VOTE! Election thread

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

What will be the results of todays vote?

  • Trump wins big

    Votes: 11 14.1%
  • Trump wins small

    Votes: 12 15.4%
  • No decision by tomorrow morning

    Votes: 29 37.2%
  • Biden wins small

    Votes: 17 21.8%
  • Biden wins big

    Votes: 9 11.5%

  • Total voters
    78
Status
Not open for further replies.
Feb 11, 2007
4,686
2,045
1,743
Oklahoma City
Well, to you is to you. You can claim that all you want but that doesn’t make it the case for others.

Dumb is keeping statues put in place for harmful purposes. It would be like the Germans maintaining Nazi statues for “history.” Obviously not all statues were but many were. Calling that “erasing history” is dumb or being a racist. Your choice. Think of it this way, if some anti-government idiots created an Antifa statue and erected it in Portland in a major town square then decades later they realized the harm of those thoughts would you be fighting to keep the commemoration for “not erasing” history? Antifa is part of our history so do we memorialize them?
If not, why fight to commemorate the racism of the civil war unless maintaining racism is important to you?
I don't know the answer to this issue...but I often wonder why am I so quick to judge the actions of others
and so slow to judge myself.
 
Mar 11, 2006
3,479
2,063
1,743
Introspection can be ugly and uncomfortable for everyone. I believe 90% of what we project onto others are our own flaws.
I think that is absolutely correct. Also, not understanding others have different perspectives and just assuming everyone feels the same creates division ...especially now in the age of social media.

I firmly believe a good percentage of the cries of “racist” or “racism” from well-meaning people is the mistaken belief that others have racists thoughts like they do.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
30,591
32,124
1,743
oklahoma city
The question is where do you draw the line? Because I like to simplify these debates in my head, I've come to the conclusion that anyone who gained their fame primarily from fighting for, or furthering the cause of, slavery can go. I don't want to lump in everyone who might be famous for something else, like fighting in the Revolutionary war or being a part of the construction of our society, but also owned slaves. If we get rid of all who owned slaves we are pretty much getting rid of all of them.

We should all be able to agree that removal should be done within the law, not just because enough angry people got together to be able to topple a statue.
This should be fairly simple.
1. What was the intent of erecting the monument? Clearly the civil war leaders erected during Jim Crow time need to go.
2. If erected for a non-controversial purpose, has new information come out that taints the memorialization (ie We should not have Bill Cosby monuments even though we loved him 20 years ago). And, as far as slave-owning, sure I personally don't think that should happen either. But, if your good deeds and bad deeds conflict, getting a century of memorial isn't the worst thing in the world. The "erasing history" line is nonsense. We don't keep our history in statues.

I'm not sure I agree on the "within the law" part. Law is not always just. I'm not for roving bands of people creating wanton destruction. But, sometimes the law does not protect the will of the people, it hamstrings it because it is controlled by the powerful few. This is a case by case basis sort of thing.

And, you have a habit of taking your feelings, and saying "we all should agree." It is simply not an overriding premise for everyone just because you think something. If enough angry people did not get together to disobey the law, we would still be swearing allegiance to a king/queen.
 
Feb 11, 2007
4,686
2,045
1,743
Oklahoma City
Introspection can be ugly and uncomfortable for everyone. I believe 90% of what we project onto others are our own flaws.
I often think of these examples: How do I feel when I honk at another car because they did not start when the
light turned green or ran a red light or cut me off. I feel somehow a sense of superiority of being in the right in condeming their bad driving. Now how do I feel when someone honks at me for exactly the same actions ?
I am usually irritated and a little angry that that guy honked at me. Why am I so quick to judge the actions of others and slow to judge myself?
 
Mar 11, 2006
3,479
2,063
1,743
I'm not sure I agree on the "within the law" part. Law is not always just. I'm not for roving bands of people creating wanton destruction. But, sometimes the law does not protect the will of the people, it hamstrings it because it is controlled by the powerful few. This is a case by case basis sort of thing.

A.
100% disagree.

In many cases, a small groups of people have made the decision themselves to topple statues or deface monuments. That is pure vandalism and should be prosecuted as such. We have seen monuments to historical figures like George Washington, Christopher Columbus, Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglas, Thomas Jefferson, Ponce de Leon, Francis Scott Key, Andrew Jackson, a statue of a Roman priest, a statue of a Texas Ranger, statues of Pioneers in Oregon, and a memorial for fallen police officer all destroyed or damaged just in 2020 due to mob justice (injustice).

