The Federal Guvment is coming after your statues!!

[homersapien 11,354]

Running on the Confederate legacy: Alabama’s GOP governor releases campaign ad in defense of statues

WATCH: Republican Gov. Kay Ivey blasts “out-of-state liberals” who “try to change or erase or tear down our history

Some of the former Confederacy states are not the least bit interested in getting rid of their beloved Confederate monuments, and, as a new campaign ad from Alabama's Republican governor shows, it appears that outside opinions aren't welcome either.

"We can't and shouldn't even try to change or erase or tear down our history," Gov. Kay Ivey said at a rally for her re-elect campaign on Tuesday, according to AL.com. She went on to blast "folks in Washington" and "out-of-state liberals" who attempt to get rid of Confederate monuments.

In a campaign advertisement released on Tuesday, Ivey boasted about a piece of legislation she signed last year, which was called the "Alabama Memorial Preservation Act of 2017" and prevented local governments from taking down public monuments that have been up for 40 years or more, AL.com reported.

"Up in Washington, they always know better," Ivey said in the newly released ad. "Politically correct nonsense, I say."

https://www.salon.com/2018/04/18/running-on-the-confederate-legacy-alabamas-gop-governor-releases-campaign-ad-in-defense-of-statues/

 

[AUDub 11,131]

Yeah, that's about what I expected. 

[Mims44 1,864]

Wonder how many confederate minds would be blown if they read General Lee's thoughts on confederate monuments and such.

[DKW 86 7,411]

<smdh>

She is likely our next governor. It is sssooo sad...

[TitanTiger 20,471]

I had hopes that Kay Ivey would be at least a stabilizing influence.  She wasn't an exciting candidate, but she seemed like a decent person who isn't a wacko.  And I don't foresee her embarrassing the state with another sex scandal.

This ridiculous pandering over statues reveals that to have been wishful thinking.  I'll be looking at Tommy Battle or some other options now.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Removing New Orleans' confederate statues resulted in cost of $2M-plus for the city. Great use of funds for place that habitually bitches about lack of funding.....

[homersapien 11,354]

15 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Removing New Orleans' confederate statues resulted in cost of $2M-plus for the city. Great use of funds for place that habitually bitches about lack of funding.....

It's a somewhat sad way to have to use funds, but a very justified one.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

26 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Removing New Orleans' confederate statues resulted in cost of $2M-plus for the city. Great use of funds for place that habitually bitches about lack of funding.....

Never should have been erected in the first place.

[alexava 6,973]

47 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Removing New Orleans' confederate statues resulted in cost of $2M-plus for the city. Great use of funds for place that habitually bitches about lack of funding.....

I would add signage apologizing for any disrespect they caused and leave them up. Maybe Put a donation box to fund the removal, but no way in hell I spend 2 million to remove them. 

[metafour 4,958]

31 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Never should have been erected in the first place.

Okay, Adolf.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

41 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Never should have been erected in the first place.

That's your justification? 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

50 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It's a somewhat sad way to have to use funds, but a very justified one.

Justification composes the centrality of the issue. $2M is collateral. 

[TitanTiger 20,471]

10 minutes ago, metafour said:

Okay, Adolf.

First of all, thanks for invoking Godwin's Law.

Second and more interestingly, Germany gets it.  They manage to remember their Nazi past without building statues to those who perpetuated it.  Museums, books and the like are great for remembering our history so we don't repeat its errors.  Statues and monuments are for honoring.  We don't need statues and monuments honoring the Confederacy.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

19 minutes ago, alexava said:

I would add signage apologizing for any disrespect they caused and leave them up. Maybe Put a donation box to fund the removal, but no way in hell I spend 2 million to remove them. 

Exactly. 

[TitanTiger 20,471]

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

That's your justification? 

If you commission or permit something to go up that never should have been done in the first place, and it turns out that it's costly to correct your error, pointing to the cost of correcting it isn't a justification for not doing so.

[homersapien 11,354]

21 minutes ago, alexava said:

I would add signage apologizing for any disrespect they caused and leave them up. Maybe Put a donation box to fund the removal, but no way in hell I spend 2 million to remove them. 

You clearly don't empathize with our black citizens.

[homersapien 11,354]

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Justification composes the centrality of the issue. $2M is collateral. 

Sorry, but you'll need to clarify that.  I don't get your point.

[homersapien 11,354]

17 minutes ago, metafour said:

Okay, Adolf.

That's senseless.  What's the perceived connection? 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Sorry, but you'll need to clarify that.  I don't get your point.

You cannot conclusively say that the removals were justified. That's what the debate revolves around, irrespective of cost. 

[homersapien 11,354]

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You cannot conclusively say that the removals were justified. That's what the debate revolves around, irrespective of cost. 

So?  No one person can "conclusively" say anything when it comes to such matters.

It's a matter of values.  But the city government represents the majority of city residents in this case and can certainly act "conclusively".   Sure there will be those who don't share those values, just like there are those who sincerely believe in white supremacy (for example).

Still struggling with your point.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

18 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

If you commission or permit something to go up that never should have been done in the first place, and it turns out that it's costly to correct your error, pointing to the cost of correcting it isn't a justification for not doing so.

So the statute should not have gone up in 1884?

[TitanTiger 20,471]

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

So the statute should not have gone up in 1884?

Nope.

[homersapien 11,354]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

So the statute should not have gone up in 1884?

Still having trouble following the narrative?

You really should try naps.  It's never too early to learn.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So?  No one person can "conclusively" say anything when it comes to such matters.

It's a matter of values.  But the city government represents the majority of city residents in this case and can certainly act "conclusively".   Sure there will be those who don't share those values, just like there are those who sincerely believe in white supremacy (for example).

Still struggling with your point.

Landrieu's decision to remove the statue was not because the majority of city residents wanted it removed. Lee Circle is one of New Orleans' most iconic historical locations. 

My point is, you don't really know what you're talking about. 

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Let's also remember why this ended up costing over $2 million rather than around $170,000 (paid by private funds) that was planned: the unnecessary litigation and security issues created by protest groups who wanted the monuments to stay on public property.  Imagine the difference if the groups who liked the statues would have stepped up and offered to remove them and relocate them to private property or a museum.  Or if they'd simply asked for possession of the statues once the city took them down.