View Full Version : Explain this flag business to me like I'm five
iustitia
06-24-2015, 06:40 PM
I've been out of the loop lately when it comes to fake issues and corporate news. What's up with this confederate flag?
Cigar
06-24-2015, 06:43 PM
Bitter, Angry, Losers :laugh:
Bitter, Angry, Losers :laugh:
This cracks me up.
So, do you claim to be happy, content, and a winner?
Your posts do not display that @Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=294)
Please keep the discussion civil. No personal attacks
Chris
06-24-2015, 06:45 PM
Some people hate the flag. They think that will make everything better.
iustitia
06-24-2015, 06:49 PM
I still have no idea why this is a thing. Was there a cause to this uproar? I'm sure people didn't just realize the flag a week ago. Why is this a thing?
Cigar
06-24-2015, 06:55 PM
This cracks me up.
So, do you claim to be happy, content, and a winner?
Your posts do not display that @Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=294)
Are you kidding ... over 7 years of Conservative Bitching and Complaining ... Priceless :laugh:
I couldn't be more Happier if they got their Ass handed to the Twice, Back-2-Black by 9.5 and 5 Million Votes :grin:
Cigar
06-24-2015, 06:57 PM
I still have no idea why this is a thing. Was there a cause to this uproar? I'm sure people didn't just realize the flag a week ago. Why is this a thing?
I said the same thing about Voter Suppression ... makes you wonder right?
iustitia
06-24-2015, 07:00 PM
So without anything to go off of here and without surfing Google, I'll take it this is a phony controversy that came out of no-where.
Chris
06-24-2015, 07:01 PM
I still have no idea why this is a thing. Was there a cause to this uproar? I'm sure people didn't just realize the flag a week ago. Why is this a thing?
Somebody found a Web site where the kid posted some hateful stuff and I believe referenced some hate group and, to be honest, I don't know how the flag connects, other than some people see it as a symbol of hate and racism and therefore it must be so and must be eradicated.
Typical indignant modern social justice.
Cigar
06-24-2015, 07:02 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BXifChxCUAAqHkV.jpg
Cigar
06-24-2015, 07:04 PM
So without anything to go off of here and without surfing Google, I'll take it this is a phony controversy that came out of no-where.
I'd say you can take whatever you want out it ... thanks to One Person One Vote Democracy.
Concidering the number of people who are for the Confederate Flag, vs the number against it, let bring up for a VOTE.
So without anything to go off of here and without surfing Google, I'll take it this is a phony controversy that came out of no-where.
Ayupppp
Perzactly
iustitia
06-24-2015, 07:07 PM
Somebody found a Web site where the kid posted some hateful stuff and I believe referenced some hate group and, to be honest, I don't know how the flag connects, other than some people see it as a symbol of hate and racism and therefore it must be so and must be eradicated.
Typical indignant modern social justice.
What kid? Like I said I know nothing about this.
Mister D
06-24-2015, 07:08 PM
So without anything to go off of here and without surfing Google, I'll take it this is a phony controversy that came out of no-where.
It's routine, isutitia. When things like this happen (i.e. the shootings in Charleston) the American population needs to feel like something is being done. This debate about the flag is of course meaningless and I can't help but think that deep down everyone knows that. It's actually quite interesting in some respects as it gives some insight into the American psyche.
Cigar
06-24-2015, 07:08 PM
What kid? Like I said I know nothing about this.
You're not the only one :laugh:
Chris
06-24-2015, 07:10 PM
What kid? Like I said I know nothing about this.
Ah, OK. His name is Dylann Roof. He killed 9 people at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C.
PolWatch
06-24-2015, 07:12 PM
The same fella posted several pics of himself with the confederate flag (along with one of him burning the American flag) also with manifesto of racial hatred. The subject of the battle flag being a symbol of racial hatred was raised. SC & AL both decided that it was not appropriate to display a flag that some citizens found disturbing on state property. Some people are offended by their decision.
