political

Shiver in dread for the Western World that is to come as it is these brats who will someday become its leaders!
These people are always contemptuous of others, unceasingly take a stance of self-superiority, self-claimed entitlement, & are contemptuous of others as they believe that they are ALWAYS right. And NOTHING will ever change that attitude until they leave this life, & heaven has better watch out because it is not going to be a happy place up there anymore after they arrive as they are just going to FUC@ it up with their miserable selves! They are easily offended whenever somebody objects to their nefarious behavior, and you will never get an apology from them when they frequently make mistakes & incessantly act inappropriately. They will quickly blame, denounce, disgrace, discredit, or judge others, & will always demand that others bow down to their wishes and live up to THEIR standards, but they will NEVER defer to your needs, or live up to your standards: as they can be never empathetic except in a deceitful way that will garner attention only to themselves, but once the crowd is dispersed, they will never follow up on the promises that they had made! They will masquerade as lords and perform as if they have the privilege to do or say anything to YOU that comes to their mind at that moment, and not only that but you not only have no right to object, & if you do, then you are labeled as deviant and evil!.
One should note that previously this behaviour was often possessed by those individuals who were shamed as children by an adult figure. These adults who were shamed as children often get angry and feel and act in a defensive manner whenever others object or counter what they are saying or doing. They will invariably experience a feeling of humiliation if they are required to observe their own many blunders and flaws. Interestingly, while it is they who are incessantly criticizing and judging others for even their merest perceived misbehaviour, they themselves incessantly feel that it is they

Not to make little of England - at the time an excrementitious useless lump whose peasants were so poor, their landlords had to turn to raising sheep lest they end up in the same bracket too.
But they were making great strides in invading Scotland and repellling the French plus there was the usual scintillating drama with this year's portly monarch, so being in Spain's shadow wasn't all THAT bad...

They should replace both them staues with that of someone with their gaseous excuse for a brain safely esconced up their lower digestive track, because that is what our gleaming pinnacle of English civilization has become.

btw, before anyone wants to pull out their really impressive History PhD, I don't know much about it but everyone knows that the only place in the USA its so-called discoverer ever landed was Ponce, Puerto Rico. So don't try to cry too hard, his statue there is safe - as well as knowledge of his actual name and country of origin.

Because facts and deliberate ignorance are mutually exclusive, regardless of how weathered the bronze shell is...

TL:DR for those who need insight. The reason that the common voters today are often extremely defensive (doesn't matter whom they follow), is because of their experiences as children.

:0)

Do you know whose statue that is?

Looks like maybe Columbus, so what?

It's important to know who you're calling a hero.

Such as a child trafficker.

He is celebrated for having the guts to sail into the unknown not for 17th century morals.

America was known before Columbus. He thought he was sailing to Asia. Not the unknown.

That was not what Bluesol had meant when he had said "unknown"! Columbus and those around him had sailed into the "unknown" to get to Asia. Some (certainly not the majority of the "learned") in Europe had even thought that the world was flat and that he would fall off if he sailed far enough to the West....many thought that he was on a fool's errand and was heading into death!
Then there were the logistics such as:
- How wide was the Atlantic Ocean (no one knew....Columbus himself had calculated that India would be roughly where he has first sighted land in the New World and he had really thought that he had reached India....hence, calling the native Indians...a name that has unfortunately stuck)|
- How long would it take to reach Asia (no one knew....and Columbus himself had thought that Spain was closer to China westward than eastward....and he had NEVER never abandoned this conviction)
- How much provisions (food and water) that it would take to last them to reach Asia (no one knew....and had not the New World been right across his sailing path, he never would have reached Asia....he would have starved and run out of the water that he had brought with him long before then)
These are just some of the unknowns!

Oh really? The America’s were not known by and large in Europe. A few Vikings may have landed previously in the northeastern tip, but it wasn’t common knowledge. Nor did the Vikings explore further or know the extent of the land mass. That is ridiculous and a revisionist distortion. Columbus discovered a New World and gets credit for it. He was an explorer of great courage. Mankind has always celebrated courage not cowardly post modern detractors.

Columbus, at best, could only be regarded for his contributions as one of the first Europeans to discover it. But not the first. Marco Polo, another European, traversed what may be today Alaska... and possibly much of the west coast. Not only that, but it wasn't until 1502 that Amerigo Vespucci, for whom the Americas are named, actually put it together that Columbus was never in Asia at all but an entirely new continent.

There is nothing cowardly about disputing facts which are wrong. Otherwise, we'd still wrongly refer to this country as India.