OSU did it the right way with renaming Murray Hall. If people want to take down a monument of statue then they need to petition the government or the authority for that statue.
 

OrangeFan69

LA Face with an Okla. booty.
A/V Subscriber
Apr 24, 2010
7,402
7,565
1,743
43
Los Angeles 90046
instagram.com
I think that is absolutely correct. Also, not understanding others have different perspectives and just assuming everyone feels the same creates division ...especially now in the age of social media.

I firmly believe a good percentage of the cries of “racist” or “racism” from well-meaning people is the mistaken belief that others have racists thoughts like they do.
I believe:
1) There are a small amount of racist jerkoffs
2) They get amplified by media, because it’s so vile
3) There are false claims of racism.
4) There are huge of amounts of classism, that are often mistakenly classified as racism.
5) Poor people of every color have a lot more similarities than they recognize.
6) It is easier to be white than to be a person of color. I’m unsure to what severity there is. But, I do think there are generally advantages to being white in America.
 
Mar 11, 2006
3,479
2,063
1,743
I'm not sure I agree on the "within the law" part. Law is not always just. I'm not for roving bands of people creating wanton destruction. But, sometimes the law does not protect the will of the people, it hamstrings it because it is controlled by the powerful few. This is a case by case basis sort of thing.

A.
100% disagree.

In many cases, a small groups of people have made the decision themselves to topple statues or deface monuments. That is pure vandalism and should be prosecuted as such. We have seen monuments to historical figures like George Washington, Christopher Columbus, Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglas, Thomas Jefferson, Ponce de Leon, Francis Scott Key, Andrew Jackson, a statue of a Roman priest, a statue of a Texas Ranger, statues of Pioneers in Oregon, and a memorial for fallen police officer all destroyed or damaged just in 2020 due to mob justice (injustice).

OSU did it the right way with renaming Murray Hall. If people want to take down a monument of statue then they need to petition the government or the authority for that statue.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
30,591
32,124
1,743
oklahoma city
100% disagree.

In many cases, a small groups of people have made the decision themselves to topple statues or deface monuments. That is pure vandalism and should be prosecuted as such. We have seen monuments to historical figures like George Washington, Christopher Columbus, Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglas, Thomas Jefferson, Ponce de Leon, Francis Scott Key, Andrew Jackson, a statue of a Roman priest, a statue of a Texas Ranger, statues of Pioneers in Oregon, and a memorial for fallen police officer all destroyed or damaged just in 2020 due to mob justice (injustice).

OSU did it the right way with renaming Murray Hall. If people want to take down a monument of statue then they need to petition the government or the authority for that statue.
So you 100% disagree with me saying, “I'm not for roving bands of people creating wanton destruction.” I guess that makes you in favor of roving bands which, interestingly, is also what you complained about.

But, in matters of race, I’m often quite content with you disagreeing 100% with me so don’t worry about it, we can leave it as is.
 
Mar 11, 2006
3,479
2,063
1,743
So you 100% disagree with me saying, “I'm not for roving bands of people creating wanton destruction.” I guess that makes you in favor of roving bands which, interestingly, is also what you complained about.

But, in matters of race, I’m often quite content with you disagreeing 100% with me so don’t worry about it, we can leave it as is.
I disagree with saying that it is okay to go outside the law to deface or destroy a statue or monument because a person or a small group of people don’t like or agree with the monument.
There are avenue to address complaints.

Would hope all law abiding citizens would agree would that.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
30,591
32,124
1,743
oklahoma city
I disagree with saying that it is okay to go outside the law to deface or destroy a statue or monument because a person or a small group of people don’t like or agree with the monument.
There are avenue to address complaints.

Would hope all law abiding citizens would agree would that.
What would you think about citizens tossing tea into a harbour against the law to protest unfair taxation? Should they just have used official avenues?
 

Jostate

Bluecolla's sock
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
21,413
14,915
1,743
And, you have a habit of taking your feelings, and saying "we all should agree." It is simply not an overriding premise for everyone just because you think something. .
I didn't realize belief in the rule of law was my feeling. It's not an overriding premise for everyone because I think it, it's because it's the law. I thought that was pretty common ground.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
10,653
4,220
743
The question is where do you draw the line? Because I like to simplify these debates in my head, I've come to the conclusion that anyone who gained their fame primarily from fighting for, or furthering the cause of, slavery can go. I don't want to lump in everyone who might be famous for something else, like fighting in the Revolutionary war or being a part of the construction of our society, but also owned slaves. If we get rid of all who owned slaves we are pretty much getting rid of all of them.