Cigar
06-24-2015, 07:13 PM
What kid? Like I said I know nothing about this.
Think of it this way ... why was the Flag resurrected in late 1950's and the early 1960's?
Hummm ... any idea what else was going on around that time?
Heritage my ass ... we all know why, so let's stop pretending not to see the obvious. :laugh:
Chris
06-24-2015, 07:15 PM
Think of it this way ... why was the Flag resurrected in late 1950's and the early 1960's?
Hummm ... any idea what else was going on around that time?
Heritage my ass ... we all know why, so let's stop pretending not to see the obvious. :laugh:
Thanks for the example of how what some feel is projected onto everyone.
TrueBlue
06-24-2015, 07:15 PM
What kid? Like I said I know nothing about this.
Hey ius, here's the story on "the kid" to give you some background information. Thanks to the Daily Kos.
Dylann Roof photos: burns U. S. flag, holds Confederate flag and pistol
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/20/1395050/-Dylann-Roof-photos-burns-U-S-flag-holds-Confederate-flag-and-pistol
PolWatch
06-24-2015, 07:17 PM
Think of it this way ... why was the Flag resurrected in late 1950's and the early 1960's?
Hummm ... any idea what else was going on around that time?
Heritage my ass ... we all know why, so let's stop pretending not to see the obvious. :laugh:
That's your opinion and I agree. Apparently there are a lot of people who hold the Civil War in great reverence...so much that they want to display a flag that flew for 5 years representing the Confederacy. Its just a coincidence that the same flag has been used as a symbol of racial hatred for 150 years....go figure
Cigar
06-24-2015, 07:20 PM
Thanks for the example of how what some feel is projected onto everyone.
Sorry ... where was the Heritage from 1875 through 1940? :laugh:
Dude, the Flag isn't even a South Carolina Flag ... they just adopted it for some strange reason :rollseyes:
Tahuyaman
06-24-2015, 07:21 PM
Are you kidding ... over 7 years of Conservative $#@!ing and Complaining ... Priceless :laugh:
I couldn't be more Happier if they got their Ass handed to the Twice, Back-2-Black by 9.5 and 5 Million Votes :grin:
This guy can't go five minutes without employing some race baiting tactic.
Cigar
06-24-2015, 07:23 PM
That's your opinion and I agree. Apparently there are a lot of people who hold the Civil War in great reverence...so much that they want to display a flag that flew for 5 years representing the Confederacy. Its just a coincidence that the same flag has been used as a symbol of racial hatred for 150 years....go figure
Personally I don't care about the Flag that belongs to a Losing Army ... it wouldn't bother me if my next-door neighbors flew it. It's would only help me understand them better.
Tahuyaman
06-24-2015, 07:23 PM
I've been out of the loop lately when it comes to fake issues and corporate news. What's up with this confederate flag?
The confederate battle flag has suddenly become an issue becasue the left has run out of legitimate issues and they think, for some unknown reason, that confederate symbols are representative of everything right of center.
Green Arrow
06-24-2015, 07:23 PM
Sorry ... where was the Heritage from 1875 through 1940? :laugh:
Dude, the Flag isn't even a South Carolina Flag ... they just adopted it for some strange reason :rollseyes:
They didn't adopt it, Cigar. It's just there.
Chris
06-24-2015, 07:25 PM
That's your opinion and I agree. Apparently there are a lot of people who hold the Civil War in great reverence...so much that they want to display a flag that flew for 5 years representing the Confederacy. Its just a coincidence that the same flag has been used as a symbol of racial hatred for 150 years....go figure
I guess we see it differently.
From http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/24/us/confederate-flag-myths-facts/index.html
So, when did the flag explode into prominence? It was during the struggle for civil rights for black Americans, in the middle of the 20th century.