Well, 1502 is just 10 years after Columbus had discovered the new world in 1492....so taking just 10 years to discover that it was not India was not bad....and Columbus himself did make his last voyage in 1502. So there was not a lot of sailing back and forth between Europe and the new world....it was basically just Columbus believing that he had discovered India based on his own calculations of when he would sight India...and he did sight land during his estimated period.
Oh! And only a lunatic would believe that Marco Polo had been to Alaska....That shit I had never heard of before! And yes, I do know about the Venetian glass beads that were found in Alaska and dated to having being made between 1440 and 1480 based on radiocarbon-dating the twine holding the beads together. But reaching Alaska they did not in that time....and it must have been 100s of years later....It could have been just 200 years ago. A better choice for the first European in North America would be the Vikings and we know that because they had left an account of their voyages and we have the evidence that they were in New Foundland: Canada at L'Anse aux Meadows. That would have been roughly in the late 10 Century AD far before Columbus and your "Marco Polo" conspiratory theory!.

Vespucci would never have come without the spark set by Columbus. Columbus deserves the accolades for what he did that no one else did. Had they done it Columbus’ voyage would have been moot wouldn’t it. Instead it sparked an era of exploration and discovery and all others came after the first, Columbus.

Also celebrated for the founding of the capital city of Ohio.

It really does not matter whose statue that I put up there (that was not the point) because no matter who I put up, there will be skeletons in their closet because we will be judging these people through the delicate prism of our rose-tinted glasses.
Genghis Khan? Killer of tens of millions, yet a massive statue adorn the capital of Mongolia where he is revered to this day, Gandhi? Some Blacks will cast this down because they believe that he was a racist. Martin Luther King? No! the liberals will not have that because he was a Republican and had talked about not judging people by the colour of his skin: but judging people by the colour of their skin is exactly the main policy of the liberals today! Mohammed? Naw! The man had about 32 slaves and he personally had eliminated one Jewish tribe, enslaved another, and banished the third from Arabia & had ordered the assassination of his opponents, or those who he believed had mocked him, and then there is also the scourge that he had unleashed that has been responsible for hundreds of millions of lives which still echos to this very day & have I mentioned the subjugation of women in Islam! Mandela? (our best recent nominee) but naw! He personally had led a war that had eliminated several hundred people...even though that war may have been justified (Gandhi did the same for hundreds of millions without lifting up a gun!). Qin Shi Huang, China's first emperor, who had unified all of China, & in the process had eliminated likely million of Chinese but is still revered as a great hero today in China!
No country with heroes will ever give them up: Not India, Not Mongolia, Not South Africa, Not the muslim world, not China, not Africa.....ONLY THE CUDDLED AND PAMPERED SOCIALISTS OF THE WEST with their political ambitions will! These pampered delicate dolls who were taught to judge their ancestors by their West-hating leftist university and college professors, through a 21st Century prism for things that had happened "normally" in our past! For things that almost every single conquering civilization had done in the past!
Who are we comparing the European ancestors to.... Kubla Khan? The Mughals who had invaded what is now India and for over just 400-500 years the slaughter was so horrific that India's population had fallen by over 80 million (the largest genocide in history that is never spoken of!). China's relatively recent seizure of Tibet....at a time when the West was granting independence to its colonies?
WHO!?

It does matter who's statue it is otherwise what would be the point in keeping the statue up? If it doesn't matter, as you claim, then it doesn't matter if the statue remains.

When you cry out with the same fervour for statues of Kubla Khan, the Mughals, and such to be taken down then I will take your statement seriously. But you may say that these are far away....then may I suggest that you start with the "prophet" mohammed whose marble frieze is in the Supreme Court along with those of Moses, Solomon, Confucius, and Hammurabi, among others....as one of the greatest lawmakers. He was one of the world's greatest murderers and slave masters with 33 slaves of his own, and who without warning had slaughtered all the males of one Jewish tribe....and then taken the wife of one of them as a sex slave. He had also enslaved another Jewish tribe...stripping them of all of their wealth, and the 3rd he had stripped of their wealth and had banished them from Saudi Arabia. What the muslims are doing today around the world is a direct result of his words and the way that he had lived his life....including having sex with a 9 years old girl....a practice that continues in the muslim world today! And his followers were and are just as violent....over 80 million Hindus slaughtered in India between 1200 and 1600. I will wat but I will not hold my breath....

But I don’t cry out. I question everything. Even people with whom I might agree. No, I don’t think most statues should be taken down. I don’t think every statue should be scrutinized by modern morals but we also can’t just ignore those who no longer wish to be associated with those individuals it chooses to honor.

I favor relocation of such statues to museums rather than destruction. I favor those statues being evaluated individually and the proper procedures be followed to remove them. However, I also sympathize with those who have been met time and time again with bureaucratic loopholes or short stops to get that procedure processed. To ignore the will of the people to the point where it ultimately will bubble up in a rage strong enough to diminish these statues despite any legal precautions is borderline negligence. It does nothing to preserve, protect, or honor the legacy of these statues if they are indeed worth honoring.