We should all be able to agree that removal should be done within the law, not just because enough angry people got together to be able to topple a statue.
This should be fairly simple.
1. What was the intent of erecting the monument? Clearly the civil war leaders erected during Jim Crow time need to go.
2. If erected for a non-controversial purpose, has new information come out that taints the memorialization (ie We should not have Bill Cosby monuments even though we loved him 20 years ago). And, as far as slave-owning, sure I personally don't think that should happen either. But, if your good deeds and bad deeds conflict, getting a century of memorial isn't the worst thing in the world. The "erasing history" line is nonsense. We don't keep our history in statues.

I'm not sure I agree on the "within the law" part. Law is not always just. I'm not for roving bands of people creating wanton destruction. But, sometimes the law does not protect the will of the people, it hamstrings it because it is controlled by the powerful few. This is a case by case basis sort of thing.

And, you have a habit of taking your feelings, and saying "we all should agree." It is simply not an overriding premise for everyone just because you think something. If enough angry people did not get together to disobey the law, we would still be swearing allegiance to a king/queen.
So you think it's ok to pull down and destroy a statue just because a mob decided to?

As far as erasing history, there are leaders in the blm movement putting forth their own curriculum that is meant to gloss over the civil war and earlier history and simply state it as white people were bad and had slaves.
Somewhere in California they are banning books with "controversial" subject matter.
So don't act like there's aren't forces at work to erase history.
No matter your stance on the civil war, it was a major event in our history and deserves to stay in our history books and be studied. A person's "feelings" on the subject shouldn't change that.



Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Mar 11, 2006
3,479
2,063
1,743
What would you think about citizens tossing tea into a harbour against the law to protest unfair taxation? Should they just have used official avenues?
So you are comparing the Boston Tea Party with a group of people in Sacramento toppling a statue of a 18th century Roman Catholic priest? :lol:
Pleeezze. To quote Biden, “c’mon man”.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
10,653
4,220
743
Introspection can be ugly and uncomfortable for everyone. I believe 90% of what we project onto others are our own flaws.
I often think of these examples: How do I feel when I honk at another car because they did not start when the
light turned green or ran a red light or cut me off. I feel somehow a sense of superiority of being in the right in condeming their bad driving. Now how do I feel when someone honks at me for exactly the same actions ?
I am usually irritated and a little angry that that guy honked at me. Why am I so quick to judge the actions of others and slow to judge myself?
If I make a mistake and someone honks at me, I feel a little embarrassed honestly.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
10,653
4,220
743
I'm not sure I agree on the "within the law" part. Law is not always just. I'm not for roving bands of people creating wanton destruction. But, sometimes the law does not protect the will of the people, it hamstrings it because it is controlled by the powerful few. This is a case by case basis sort of thing.

A.
100% disagree.

In many cases, a small groups of people have made the decision themselves to topple statues or deface monuments. That is pure vandalism and should be prosecuted as such. We have seen monuments to historical figures like George Washington, Christopher Columbus, Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglas, Thomas Jefferson, Ponce de Leon, Francis Scott Key, Andrew Jackson, a statue of a Roman priest, a statue of a Texas Ranger, statues of Pioneers in Oregon, and a memorial for fallen police officer all destroyed or damaged just in 2020 due to mob justice (injustice).

OSU did it the right way with renaming Murray Hall. If people want to take down a monument of statue then they need to petition the government or the authority for that statue.
And don't forget the statue of the Dutch guy that helped slaves. They tore down his statue too.

They also had a statue taken down that was paid for by freed slaves because it hurt someone's feelings. Only because they didn't educate themselves as to the meaning of the statue and it's history.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
10,653
4,220
743
I disagree with saying that it is okay to go outside the law to deface or destroy a statue or monument because a person or a small group of people don’t like or agree with the monument.
There are avenue to address complaints.

Would hope all law abiding citizens would agree would that.
What would you think about citizens tossing tea into a harbour against the law to protest unfair taxation? Should they just have used official avenues?
They tried official avenues. The tea didn't belong to the government, it was goods for sale. They were protesting the tax on the tea.
They actually paid the ship merchant back for the tea AND the lock they broke.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.