Fair enough. Thankfully, he and his people lost.
like ive said in this thread. we arent talkign about taking ANY private property. only government owned land
The answer is government property, because all home “owners” pay rent on it every year. 
3 Likes
And I want to just add…We have always known certain founding fathers were also slave owners. This is a national monument, a work of art, an example of serious ingenuity, and it is something that should be seen, treasured, and kept for as long as the damn thing will stand. Hopefully forever.
Pump the breaks…
2 Likes
For the record, I don’t support tearing down Mt Rushmore. I don’t support tearing down or vandalizing any statues or monuments including Confederate ones when it’s done illegally.
1 Like
Understood. As you can see, the current crusade from the left has people more and more unwilling to hear even the less radical requests/demands/arguments at this point.
This all started from a point of vast intercultural agreement over police brutality. It’s never enough for these increasingly radical types. They ruin everything.
2 Likes
Yes. They should be removed. I’ve supported their removal for years, even back on the old board.
WuWei
130
Same as the citizens of the secession states and the CSA.
1 Like
Dallas Arms Collectors Association?
Yep, they were insurgents/rebels/traitors.
If they had won they’d be patriots.
1 Like
AZslim
133
I gave my opinion and you responded with a childish reply including name calling and now you are incensed with my answer.
Interesting, entertaining and amusing.
Not like.
Incorrect analogy.
everyone alive (and dead) is on land that at some point was “stolen” at least once and maybe several times
1 Like
Isnt trump having large firework there, maybe he will burn it down
WuWei
138
No, it’s accurate. And they fought on the side of the confederacy.
This is why Canada doesn’t matter when it comes to wars anymore. 
The sculptor may have been a Klansman, but the work is not like Birth of a Nation.
Throughout this thread I’ve been specifically referring to individuals or tribes covered by the Treaty of 1868.
So no, not accurate.