The first burst may have been in 1948. South Carolina politician Strom Thurmond ran for president under the newly founded States Rights Democratic Party, also known as the Dixiecrats. The party's purpose was clear: "We stand for the segregation of the races," said Article 4 of its platform.
At campaign stops, fans greeted Thurmond with American flags, state flags -- and Confederate battle flags.
But desegregation progressed.
Why was the battle flag singled out from Strom's other flags? Didn't slavery exist much longer under the stars and stripes?
Cigar
06-24-2015, 07:25 PM
This guy can't go five minutes without employing some race baiting tactic.
Maybe you can't go five minutes without swallowing bait.
Some Fishermen go all day without catching a Fish, and some are just Anglers.
Chris
06-24-2015, 07:26 PM
Personally I don't care about the Flag that belongs to a Losing Army ... it wouldn't bother me if my next-door neighbors flew it. It's would only help me understand them better.
Would you tell them what they think and feel, or would you ask them?
Cigar
06-24-2015, 07:26 PM
They didn't adopt it, Cigar. It's just there.
Yea ... just woke up one day and Poof ... it was there :laugh:
Mister D
06-24-2015, 07:27 PM
This guy can't go five minutes without employing some race baiting tactic.
Quite frankly, I've never seen someone so excited about a massacre. There's something wrong with him but whatever.
PolWatch
06-24-2015, 07:27 PM
Personally I don't care about the Flag that belongs to a Losing Army ... it wouldn't bother me if my next-door neighbors flew it. It's would only help me understand them better.
I have no issue with anyone who wants to display the battle flag. I do have an issue with it being displayed on government buildings along with the American flag.
Cigar
06-24-2015, 07:28 PM
Would you tell them what they think and feel, or would you ask them?
They don't have any problem drinking my booze at my Bar, so I guess they think I'm ok. :laugh:
Mister D
06-24-2015, 07:30 PM
I guess we see it differently.
From http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/24/us/confederate-flag-myths-facts/index.html
Why was the battle flag singled out from Strom's other flags? Didn't slavery exist much longer under the stars and stripes?
Chris, these people believe that in some small way they're showing their disapproval of Dylann Roof. You're trying to appeal to a faculty of reason they're not using.
Mister D
06-24-2015, 07:30 PM
I have no issue with anyone who wants to display the battle flag. I do have an issue with it being displayed on government buildings along with the American flag.
What took so long?
Chris
06-24-2015, 07:31 PM
Chris, these people believe that in some small way they're showing their disapproval of Dylann Roof. You're trying to appeal to a faculty of reason they're not using.
Here I thought they were all enlightened.
Chris
06-24-2015, 07:31 PM
I have no issue with anyone who wants to display the battle flag. I do have an issue with it being displayed on government buildings along with the American flag.
Remember Texas, we fly 6 flags.
http://i.snag.gy/impIS.jpg
This one's the Confederate flag we use:
http://i.snag.gy/ZdWTC.jpg
History.
iustitia
06-24-2015, 07:32 PM
So wait, ban the Confederate flag because some kid shot people? That is literally retarded.
The American flag has also stood for slavery and segregation. It also stood for stealing land from the French, British, Spanish, Native Americans, Mexicans, Caribbeans, Hawaiians, and Filipinos. It also stood for the genocide of the Plains Indians thanks to Abraham Lincoln and his generals no less. It also stood for the extermination of hundreds of thousands of Filipinos. The American flag stands for the only use of a people using atomic bombs on another people. The American flag stands for over 50 million abortions.
If we're going to ban flags because their supporters did bad shit, shouldn't we remove the US flag? This is of course ignoring the fact that linking some nut to a flag is stupid and scapegoating. But the flag of the Union has stood for worse than the Confederate flag has. Just sayin.
Cigar
06-24-2015, 07:33 PM
I have no issue with anyone who wants to display the battle flag. I do have an issue with it being displayed on government buildings along with the American flag.
