- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: "Judge" Reese again denies request for injunction re: Beauregard monument
Posted on 5/10/17 at 11:39 am to Dont_Call_Me_RAY
Posted on 5/10/17 at 11:39 am to Dont_Call_Me_RAY
quote:
Beauregard and Lee are both registered with the NPS as National Historic Sites. Until the city applies for historic status removal, I don't see how they can be taken down.
The U.S. dept of Interior as well as the LA Dept. of Culture, Recreation & Tourism may have to get involved. One letter is all it would take.
how about this letter from the state's Lt.Gov.?
2
Posted on 5/10/17 at 11:41 am to rt3
quote:
Lauren Bale? @LaurenBaleWWLTV
Judge says the monument debate has gone on for "an inordinate amount of time." Once again, city can take statues down @WWLTV
seems Judge Reese has already made up his mind on the matter and no argument can persuade him
Posted on 5/10/17 at 11:43 am to rt3
but but but he's the least crooked of our judges.
Posted on 5/10/17 at 11:45 am to rt3
quote:
how about this letter from the state's Lt.Gov.?
Yes, I saw that a while back. Not enough teeth and not too sure about the validity of that doc.
A directive needs to come down from the Fed or State with the same language you or I would get if we tried to disrupt a Nation Historic Site, even if we owned the damn property.
Example. If a private person bought or owned a piece of land with an Historic structure/object on it and he decided to "take it down", we would have hell to pay. And it we did, we would be looking at jail time.
This post was edited on 5/10/17 at 11:47 am
Posted on 5/10/17 at 11:51 am to Chad504boy
quote:
"Judge" Reese again denies request for injunction re: Beauregard monument
Is he even entertaining arguments before just flat-out saying "NO"?
Posted on 5/10/17 at 11:53 am to Chad504boy
Landrieu and his girlfriend have to be pleased with this ruling.
Posted on 5/10/17 at 11:56 am to Dont_Call_Me_RAY
quote:While that might indeed be true, the current political climate is that of "evil slave owners vs. oppressed black people." So I don't see anyone else outside of the issue wanting to touch it with a ten foot pole.
The U.S. dept of Interior as well as the LA Dept. of Culture, Recreation & Tourism may have to get involved. One letter is all it would take.
I suggest we just do what that guy and SCV in Florida did when they removed the Confederate Battle Flag from state property: they built ON PRIVATE LAND, right next to interstate, the largest flag pole in the state, and ran up a Confederate Battle Flag. Sure people are pissed, but it is 100% on private land and there is nothing they can do about it.
You could literally see the thing for miles. 
Posted on 5/10/17 at 12:16 pm to sugar71
quote:
No where near the 600,000 or more caused by brutal chattel slave driving traitors like Davis, Lee, etc......
If the Confederacy were as skilled at killing slaves as modern day blacks are at killing their own, there wouldn't be any African Americans today.
Posted on 5/10/17 at 12:29 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
absolutely he can.
No, he absolutely can't grant a TRO or PI based upon something not in the pleadings. He'd be overturned the same day. There's no legal basis.
On the other hand, there is a basis for bail pending sentencing.
Posted on 5/10/17 at 12:37 pm to CrazyCow202
quote:
By all means stay away,
Yea, that's kinda what I said in my OP....Anyway you hang on to the victim card I'm sure you love tossing out like most SJW's. Political Correctness and those so easily offended are ruining this country. So just keep crying until you get your way...
Posted on 5/10/17 at 12:37 pm to Dont_Call_Me_RAY
quote:
A directive needs to come down from the Fed or State with the same language you or I would get if we tried to disrupt a Nation Historic Site, even if we owned the damn property.
Example. If a private person bought or owned a piece of land with an Historic structure/object on it and he decided to "take it down", we would have hell to pay. And it we did, we would be looking at jail time.
Actually, National Register status means nothing in terms of demolition. Some cities regulate it, but in terms of having a commission conduct a review without the power to stop anything. If there's federal money involved in the demolition, a Section 106 study has to be conducted first, but there's nothing else in the way of modification or demolition.
In New Orleans, that's the HDLC. On their own website, you can see:
quote:
However, the only protection provided by the National Register designation is limited control over federally funded projects.
LINK
The only true protection in New Orleans is in the French Quarter, with the constitutionally created Vieux Carre Commission.
Posted on 5/10/17 at 12:50 pm to CrazyCow202
quote:
Also, you realize that taking the statue away doesn't erase history, right? The Civil War still happened, we're just choosing not to display figures that fought to keep people as slaves and to leave this great country called the USA that I am proud as hell to live in
So removal of the statues is just about the Civil war? If so, then why is there talk about the removal of the statue in Jackson square?
Posted on 5/10/17 at 12:59 pm to Das Jackal
So I am the one crying now? It appears that you are the one crying over a lost cause. All legal appeals have been exhausted and the statues are coming down. You can name call me all you won't, but it doesn't change that.
Posted on 5/10/17 at 1:00 pm to phutureisyic
There is no real talk about removing the Andrew Jackson statue, grow up and quit creating controversy where there isn't any.
Posted on 5/10/17 at 1:02 pm to CrazyCow202
quote:i bet they will come for that one at some point.
There is no real talk about removing the Andrew Jackson statue, grow up and quit creating controversy where there isn't any.
Posted on 5/10/17 at 1:06 pm to CarRamrod
Wasn't there already a march to Jackson Square with the threat to pull down Jackson with some ropes? It was not successful as there was a police presence, as I recall.
Posted on 5/10/17 at 1:08 pm to CarRamrod
Highly doubtful; he was President of the United States of America not a traitorous fake president trying to split our great nation in two.
Posted on 5/10/17 at 1:12 pm to CrazyCow202
quote:
not a traitorous fake president
there aren't any statues of Trump
This post was edited on 5/10/17 at 1:13 pm
Posted on 5/10/17 at 1:13 pm to CrazyCow202
quote:
Highly doubtful; he was President of the United States of America not a traitorous fake president trying to split our great nation in two.
LINK
quote:
"He's put up on a pedestal, the seventh president of the United States of America, the hero of the Battle of New Orleans," said Take 'Em Down NOLA organizer Malcolm Suber. "But there's a bigger story, and the bigger story is that he was a slave holder, and he was the architect of the Trail of Tears."
You mark this down: these lunatic idiot progs will not stop until they've erased history to fit their agenda. This doesn't stop at statues. Street names, cities, parishes, so on. They'll want every bit of history they don't agree with to be edited and forgotten.
Posted on 5/10/17 at 1:19 pm to Ingeniero
Just because some people have protested something before, doesn't mean that it has any teeth. Andrew Jackson did not ever actively fight against our country. Yes, he was a slave owner until his death, but so was almost every US President before him, he was a product of his time and pretty much every wealthy white gentleman at the time owned slaves. BUT the main thing is that he didn't actively fight against our great Nation for the sole purpose of keeping the institution of enslaving black people. Yeah he slaughtered a good bit of Indians in his day, but 1 they don't have nearly the political clout that blacks have, and again he was a product of his time; every General since Europeans have been in the Americas had to kill him some Indians
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News