Hahaha!....You do cry out though, at your duplicitous convenience....and when it is convenient. Do you know where this had started....confederation statues! And do you know why this was started on confederation statues? Because every single one of those confederates...be it a general or otherwise, were DEMOCRATS who were fighting mainly to keep slavery as an institution! Do you know who the majority who are crying out to have those statues removed BY FAR are? YES! White liberals....whose ancestors were those very White slave masters. Today democrats are trying to hide their malicious history as slavemasters.....while they are hypocritically at the same time pretending to be the saviours of Blacks and other minorities. NOPE! I say keep those statues in plain sight so that we can know exactly who were the evil ones that had wanted to keep slavery as an institution and had ripped a country apart to do just that (just as they are doing so again today)......DEMOCRATS!

Except, many of those statues often whitewash those “evil Democrats” as very fine people who just so happened to be on the wrong side of the war.

Also, not all Democrats supported slavery.

Except that nobody had said that all democrats had supported slavery....I am sure that there was at least one Black democrat who had not (and that is just childish misdirection on your part, you libbies wield misdirection like an infantile club). Just as not all Blacks were slaves in the US, as over 300 Blacks were actually slavemasters of their fellow Blacks brothers & sisters!
But what is true was that on the eve of the American civil war in 1860.....not a single Republican had owned a slave in the USA....NOT A SINGLE ONE! Every single Black slave in the USA was owned either by a Black democrat or by a White democrat! Slavery was a democratic party institution! Just saying man...or is it "they" or "Zee" or gender-blender...or some other absolutely meaningless phrase such as those?
Shrug!

Well, I wouldn’t describe myself as a liberal, not a Democrat, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to agree with you on everything either.

By your logic, a liberal could argue, every single Republican owns a gun so every gun violence in the US can be contributed to them and not Democrats. Both you and my hypothetical liberal would be wrong, as both groups tend to be. That doesn’t mean they are always wrong.

It did not make sense because your comparison was really really lacking in well.... a "comparison"....it was just a very horribly poor attempt at trying to be smart! That is all!

I have no idea what you just fuc@ing tried to say there as your simile...or metaphor...or, whatever you just did there did not make any sense at all. And even if it had made sense then it would not be relevant, or comparative.
I will repeat again...On the eve of the American Civil war...NOT A SINGLE Republican had owned a slave in America...Every single slave was owned either by a Black democrat or by a White democrat. Now, you may not have heard that from your leftist professors in your liberal college or university as it does NOT fit their narrative.....but it is an indisputable fact! If you disagree, then it should be trivially easy to prove me wrong. The data is at your fingertips....it is online.
And everybody knows that Republicans own more guns than do Liberals (whose civil liberties are slowly being taken away one by one in democrat run states....where democrat elites have made it their mission to disarm their populace so that they would NOT be able to fight back against any future tyranny: They want sheep to rule over) that is not an arguable point....it is just a fact! It is also a fact that Republicans also live largely in rural America....while democrats largely live in urban areas with extraordinarily strict gun laws (but it is in the urban areas paradoxically with their strict gun laws where the most gun murders in America take place: many done with illegal guns). In 1976, 50 percent of Republicans, 48 percent of independents, and 45 percent of Democrats owned a gun. That changed in the 1980s and 1990s. By 2000, 30 percent of independents and only 27 percent of Democrats reported having a gun in the home. That drop continued among Democrats; by 2016, only 23 percent owned guns.
Why was this dramatic drop...well, it was just that crime was skyrocketing in democrats' run states....and so they had brought in strict....and then stricter gun laws over the year. That did not help at all because MOST murders today take place in the democrats' majority-run cities and states!
Go f**king figure that out....the cities with the draconian gun laws are committing far more murders than the Republican-run states with their easier-to-get gun laws! There is just something chaotic, unruly, and utterly uncivilized about democrats

It didn't make sense to you because you only see things through one perspective, the one you think you ascribe to, and no one else's. It is, regrettably, a very common mistake in this day and age.

I will repeat again... statues can be taken down. There is nothing wrong with no longer wishing to honor or be associated with those of the past.

You can own as many guns as you like no matter what you claim is your party affiliated. In fact, you don't need to even have a party affiliate. My point was that generalizing is a rather weak foundation for any argue.

Thank you for giving me statistics that I'm also aware of but I'm already convinced that strict gun laws usually lead to an increase in criminal activity rather than the reverse.

It has nothing to do with statues at all, nor knowing whom it is you are honoring.

If a person, not necessarily you, doesn't even know who the statues are then it renders the argument moot as to whether or not they should remain up as, clearly, they serve absolutely no purpose in historical value to the ignorant individuals who cannot answer a simple question, or at the very least, are offended when it is asked. And, yes, in that particular case, I'm talking about you.

Thank you for such an illuminating conversation. I hope we both took something from it.

Say that to William Harrison and James Buchanan. lol