Exactly ... and personally I think only a Redneck would pain a perfectly good 1969 Dodge Charger ORANGE :tongue: WTF
Cigar
06-24-2015, 07:36 PM
Can we agree that this is the only Flag that matters ... ?
http://www.politicspa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/American-Flag.jpg
Unless anyone here wants to go fight ISIS with this Flag and ALL the Support and Power it brings :laugh:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fBaLJ3fJoKg/TbBlWPRLpgI/AAAAAAAAFm4/X-sqJIkkG9M/s1600/confederate+battle+flag.jpg
Mister D
06-24-2015, 07:37 PM
So wait, ban the Confederate flag because some kid shot people? That is literally retarded.
The American flag has also stood for slavery and segregation. It also stood for stealing land from the French, British, Spanish, Native Americans, Mexicans, Caribbeans, Hawaiians, and Filipinos. It also stood for the genocide of the Plains Indians thanks to Abraham Lincoln and his generals no less. It also stood for the extermination of hundreds of thousands of Filipinos. The American flag stands for the only use of a people using atomic bombs on another people. The American flag stands for over 50 million abortions.
If we're going to ban flags because their supporters did bad $#@!, shouldn't we remove the US flag? This is of course ignoring the fact that linking some nut to a flag is stupid and scapegoating. But the flag of the Union has stood for worse than the Confederate flag has. Just sayin.
It has already been said but you're dealing with people who refuse to be rational.
Mister D
06-24-2015, 07:39 PM
Here I thought they were all enlightened.
What they are is easily manipulated. It makes them feel good about themselves to condemn the flag and the of course the pols love that stuff. They cater to this kind of empty sentiment. It beats doing something important and you really can't lose.
Cigar
06-24-2015, 07:41 PM
:laugh: Like I said, go fight Terrorists with the Flag of your choice, and don't forget to bring all your friends and government equipment :vrolijk_26:
TrueBlue
06-24-2015, 07:56 PM
And now "the kid" is in jail awaiting his trial. But his legacy will be one that will declare that he literally forced every state that holds the Confederate flag in high esteem to be taken down. Yes, 'the kid' accomplished that so that many who were against that flag and the disdain and racism that it stands for may be seeing it as a blessing in disguise, despite the deep tragedy, that he has caused those flags to be taken down most everywhere including major store chains like WalMart and others that have also pulled those flag items from their stores nationwide. Unbelievable is the power of the kid to cause all that to happen.
And now "the kid" is in jail awaiting his trial. But his legacy will be one that will declare that he literally forced every state that holds the Confederate flag in high esteem to be taken down. Yes, 'the kid' accomplished that so that many who were against that flag and the disdain and racism that it stands for may be seeing it as a blessing in disguise, despite the deep tragedy, that he has caused those flags to be taken down most everywhere including major store chains like WalMart and others that have also pulled those flag items from their stores nationwide. Unbelievable is the power of the kid to cause all that to happen.
I don't blame the so called kid. To me the thug can't be hung fast enough.
What he did for me and you also did, is you both increased my net worth.
I have something of value that I just may auction off.
Chris
06-24-2015, 08:15 PM
So wait, ban the Confederate flag because some kid shot people? That is literally retarded.
The American flag has also stood for slavery and segregation. It also stood for stealing land from the French, British, Spanish, Native Americans, Mexicans, Caribbeans, Hawaiians, and Filipinos. It also stood for the genocide of the Plains Indians thanks to Abraham Lincoln and his generals no less. It also stood for the extermination of hundreds of thousands of Filipinos. The American flag stands for the only use of a people using atomic bombs on another people. The American flag stands for over 50 million abortions.
If we're going to ban flags because their supporters did bad shit, shouldn't we remove the US flag? This is of course ignoring the fact that linking some nut to a flag is stupid and scapegoating. But the flag of the Union has stood for worse than the Confederate flag has. Just sayin.
Yes, exactly. Several threads have been all over that. Some must think it will change things.
