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.

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.

You seriously need your head examined. 620,000 Americans killed because the south wanted to keep and expand slavery.... That isn't something to have "pride" for. And what the fuck does any of that have to do with any "working class folks?" NONE of them were around in 1861. This "pride" and "working class folks" stuff is nothing but revisionist fantasy.

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.

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.

This is why conservatives want to shrink and de-fund government, because they stupidly think infrastructure lasts forever. Because they stupidly think that just because we've gotten to the point where rivers are no longer so polluted that they would catch on fire, that we don't need the EPA any more. One wonders how anyone could ever conclude anything other than that conservatism is basically driven by complete ignorance and a lack of understanding / lack of giving a shit about how anything works.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are taking down a bunch of statues in New Orleans. I hope they at least move them somewhere where students of history can view them. I dont mind occasions renamings if someone new / more relevant is to be honored - but this surgical excision of America's past is horrifying. They say study the past to avoid repeating it, but we are just hitting delete. How computer generation.

The progressive agenda cannot survive concurrently with an understanding of history. Removing history is the worst kind of control.

So you plan to educate your children by driving on roads? I am confident that I can educate my kid using other materials. I think I will start with books.

Nobody is "removing" history. History is taught in textbooks, not highway signs. And actual history is to teach that Jefferson Davis led a failed insurrection in order to cling to an unsustainable slave economy for the South. As for old confederate monuments that have been around for a long time, I don't necessarily think it's a requirement to remove or destroy them, but I do think they should have interpretive signage that tells the whole story including how it was in support of slavery, rather than the misguided glorification of a failed rebellion that continues to fuel idiotic neoconfederatism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are taking down a bunch of statues in New Orleans. I hope they at least move them somewhere where students of history can view them. I dont mind occasions renamings if someone new / more relevant is to be honored - but this surgical excision of America's past is horrifying. They say study the past to avoid repeating it, but we are just hitting delete. How computer generation.

The progressive agenda cannot survive concurrently with an understanding of history. Removing history is the worst kind of control.

So you plan to educate your children by driving on roads? I am confident that I can educate my kid using other materials. I think I will start with books.

Personally, I've always thought it would be easiest for Arlington to merely declare that it's named after the other Jefferson Davis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_C._Davis

While controversial, at least he fought for the Union.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How dare Virginia idolize a rebel

That's the Roman goddess Virtus, who I'm pretty sure did not command any forces to attack the North in the Civil War.

The expression "Sic Semper Tyrannis" originally came from the assassination of Caesar and was in widespread use long before American history.

Actually it probably dates back to the assassination of King Tarquin (the last roman king before the founding of the republic). The point is that the seal venerates rebels. The slogan was also shouted by john Wilkes booth.

I think the bigger point here is that, like it or not, the guy was the president and commander in chief of the confederate states of America. He led a failed secession, yes, but he wasn't an Adolfo Hitler figure that rounded up Jews and shoved them I to gas chambers. Even a terrible president deserves a few roads named after him.

No, Davis wasn't responsible for killing 6 million Jews, but he was[u] responsible for killing 620,000 Americans in the Civil War. And for no reason other than to defend and promote slavery I think he does not deserve to be venerated in any way, shape or form. Even General Lee turned his back on every veneration and symbol of the confederacy after the war ended. It is well documented that after the war, Robert E. Lee did not want confederate flags, uniforms, or symbols anywhere in his presence. He had far better insight and reasoning for this than any person alive today.

That's a gross oversimplification of the causes of the civil war. There were a multitude of causes that lead to war. It is simply objectively untrue to claim that the war happened "for no reason other than to defend and promote slavery." Also, like Lee, Jeff Davis was a confederate general at the beginning of 1861. He wanted to serve as the head of the army but was elected president over the states that had already seceded. He sent negotiators to Washington to discuss the purchase of federal bases located in the south but was turned away. I'm not sure that its fair to call the confederates "traitors" because they were no longer part or the United states when the war began.

Slavery was definitely a central cause of the Civil War. The mythical "states rights" argument is a deflection as it really was just about the right of states to continue practicing slavery - and not just to continue the practice but to expand the practice of slavery into the western territories. That is well documented, i.e. Bleeding Kansas. This central issue of slavery was fervently debated in Congress prior to the secession of the southern states, even coming to the point of physical violence (such as when South Carolina Rep. Preston Brooks attacked Massachussetts Rep. Charles Sumner and viciously beat him bloody and unconscious on the floor of Congress with a cane after Sumner gave an anti-slavery speech - with other pistol-wielding southern Congressmen holding the others back from helping Sumner as Brooks repeatedly beat him).

As for purchase of federal territories in the South, the South decided they would just take them by force. The South fired the first shot, made the first attack, at Fort Sumter. So much for the mythical "War of Northern Aggression" bullshit as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the poster who keeps saying "what about xxx and what about yyy named after so-and-so" - you are welcome to do your own activism and raise your own petitions to rename those things if you find them so objectionable.

I was among those points to show how rediculous asking for the Jeff Davis highway to be renamed is.

You missed the point. There is a critical mass of people in Arlington who think the Jefferson Davis name should be dropped where it passes through their jurisdiction. Those people don't give a damn about renaming Georgetown. If you want Georgetown renamed, go out and drum up your own support for your cause.

3,000 people signing a petition counts as critical mass? Luckily, Richmond makes these decisions, not the clowns on the county board.

The county board can't change designation of roads from US1 / SR 110 but they certainly can take down/change the "Jefferson Davis Highway" signs.

^^^ "multitude of causes"

B.S.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How dare Virginia idolize a rebel

That's the Roman goddess Virtus, who I'm pretty sure did not command any forces to attack the North in the Civil War.

The expression "Sic Semper Tyrannis" originally came from the assassination of Caesar and was in widespread use long before American history.

Actually it probably dates back to the assassination of King Tarquin (the last roman king before the founding of the republic). The point is that the seal venerates rebels. The slogan was also shouted by john Wilkes booth.

I think the bigger point here is that, like it or not, the guy was the president and commander in chief of the confederate states of America. He led a failed secession, yes, but he wasn't an Adolfo Hitler figure that rounded up Jews and shoved them I to gas chambers. Even a terrible president deserves a few roads named after him.

No, Davis wasn't responsible for killing 6 million Jews, but he was[u] responsible for killing 620,000 Americans in the Civil War. And for no reason other than to defend and promote slavery I think he does not deserve to be venerated in any way, shape or form. Even General Lee turned his back on every veneration and symbol of the confederacy after the war ended. It is well documented that after the war, Robert E. Lee did not want confederate flags, uniforms, or symbols anywhere in his presence. He had far better insight and reasoning for this than any person alive today.

That's a gross oversimplification of the causes of the civil war. There were a multitude of causes that lead to war. It is simply objectively untrue to claim that the war happened "for no reason other than to defend and promote slavery." Also, like Lee, Jeff Davis was a confederate general at the beginning of 1861. He wanted to serve as the head of the army but was elected president over the states that had already seceded. He sent negotiators to Washington to discuss the purchase of federal bases located in the south but was turned away. I'm not sure that its fair to call the confederates "traitors" because they were no longer part or the United states when the war began.