Poll of the Day > Fat COW who tore down confederate statue in NC will face felony charges

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/charges-sought-toppled-confederate-statue-49226601

Ugly fat woman Claire Meddock, aged 21 and likely weighing 310, is the first hooligan to be arrested in connection with the destruction of a Confederate statue in North Carolina.

Like something out of Herman Melville's Moby Dick, this white whale was seen posing for a photo on top of the statue with her leg blubber dripping over her ankle and her sheer weight threatening to crush the bronze statue.

Officers were noted as standing by and doing nothing as a group of protestors tore down the statue, recording the crimes on film rather than trying to actually stop the crime. The sheriff defended this decision on the basis that they may have seriously hurt the violent thugs -- including the world's fattest snowflake -- if they tried to uphold the law.
---

7/10

You included the article and didn't post random pics

You also didn't randomly capitalize words
---

haha damn you and Erik have been so hilarious these past couple of days. I wonder how long it'll take you to get warned like he did.
---

This is like a reverse Vegy

InfernalFive posted...

haha damn you and Erik have been so hilarious these past couple of days. I wonder how long it'll take you to get warned like he did.

Erik is warned again? What did he do this time?

Zikten posted...

This is like a reverse Vegy

Sounds like a sex position.
---

Total implosion of the heart
---

Zues stop being a pussy
---

Somebody could swallow a fifty foot statue of Gandhi whole and I probably wouldn't care.

Bligh_with_no_T posted...

Somebody could swallow a fifty foot statue of Gandhi whole and I probably wouldn't care.

Don't lie, that would be fucking incredible

We would make that person King
---

ButzKlauser posted...

Zues stop being a pussy

Troll alt, stop not being on my ignore list.
---

Should've said heifer, not cow.

SmokeMassTree posted...

You also didn't randomly capitalize words

He also didn't post pics of the girl and ask if she was hot.
---

For the love of, I blocked Duckbear, now I gotta deal with parodies of his shit posting?

Everybody's a critic!
---

Now, I'm not intimately familiar with North Carolina statutes, but what part of this is a felony?

On first glance, it appears that this would fall under G.S. § 14-127, Willful and wanton injury to real property, which is a Class 1 misdemeanor.
---

The CSA lost, let these statues stand as a reminder and conversation starter. Intelligent people have adult discussions and learn and grow. Erasing things you don't like doesn't heal old wounds. It's avoidance.

The Roman emperors were mostly horrible, but Italy didn't go around destroying unpleasant reminders of them. It's part of who they are and they treat it for what it is.

I can see both sides of this, don't get me wrong, I just don't agree with it from a free speech perspective, and feel that it's accomplishing nothing but creating controversy and bad blood.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

The CSA lost, let these statues stand as a reminder and conversation starter. Intelligent people have adult discussions and learn and grow. Erasing things you don't like doesn't heal old wounds. It's avoidance.

The Roman emperors were mostly horrible, but Italy didn't go around destroying unpleasant reminders of them. It's part of who they are and they treat it for what it is.

I can see both sides of this, don't get me wrong, I just don't agree with it from a free speech perspective, and feel that it's accomplishing nothing but creating controversy and bad blood.

Agreed.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

The CSA lost, let these statues stand as a reminder and conversation starter. Intelligent people have adult discussions and learn and grow. Erasing things you don't like doesn't heal old wounds. It's avoidance.

The Roman emperors were mostly horrible, but Italy didn't go around destroying unpleasant reminders of them. It's part of who they are and they treat it for what it is.

I can see both sides of this, don't get me wrong, I just don't agree with it from a free speech perspective, and feel that it's accomplishing nothing but creating controversy and bad blood.

That is a horrible example. The Roman Empire lasted 370-1400 years (depending on if you count the Western/Eastern/Byzantium Empires). The majority of the surviving statues were erected during the reigns of the emperors, not decades after their deaths. By the time the Italian Peninsula became Italy the Emperors depicted in the statues had been dead for so long that any societal strife they caused had been forgotten for 1000 years.

Compare that with racial strife stemming from centuries of black slavery that's ongoing today. The Confederacy didn't even last a generation, lost their only war and the majority of the statues were put up 50 years after the end of the war after the resurgence of the KKK and a push for revisionist history about the reasons for the rebellion.

If the Confederate statues were thousands of years old, the racial strife of the period was ancient history and blacks and whites in the US lived together in total peace and harmony, the overwhelming majority of whom being totally unable to trace their lineage back that far anyway, you might have a point.

And for the record, I don't think it's necessary to destroy them. Put them in museums or move them to public property if you'd like. I just don't think it's necessary to venerate them on public property. Something tells me Augustus didn't have giant statues of Marc Antony sitting outside the Domus Augusti either.

lol fat cow

TheCyborgNinja posted...

The CSA lost, let these statues stand as a reminder and conversation starter.

Why should we host historical statues of military officers for a foreign government we beat in a war and took over? The CSA is not the USA's history except as a short-lived enemy.