Chris
06-24-2015, 08:16 PM
:laugh: Like I said, go fight Terrorists with the Flag of your choice, and don't forget to bring all your friends and government equipment :vrolijk_26:
While, we're already fighting them.
Chris
06-24-2015, 08:17 PM
And now "the kid" is in jail awaiting his trial. But his legacy will be one that will declare that he literally forced every state that holds the Confederate flag in high esteem to be taken down. Yes, 'the kid' accomplished that so that many who were against that flag and the disdain and racism that it stands for may be seeing it as a blessing in disguise, despite the deep tragedy, that he has caused those flags to be taken down most everywhere including major store chains like WalMart and others that have also pulled those flag items from their stores nationwide. Unbelievable is the power of the kid to cause all that to happen.
The kid killed people.
Amazing how soon that's forgot.
Tahuyaman
06-24-2015, 08:19 PM
Maybe you can't go five minutes without swallowing bait.
Some Fishermen go all day without catching a Fish, and some are just Anglers.
That would be a valid point if you didn't have a history of race baiting.
Green Arrow
06-24-2015, 08:19 PM
Yea ... just woke up one day and Poof ... it was there :laugh:
Clearly, you don't understand what it means to adopt a flag.
The Xl
06-24-2015, 08:20 PM
It's a meaningless distraction, an empty victory that means nothing
Tahuyaman
06-24-2015, 08:20 PM
Quite frankly, I've never seen someone so excited about a massacre. There's something wrong with him but whatever.
then he claims he posts the racial comments as bait. He can't say who he's trying to bait, or why though.
Tahuyaman
06-24-2015, 08:23 PM
I have no issue with anyone who wants to display the battle flag. I do have an issue with it being displayed on government buildings along with the American flag.
I actually can understand that, but it's an issue for the people who live in those states, not an outsider.
Safety
06-24-2015, 08:33 PM
So wait, ban the Confederate flag because some kid shot people? That is literally retarded.
The American flag has also stood for slavery and segregation. It also stood for stealing land from the French, British, Spanish, Native Americans, Mexicans, Caribbeans, Hawaiians, and Filipinos. It also stood for the genocide of the Plains Indians thanks to Abraham Lincoln and his generals no less. It also stood for the extermination of hundreds of thousands of Filipinos. The American flag stands for the only use of a people using atomic bombs on another people. The American flag stands for over 50 million abortions.
If we're going to ban flags because their supporters did bad shit, shouldn't we remove the US flag? This is of course ignoring the fact that linking some nut to a flag is stupid and scapegoating. But the flag of the Union has stood for worse than the Confederate flag has. Just sayin.
Yea, I have a feeling you already know everything that has happened, seeing how it's been on the news nonstop, but anyway....
People (Blacks, Whites, Asians, Hispanics, Liberals) have been saying for the longest time that the confederate flag was a symbol of hate, due to coming from a time where the country was getting split into two different mindsets. One side wanted to keep the union whole (north), the other wanted to split away because they were in love with slave labor (south). They went to war, the south surrendered. The slaves were free, but the south was not done yet, they enacted Jim Crow laws for negros. The south wasn't done yet, they created the KKK and started carrying the Confederate flag as a symbol of a time that they wanted back. The south wasn't done yet, they fought to keep segregation (using the Confederate flag as a mascot). The civil rights act was signed, with the north (liberal) almost unanimously voting "yea", and the south (conservative) voting almost unanimously "nay", ending Jim Crow and segregation, the opposers carried Confederate flags as mascots. In the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's people who wanted to show their disdane for blacks flew the Confederate flag, but cried that it was about heritage not hate. Into the 2000's and 2010's people (liberals), talked about how the Confederate flag was a symbol of hate, white supremacists and white nationalists flew the confederate flag as the mascot, southern conservatives stressed that it was about heritage not hate. Any rally that involved the Tea party you could find the Confederate flag on display, any rally that was against blacks flew the Confederate flag. June 17th, 2015 a 21 year old open fire and killed 9 church members because they were black. There were pictures of him holding the Confederate flag and burning the American flag.
