13

Should Clintons Statue come down?

Posted by  $  Dobrien 1 month ago to Culture
67 comments | Share | Flag

Broaddrick, 74, told the American Mirror that Clinton's statue in Rapid City is a symbol of an "abhorrent and morally deficient" president.

She said Clinton raped her inside a Little Rock, Ark. hotel in 1978.

"I would like to personally use a sledgehammer on it, with the help of Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones," she said of the statue. "Bill Clinton is abhorrent and morally deficient to say the least."

She said left-wing groups that often stand up for women's rights continue to ignore her allegations against the Democrat.
SOURCE URL: http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/08/18/bill-clinton-accusers-want-confederate-statue-destroyed-rapid-city-south-dakota


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Radarva 1 month ago
    Obviously, if you are opposed to taking down the Clinton statue (and portraits) then that just PROVES you support rape and rapists!!! Need to get a bunch of conservative women to rally and demand it come down and if necessary to do it on their own. THAT is the new standard!!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 1 month ago
    Yes, if Robert E Lee's statue must come down, Bill Clinton's should certainly come down.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CarrieAnneJD 2 weeks, 4 days ago
      Notably, Lee had a "change of heart" AFTER the events for which he has become (in)famous and for which he is hated. Contrarily, Bill has never even admitted to his horrors. Seems like a much more compelling argument to remove that statute of, say, rapist Brock Turner, than someone who "turned and repented" (to use a religious comparison).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 2 weeks, 4 days ago
        I am disturbed by the idea that the confederacy was in the wrong in the civil way. They just wanted OUT of the union. It was the union that attacked the confederacy and demolished them. Seems to me that the south should have been free to secede without being attacked. Given that, take down the Ulysses Grant statues instead of the Robert E Lee statues if you are going to take down any at all. History is history, and we should learn from it, not try to erase it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CarrieAnneJD 2 weeks, 3 days ago
          I agree to an extent -- the core reason for the fight (even from Lincoln's perspective) was whether or not states could secede. However, the "tipping point" issue for many people, though not all, in the South to support secession was the North's attempts to limit slavery without amending the Constitution (i.e., "changing" the Constitution without actually changing the Constitution). For that reason, I understand when people oversimplify and think the Civil War was "about" slavery--though for the life of me I cannot accept the same people REJECTING the fact that the Civil War was just as much (or more) "about" the ability to secede. Anywho... kind of a side note...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 2 weeks, 3 days ago
            Interesting. I have always kind of thought that the north was jealous of the south and didnt want to lose the wealth of the south from the 'union'. It was all about money in the end. Kind of like why Russia doesnt want to accept that Ukraine and its rich farmlands wanted to be on its own.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by CarrieAnneJD 2 weeks, 3 days ago
              That may have been a factor or even the main motivator for some people, but I don't know of documentation to support that as a primary argument for Lincoln. Lincoln wrote and spoke extensively about his legal arguments. Much of it was tied into his own constitutional oath and his obligation to ensure a Republican form of government. Re the oath-- he reasoned that if states could secede, then they could secede and secede and secede, and eventually there would/could be no federal government and no need for the federal Constitution. Therefore, to uphold the Constitution's very existence, he concluded no state could secede. Second, re the Republican government clause, he reasoned that the only way to ensure all "current" citizens had a republican form of government was to prevent any place wherein a federal citizen lived (i.e., any state) from seceding because, once the state had seceded, the federal government would no longer be able to control the form of government in that state.

              He had some other similar legal arguments, but they were centered around the Constitutional issue of whether or not a state could secede. Lincoln did not "free the slaves" in the Civil War or engage in a war solely to end slavery. The non-seceding states kept their slaves until the Reconstruction amendments because the Emancipation Proclamation was a tool used to deprive the ENEMY (i.e., seceded states) of a resource--slaves. States that didn't secede, however, retained their slaves. Thus, ironically, the Reconstruction amendments were necessary to end slavery because Constitutional amendments were necessary to amend the Constitution. The South was right on that point, at a minimum.

              There's a whole lot more... but that's a little more depth on the side note...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 2 weeks, 3 days ago
                When politicians, Lincoln included, I tend to look for hidden agendas. One could easily see that a big reason for not allowing secession is that the power of the union (and therefore Lincoln's power) would be rereduced.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month ago
      There is likely no person represented in a sculpture or statue that has not made mistakes or errors at some point in some people's minds.
      I think statues erected to living people may be premature as we have all seen fallen heros.
      Cosby, OJ, or from Atlas Shrugged Robert Stadler.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by JuliBMe 1 month ago
    I think maybe all statues put up 50 years or better ago should be left alone. Any after that period should be brought down (unless it's obviously in reverence of the Great American Founding) so that each community can review the wisdom, or lack thereof, of each remembrance. There's a statue of Lenin in Seattle that, I understand, is just on display for the owner to try to sell.....since 1988! Is it on public property (thereby belying the story that it's there "just" to display it for sale)? If so, it should go. The "Che" statue in New York is "supposedly" a statue of a street performer "portraying" Che. Public property? It's gotta go. Then the city of New York can take votes and discuss for a good period of time if they REALLY do want to put it back up for display.

    Maybe cities should review the wisdom of recent public property installations every 10 years or so, too. At least until 50 years have passed.

    Maybe, too, it will keep them so busy that it will prevent them from passing stupid laws in the process!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by fosterj717 4 weeks, 1 day ago
    Yes! Especially in light of the comment Clinton made about Barak Obama being heard saying Obama should be fetching coffee for everyone (alluding to the fact that he shouldn't be considered a "rising star" in the Democrat party). Racism? Just a bit I think!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 1 month ago
    Chop it down.Haul it away. Grind it into a powder. Bury it underneath the Pentagon along with Cthulu and all the rest of the pantheon.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  4 weeks, 1 day ago
      Thanks Herb7734,
      Might as well nail in a wooden stake for good measure. The imagery of a huge dark tentacled winged monster represents the shadow kakistocrats to a T.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 4 weeks, 1 day ago
        I just love that name. It is the greatest alien name of all. H.P.'s names for his weird creatures is unsurpassed, but the water-god's is the creepiest.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  4 weeks, 1 day ago
          " It seemed to be a sort of monster, or symbol representing a monster, of a form which only a diseased fancy could conceive. If I say that my somewhat extravagant imagination yielded simultaneous pictures of an octopus, a dragon, and a human caricature, I shall not be unfaithful to the spirit of the thing. A pulpy, tentacled head surmounted a grotesque and scaly body with rudimentary wings; but it was the general outline of the whole which made it most shockingly frightful. Behind the figure was a vague suggestion of a Cyclopean architectural background." H.P. Lovecraft
          Now for me , back to the story.
          Edited To sound, but which he attempted to render by the almost unpronounceable jumble of letters, “Cthulhu fhtagn
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 1 month ago
    I dont know for sure, but I bet statues of former presidents are protected and its some sort of felony to deface or take them down
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month ago
      I know rape is "some sort of felony". So is interfering with the DOJ. And using official govt positions to enrich yourself through bribery and graft or favors.
      Oh yes and murder.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo