donald trump is trying to kill you

How about the ones doing the disenfranchising? I mean take a look at the current crop of authoritarian socialists coming out of the DNC today. You would have thought they had learned their lesson by now about using the state to disenfranchise productive people by now...guess removing history is a sure way to repeat it.

All I am saying is that society should proceed with caution when bulldozing history, lest history repeats. Do you want to witness a cultural Civil war in this country where one culture wipes out another culture in your lifetime?

Do you want to witness a cultural Civil war in this country where one culture wipes out another culture in your lifetime?Gandhi's 1940 letter to Adolf Hitler: Seek peace or someone will 'beat you with your own weapon'

Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as an Op-Ed columnist. He is distinguished professor in the Graduate Center Economics Ph.D. program and distinguished scholar at the Luxembourg Income Study Center at the City University of New York. In addition, he is professor emeritus of Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School

Doesn't matter. Earth will end in 12 years.

God I hope so.

Why do you think the Union allowed those statues to be erected in the first place after Sherman bulldozed southern culture in his march to Atlanta?

God forbid that we have statues as a reminder what happens when we blindly believe what people in power tell you to believe.

This seems uncompelling to people who were systematically disenfranchised by "Confederate war figures".

You have to in order to get the census correct, but we don't practice identity politics, except when it comes to undocumented immigrants.

I don't believe in taking away money from someone who worked hard, very hard, for it, and giving it to someone who did not, but believes they are entitled to it.

People usually get paid based off of the complexity of the job and the hours they put in, some people are addicted to their jobs, or even married to their jobs. They should get paid more. 

But it comes with a price, making it hard to enjoy the money you make by always working.   If they want to give it to someone in their family or donate it to a certain cause, that is their choice.  The Government should never get involved with private companies decisions on how much they pay their employees.

(unless they have bailed that company out for some reason) like the banks during the recession.  None of those executives should have received their bonuses. 

I want limited Government, and free market. 

That is one reason our healthcare system is great,

because we have the ability of developing drugs using money from the free market for R and D.

Do you mean because they are dead, or because its just a stupid statue?  What's wrong with uncompelling some people?

How about an someone who served their country for decades, sided with their state, surrendered gracefully, commanded respect not only from their troops, but also their adversaries and union representatives, negotiated reasonable terms of surrender through mutual respect, and/or generally supported their country thereafter?  By comparing this to a serial killer I think you are taking this out of context and not giving your opinion a fair hearing.  For one, the civil war greatly accelerated the abolition of slavery in the United States which hadn't yet occurred throughout the Northern States.

My example was just trying to prove that we cannot provide free healthcare for all, and what the consequences of that would be.

Look, industry left to "their own devices" we will inevitably end up in an industrial nightmare, exactly like we did in the Gilded Age when workers were pitted against each other, worked for peanuts (or scrip) and had zero safety protections or realistic legal recourse for mistreatment. 

That was due to an influx of immigration and people trying to find work, but people that were already here were making good money.  This is not something that is going to happen again, unless we really do open the borders.

Targeting majority Muslim countries for an immigration ban is "identity politics".  There are many other majority Muslim countries that were not on the ban list...

do you not want our country protected from possible terrorism?  All it takes is one person.

How about an someone who served their country for decades, sided with their state, surrendered gracefully, commanded respect not only from their troops, but also their adversaries and union representatives, negotiated reasonable terms of surrender through mutual respect, and/or generally supported their country thereafter?  By comparing this to a serial killer I think you are taking this out of context and not giving your opinion a fair hearing.  For one, the civil war greatly accelerated the abolition of slavery in the United States which hadn't yet occurred throughout the Northern States.

So, if you kidnap a person from their home and then force them (under threat of death) and their children to work for you until they die or you choose to sell them, and then you TAKE UP ARMS AGAINST your own government when they suggest that you let them go free, and then when it is obvious that you've lost that battle, you surrender and apologize, DOES THAT MAKE YOU A HERO?

The original documents of the Confederacy show quite clearly that the war was based on one thing: slavery. For example, in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. "In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals," the document reads. The right of transit, Loewen said, was the right of slaveholders to bring their slaves along with them on trips to non-slaveholding states.

In its justification of secession, Texas sums up its view of a union built upon slavery: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

The myth that the war was not about slavery seems to be a self-protective one for many people, said Stan Deaton, the senior historian at the Georgia Historical Society.

"People think that somehow it demonizes their ancestors," to have fought for slavery, Deaton told LiveScience. But the people fighting at the time were very much aware of what was at stake, Deaton said. [LINK]

I am anti insurance, but we have to have it.  I am not 100% anti government.

Another, is that the ssoutherners were literally "fighting for slavery". Slavery was not going anywhere. but the political interests of the southern elite would predictably be undermined to an increasing degree.. Some confederate slave owners freed their slaves prior to the emancipation proclamation.

Another, is that the ssoutherners were literally "fighting for slavery". Slavery was not going anywhere. but the political interests of the southern elite would predictably be undermined to an increasing degree.. Some confederate slave owners freed their slaves prior to the emancipation proclamation.

The idea that because some unknown number of slaves were reportedly freed has absolutely zero bearing on the fact that the Confederate states EXPLICITLY name "the institution of slavery" as "the greatest material interest of the world".

For example, in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. [LINK]

It doesn't make you a racist either.  He was banning countries, not a religion. 

These countries were all pointed out by Obama and his administration (this doesn't make him "not a racist" right) years earlier as the ones to keep an eye on for terrorist promotion, behavior, or alliance, as well as additional background checks, treating them differently than people from other countries.

All he wanted to do back then is put a ban on those particular countries until they could come up with a better vetting process, but it was challenged for way too long, until finally was upheld as being constitutional.  It has since been lifted. 

do you not want our country protected from possible terrorism?  All it takes is one person.

Oh, you mean like Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, Jared Loughner, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jeffery Dahmer, Charlie Manson, Stephen Paddock, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold...

If they were all from one country, I'm sure that would have been on the list as well.  This makes no sense, they are all citizens of this country. You are just talking about crazy people.