How's that?
Ravens Fan
06-24-2015, 08:38 PM
Exactly ... and personally I think only a Redneck would pain a perfectly good 1969 Dodge Charger ORANGE :tongue: WTF
Hey now... Don't be hatin' on the General. :slap:
iustitia
06-24-2015, 08:48 PM
Yea, I have a feeling you already know everything that has happened, seeing how it's been on the news nonstop, but anyway....Feds could've used your clairvoyance to find Bin Laden.
People (Blacks, Whites, Asians, Hispanics, Liberals) have been saying for the longest time that the confederate flag was a symbol of hate, due to coming from a time where the country was getting split into two different mindsets. One side wanted to keep the union whole (north), the other wanted to split away because they were in love with slave labor (south). They went to war, the south surrendered. The slaves were free, but the south was not done yet, they enacted Jim Crow laws for negros. The south wasn't done yet, they created the KKK and started carrying the Confederate flag as a symbol of a time that they wanted back. The south wasn't done yet, they fought to keep segregation (using the Confederate flag as a mascot). The civil rights act was signed, with the north (liberal) almost unanimously voting "yea", and the south (conservative) voting almost unanimously "nay", ending Jim Crow and segregation, the opposers carried Confederate flags as mascots. In the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's people who wanted to show their disdane for blacks flew the Confederate flag, but cried that it was about heritage not hate. Into the 2000's and 2010's people (liberals), talked about how the Confederate flag was a symbol of hate, white supremacists and white nationalists flew the confederate flag as the mascot, southern conservatives stressed that it was about heritage not hate. Any rally that involved the Tea party you could find the Confederate flag on display, any rally that was against blacks flew the Confederate flag. June 17th, 2015 a 21 year old open fire and killed 9 church members because they were black. There were pictures of him holding the Confederate flag and burning the American flag.
How's that?
A wall of text that I presume to be woefully lacking in history, context and impartiality. Would you be a lamb and try paragraph format?
But seriously, what the fuck is your problem?
domer76
06-24-2015, 08:51 PM
I've been out of the loop lately when it comes to fake issues and corporate news. What's up with this confederate flag?
Pretty simple. The slaughter in SC with the kid displaying the Confederate flag started a national discussion. The President followed up with an interview where he discussed race relations and used 'nigger' in the interview. More shatting.
So, politicians were seeing some political downsides in continuing to support the government display of the Confederate flag. And politicians do what politicians do best. They acted in their best political interests.
Safety
06-24-2015, 08:51 PM
Feds could've used your clairvoyance to find Bin Laden.
A wall of text that I presume to be woefully lacking in history, context and impartiality. Would you be a lamb and try paragraph format?
But seriously, what the fuck is your problem?
No idea, I figured I would take the time and answer your question. Don't worry about it happening again.
Lacking history? :rofl:
Safety
06-24-2015, 08:52 PM
Pretty simple. The slaughter in SC with the kid displaying the Confederate flag started a national discussion. The President followed up with an interview where he discussed race relations and used 'nigger' in the interview. More shatting.
So, politicians were seeing some political downsides in continuing to support the government display of the Confederate flag. And politicians do what politicians do best. They acted in their best political interests.
Watch out man, you're "lacking history".....or so I was told.
domer76
06-24-2015, 08:52 PM
Some people hate the flag. They think that will make everything better.
Yes they do. No they don't.
domer76
06-24-2015, 08:53 PM
Somebody found a Web site where the kid posted some hateful stuff and I believe referenced some hate group and, to be honest, I don't know how the flag connects, other than some people see it as a symbol of hate and racism and therefore it must be so and must be eradicated.
Typical indignant modern social justice.