Vae victis, aka "woe to the vanquished" or "sucks to lose, dunnit?"
---

Lightning Bolt posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

The CSA lost, let these statues stand as a reminder and conversation starter.

Why should we host historical statues of military officers for a foreign government we beat in a war and took over? The CSA is not the USA's history except as a short-lived enemy.

Vae victis, aka "woe to the vanquished" or "sucks to lose, dunnit?"

Not really. If the USA had let them leave, sure. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of Americans having a disagreement. They were never formally in existence as a nation.
---

This topic title and poll would not be the place I would go to have any sort of actual discussion or debate.
---

that fat cow is cute :3
---

Zeus is borderline obsessed with duckbear.
---

Don't you know you're also not supposed to reply to these things tc?
---

most of those statues went up during the jim crow laws and before the voting rights act
---

Lightning Bolt posted...

Why should we host historical statues of military officers for a foreign government we beat in a war and took over? The CSA is not the USA's history except as a short-lived enemy.

Vae victis, aka "woe to the vanquished" or "sucks to lose, dunnit?"

You would have to be insane to say the confederacy is not a part of US history. That's such a ridiculously pedantic argument.

'Well technically because they weren't a part of the united states, then it's not our history'.

Just shut up. Don't be a...whatever...hipster or something.
---

Smarkil posted...

Lightning Bolt posted...

Why should we host historical statues of military officers for a foreign government we beat in a war and took over? The CSA is not the USA's history except as a short-lived enemy.

Vae victis, aka "woe to the vanquished" or "sucks to lose, dunnit?"

You would have to be insane to say the confederacy is not a part of US history. That's such a ridiculously pedantic argument.

'Well technically because they weren't a part of the united states, then it's not our history'.

Just shut up. Don't be a...whatever...hipster or something.

Key word there: "history"

Confederate monuments belong in museums, not in front of state or federal buildings.
---

Far-Queue posted...

Key word there: "history"

Confederate monuments belong in museums, not in front of state or federal buildings.

Why not? We have historical monuments all over the place. Some of not-so-great people too.

You might argue that they shouldn't be in front of federal buildings, and I can agree with that. But why shouldn't they be allowed to have a statue of Jefferson Davis in Kentucky. Or have a statue of Lee in VA. That's part of their own state history.

If you want to take that argument, then we should tear down any statue of Native Americans before they were a part of the country. They're not technically a part of our history, right?
---

Erik got warned? I guess he should add the mods to his list of Nazi sympathizers.
---

ZBug_ posted...

Don't you know you're also not supposed to reply to these things tc?

You can, but only to comment on the results of the poll.

"Looks like people like statues!"
---

Smarkil posted...

Why not? We have historical monuments all over the place. Some of not-so-great people too.

You might argue that they shouldn't be in front of federal buildings, and I can agree with that. But why shouldn't they be allowed to have a statue of Jefferson Davis in Kentucky. Or have a statue of Lee in VA. That's part of their own state history.

If you want to take that argument, then we should tear down any statue of Native Americans before they were a part of the country. They're not technically a part of our history, right?

Gotta use a little common sense here. There's a vast difference between someone with some skeletons in their closet and someone who fought against our country.

And your point on Native American monuments is just silly.
---

Far-Queue posted...

And your point on Native American monuments is just silly.

To be fair, plenty of them fought against their "their" country (and/or vice-versa) because many of them never considered it THEIR country in the first place (and/or vice-versa).

We could probably lump the Mormons in there too, considering most of their early leadership were blatant separatists and we had to force them into the US more or less at gunpoint, and the only reason it didn't turn into a major war was because they were fully aware of how outnumbered and outgunned they were (which still never stopped minor guerilla actions or more passive resistance).

People wanted to build a massive monument to Crazy Horse in South Dakota to act as a "counterpoint" Mount Rushmore, and he's got multiple smaller monuments and honors named after him (and he even had a commemorative US stamp at one point), in spite of the fact that he was responsible either directly or indirectly for the deaths of hundreds of US soldiers.

Regardless of whether or not you agree that the Confederates had the "right" to secede in the first place, whether the secession itself was a valid act or if on a technical level the South never actually stopped being part of the US and was merely "occupied" by "hostile insurgents", or what you might think about the underlying motives of the "rebels", the fact remains that very few of them would have considered themselves rebels or traitors at all, and if the South had won the war, every single one of those political and military figures would be viewed VERY differently through the lens of history.

History is subjective as hell. And even people who UNDERSTAND that to some degree rarely ever really think about just how subjective it is. Most of our history prior to the last few hundred years is very much written by "the winners", and even history that is more seemingly "politically neutral" is still being written by people with axes to grind and agendas to push (and unconscious biases of their own coloring their perception).

And perception absolutely tends to change over time. How Americans see a lot of political, social, and historical issues today isn't how they were perceived a hundred years ago, and likely won't be the same way they're perceived 100 years from now. Humans in general tend to be ethnocentric as fuck so we're programmed to always think of our own perception of things as the "right" one, but that's never been how the world really works.


