

I'm sure there are. But we are not referring to them. I am referring to the poor families that could be helped with the money that would be used to change a sign.

You are referring to some imaginary oppressed poor white southern folk walkin' barefoot to school in Arlington after spendin' all night threshin' corn or sumpin'.

Look, everyone here knows you are full of shit.

I'm referring to the poor black and hispanic population that liberal claim they are in support of. Spending money to change the sign to show support of a racial group rather than spending that money on the same racial group to help lift them out of poverty - it's the liberal way.

False premise, this was already addressed above - there is no "either street signs or feed the poor" argument for you to make here as Virginia municipalities continually replace signs every so many years regardless, and all municipalities over 3,500 people are required, per VA DOT standards to do so. The money is already in the budget to replace them regardless of whether they say "Jefferson Davis Highway" or something different.

But thanks for playing.

Does replacing those signs feed, clothe and educate poor black folk? How is renaming signs tangibly helping them?

So you don't support any government spending that doesn't help feed, clothe, and educate poor black folks?

I don't support idiocy specifically designed to allow people to feel good about themselves without any tangible benefit to the individuals they claim to be helping.

I don't claim to be helping poor black folk by supporting this. I'll be totally selfish and say that I'm supporting my middle class black child, and his middle class white classmates, who would like to grow up in a world that makes sense.

Do you feel better?

A world that makes sense is not a world that is so sensitive to slight, that one must remove and/or whitewash anything that might be perceived as offensive.

What "makes sense" about putting up with offensive shit and suffering fools?

It's about who defines it and why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good LORD. Do you know how fortunate you have to be for this and other 'racist' issues to be such a big deal to you. How much money does it cost to make these changes, and wouldn't that money be better served helping poor citizens in that county/town/state?

Liberal idiocy.

Did you cry this loud when National Airport got renamed Reagan National Airport and all the money had to be spent changing signs and metro stops?

I don't believe that was done to make a bunch of people feel better about themselves.

Sure it was - Republicans. Regardless, the cost is just the same. And cost seems to be what you object to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Washington was also proposing that blacks be colonized outside the borders of the US. Is that not racist?

That would entail the abolition of black slavery in America - a practice that had come from England. And, what you are referring to is the recolonization efforts like the Committee for the Relief of the Black Poor, which started up in the 1780s right after the Revolutionary War to try and repatriate slaves back to Africa where they could live as free men. I don't particularly see that as "racist."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good LORD. Do you know how fortunate you have to be for this and other 'racist' issues to be such a big deal to you. How much money does it cost to make these changes, and wouldn't that money be better served helping poor citizens in that county/town/state?

Liberal idiocy.

Idiocy? Bullshit. Street signs get replaced all the time, it's not some "great expense." Most street signs get replaced roughly every 10 years regardless of name changes because they get weathered, lose reflectivity, get damaged, stolen, whatever.

And suddenly you want to help poor citizens when you didn't give a shit about them before the sign thing came up? Typical right wing hypocrite. People like you only care about the cost of things, but cannot understand the value of anything.

Again, do you understand that people who have very little don't pay these things much attention because they are too busy trying to survive? Y'all need more to do.

And God forbid the working class folks have any pride in their state history. They need to be indoctrinated with the social justice Warriors' mantra 24/7.

Union soldiers who signed up to fight in the Civil War were also "working class folks" - they were farmers, laborers, factory workers, et cetera. As such, the Confederacy is in no way unique to or a symbol of working class folks. So spare the bullshit about working class folks.

Yes and northern states are free to celebrate the union's soldiers. Why would southern states celebrate the contributions of the north's soldiers and vice versa?

[Anonymous]

So where are they moving this mural to? It seems difficult to move a fresco without damaging it--not to mention is something not changed when art is moved from its intended display spot?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427575/university-kentucky-mural

[Anonymous]

And, people wonder why there is such support for Donald Trump.
This is but one example.
Political Correctness, at all costs.