Fly the flag, Chris, if you're so attached to it.
domer76
06-24-2015, 08:54 PM
It's routine, isutitia. When things like this happen (i.e. the shootings in Charleston) the American population needs to feel like something is being done. This debate about the flag is of course meaningless and I can't help but think that deep down everyone knows that. It's actually quite interesting in some respects as it gives some insight into the American psyche.
I would say that the need to feel like something needs to be done is superior to feeling the need for nothing at all.
zelmo1234
06-24-2015, 08:56 PM
Think of it this way ... why was the Flag resurrected in late 1950's and the early 1960's?
Hummm ... any idea what else was going on around that time?
Heritage my ass ... we all know why, so let's stop pretending not to see the obvious. :laugh:
Because the Democrats wanted it?
domer76
06-24-2015, 08:58 PM
Quite frankly, I've never seen someone so excited about a massacre. There's something wrong with him but whatever.
Yeah, we should be so blase' over massacres. Not a big deal at all.
domer76
06-24-2015, 09:01 PM
So wait, ban the Confederate flag because some kid shot people? That is literally retarded.
The American flag has also stood for slavery and segregation. It also stood for stealing land from the French, British, Spanish, Native Americans, Mexicans, Caribbeans, Hawaiians, and Filipinos. It also stood for the genocide of the Plains Indians thanks to Abraham Lincoln and his generals no less. It also stood for the extermination of hundreds of thousands of Filipinos. The American flag stands for the only use of a people using atomic bombs on another people. The American flag stands for over 50 million abortions.
If we're going to ban flags because their supporters did bad shit, shouldn't we remove the US flag? This is of course ignoring the fact that linking some nut to a flag is stupid and scapegoating. But the flag of the Union has stood for worse than the Confederate flag has. Just sayin.
Talking shit about 'Merica! Very odd. So unpatriotic about the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.
domer76
06-24-2015, 09:02 PM
It has already been said but you're dealing with people who refuse to be rational.
It appears that you agree with his assessment that the US is a POS country.
domer76
06-24-2015, 09:05 PM
Yes, exactly. Several threads have been all over that. Some must think it will change things.
No more than the Civil Rights Act immediately changed racists into non-racists. What it did is punish the shit out of their behavior.
This? Nope. Just a small, positive change.
Green Arrow
06-24-2015, 09:07 PM
It appears that you agree with his assessment that the US is a POS country.
The U.S. isn't a POS country. It's just a normal country.
domer76
06-24-2015, 09:07 PM
Yea, I have a feeling you already know everything that has happened, seeing how it's been on the news nonstop, but anyway....
People (Blacks, Whites, Asians, Hispanics, Liberals) have been saying for the longest time that the confederate flag was a symbol of hate, due to coming from a time where the country was getting split into two different mindsets. One side wanted to keep the union whole (north), the other wanted to split away because they were in love with slave labor (south). They went to war, the south surrendered. The slaves were free, but the south was not done yet, they enacted Jim Crow laws for negros. The south wasn't done yet, they created the KKK and started carrying the Confederate flag as a symbol of a time that they wanted back. The south wasn't done yet, they fought to keep segregation (using the Confederate flag as a mascot). The civil rights act was signed, with the north (liberal) almost unanimously voting "yea", and the south (conservative) voting almost unanimously "nay", ending Jim Crow and segregation, the opposers carried Confederate flags as mascots. In the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's people who wanted to show their disdane for blacks flew the Confederate flag, but cried that it was about heritage not hate. Into the 2000's and 2010's people (liberals), talked about how the Confederate flag was a symbol of hate, white supremacists and white nationalists flew the confederate flag as the mascot, southern conservatives stressed that it was about heritage not hate. Any rally that involved the Tea party you could find the Confederate flag on display, any rally that was against blacks flew the Confederate flag. June 17th, 2015 a 21 year old open fire and killed 9 church members because they were black. There were pictures of him holding the Confederate flag and burning the American flag.