---

Lightning Bolt posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

The CSA lost, let these statues stand as a reminder and conversation starter.

Why should we host historical statues of military officers for a foreign government we beat in a war and took over? The CSA is not the USA's history except as a short-lived enemy.

Vae victis, aka "woe to the vanquished" or "sucks to lose, dunnit?"

Given that the Civil War was America's war against America, it's literally the USA's history and is the second most significant war in US history. More importantly, most of them were known for stuff beyond the Civil War. Robert E. Lee, for instance, was a Mexican-American war hero already, he had stopped Texas from seceding years earlier, and was vital in the reconstruction.

Otherwise, if we're playing that whole "woe to the vanquished card" then shouldn't Lincoln's memorial be torn down because he was defeated? =p

Truth_Decay posted...

Zeus is borderline obsessed with duckbear.

Smarkil posted...

If you want to take that argument, then we should tear down any statue of Native Americans before they were a part of the country. They're not technically a part of our history, right?

Plus they lost, which was one of Lightning's big things.
---

Far-Queue posted...

Gotta use a little common sense here. There's a vast difference between someone with some skeletons in their closet and someone who fought against our country.

And your point on Native American monuments is just silly.

But they didn't fight against OUR country. They fought for THEIRS. What would you do if whatever state/province you live in just suddenly seceded from the country? Would you fight or just pick up your life and family and leave? (Keeping in mind that this was an era before modern travel)

I also want to point out that Confederate soldiers were given amnesty after the war and treated the same as veterans from the Union.
---

Well, here is what I'd consider the final comment needed regarding the CSA statues. There's no way to debate this:


---

Smarkil posted...

Far-Queue posted...

Gotta use a little common sense here. There's a vast difference between someone with some skeletons in their closet and someone who fought against our country.

And your point on Native American monuments is just silly.

But they didn't fight against OUR country. They fought for THEIRS. What would you do if whatever state/province you live in just suddenly seceded from the country? Would you fight or just pick up your life and family and leave? (Keeping in mind that this was an era before modern travel)

I also want to point out that Confederate soldiers were given amnesty after the war and treated the same as veterans from the Union.

Right, they fought for "their" country, but lost to "our" country. Their monuments belong in museums. I'm not saying erase them from existence, just that they shouldn't be representing our state and federal offices. Yes, state, too. Because those states are now part of the nation as a whole.
---

Smarkil posted...

You might argue that they shouldn't be in front of federal buildings, and I can agree with that. But why shouldn't they be allowed to have a statue of Jefferson Davis in Kentucky. Or have a statue of Lee in VA. That's part of their own state history.

And why shouldn't we be allowed to have them moved if we so choose, as was happening in Charlottesville?
---

Clench281 posted...

Smarkil posted...

You might argue that they shouldn't be in front of federal buildings, and I can agree with that. But why shouldn't they be allowed to have a statue of Jefferson Davis in Kentucky. Or have a statue of Lee in VA. That's part of their own state history.

And why shouldn't we be allowed to have them moved if we so choose, as was happening in Charlottesville?

Because they're kowtowing to people who are really not a part of their constituency and possibly even an overall minority of the country. Even a majority of black americans (according the polls presented in the following article) don't believe they should be removed.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/17/poll-most-black-americans-dont-want-confederate-statues-removed/

African Americans - 44% believe they should stay
16% unsure
40% remove

Latin Americans - 65% believe they should stay
11% unsure
24% remove

White Americans - 65% stay
8% unsure
25% remove

If the community as a whole decides that they should be taken down, then fine. But I'm tired in general of businesses and government having to give in to the demands of a bunch of people who are angry at them. It's a herd mentality in the truest sense of the word phrase. A group is being herded by a few loud sheepdogs.
---

Smarkil posted...

http://dailycaller.com

I'm sure that's an unbiased, reputable site.
---

Far-Queue posted...

Smarkil posted...

http://dailycaller.com

I'm sure that's an unbiased, reputable site.

The poll was from NPR and PBS. So I'm sure they're totally in favor of Confederate statues.

I would link the poll directly, but it's too long.
---

Found it, did a little digging:

http://www.npr.org/2017/08/17/544137751/trump-defends-beauty-of-confederate-memorials

It's worded in such a way that it's open to interpretation.

However, more than 60 percent of Americans also believe that statues honoring the Confederacy should "remain as a historical symbol," according to that NPR/Marist poll. And while there is also a partisan divide here, a sizable share of Democrats, 44 percent, believe those statues should remain (along with 86 percent of Republicans and 61 percent of independents).

"Remain as a historical symbol" could mean "Don't destroy them, put them in a museum". Who knows how respondents interpreted it? They should have worded it better, or take another poll for clarification.
---

Far-Queue posted...

"Remain as a historical symbol" could mean "Don't destroy them, put them in a museum". Who knows how respondents interpreted it? They should have worded it better, or take another poll for clarification.

They could have, but I'm guessing most people would default to 'leave it where it is' instead of 'take it down but move it another location which constitutes non-removal'.
---