How's that?
Million thumbs up.
Green Arrow
06-24-2015, 09:07 PM
I still don't get why people give a shit about the flag, on both sides. It's a piece of colored cloth. Whoop-de-doo.
domer76
06-24-2015, 09:09 PM
Feds could've used your clairvoyance to find Bin Laden.
I think that was Safety's gentle way of calling you a liar. Just my clairvoyant side coming through.
domer76
06-24-2015, 09:10 PM
Watch out man, you're "lacking history".....or so I was told.
Yeah. I would have outright called him a liar. But you were spot on.
Chris
06-24-2015, 09:13 PM
Yes they do. No they don't.
Why waste all that hate if it does no good?
Tahuyaman
06-24-2015, 09:14 PM
Problems will never be solved as long as idiots insist on having input into the solution.
domer76
06-24-2015, 09:15 PM
The U.S. isn't a POS country. It's just a normal country.
'Merica NORMAL? You mean we're not the God blessed greatest country that ever was? Founded on Christian principles and freedom for all. Equal opportunity and blind justice and all that good shit? Apple fucking pie and motherhood? How dare you! This is 'Merica!
Safety
06-24-2015, 09:16 PM
Yeah. I would have outright called him a liar. But you were spot on.
I don't seem to understand why someone would get so upset at their question being answered. Makes no sense.
domer76
06-24-2015, 09:17 PM
Why waste all that hate if it does no good?
Hate is a waste, isn't it? Probably a good idea to get rid of one of its symbols.
Safety
06-24-2015, 09:17 PM
Problems will never be solved as long as idiots insist on having input into the solution.
Thanks for bringing absolute enlightenment into the thread, what would we do without your wisdom... :rollseyes:
domer76
06-24-2015, 09:17 PM
Problems will never be solved as long as idiots insist on having input into the solution.
So stop giving your input.
Safety
06-24-2015, 09:18 PM
Hate is a waste, isn't it? Probably a good idea to get rid of one of its symbols.
I was always told here that liberals were so intolerant.....doesn't seem to be the case here.
Lineman
06-24-2015, 09:18 PM
This flag is revealing how cowardly politicians are. They have no principles
Green Arrow
06-24-2015, 09:23 PM
'Merica NORMAL? You mean we're not the God blessed greatest country that ever was? Founded on Christian principles and freedom for all. Equal opportunity and blind justice and all that good shit? Apple fucking pie and motherhood? How dare you! This is 'Merica!
Yep. America is a normal country, just like all the rest. Hate to burst your bubble.
This whining post could be made into a movie. Wait, hasn't it?
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Safety http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1150045#post1150045)
Yea, I have a feeling you already know everything that has happened, seeing how it's been on the news nonstop, but anyway....
People (Blacks, Whites, Asians, Hispanics, Liberals) have been saying for the longest time that the confederate flag was a symbol of hate, due to coming from a time where the country was getting split into two different mindsets. One side wanted to keep the union whole (north), the other wanted to split away because they were in love with slave labor (south). They went to war, the south surrendered. The slaves were free, but the south was not done yet, they enacted Jim Crow laws for negros. The south wasn't done yet, they created the KKK and started carrying the Confederate flag as a symbol of a time that they wanted back. The south wasn't done yet, they fought to keep segregation (using the Confederate flag as a mascot). The civil rights act was signed, with the north (liberal) almost unanimously voting "yea", and the south (conservative) voting almost unanimously "nay", ending Jim Crow and segregation, the opposers carried Confederate flags as mascots. In the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's people who wanted to show their disdane for blacks flew the Confederate flag, but cried that it was about heritage not hate. Into the 2000's and 2010's people (liberals), talked about how the Confederate flag was a symbol of hate, white supremacists and white nationalists flew the confederate flag as the mascot, southern conservatives stressed that it was about heritage not hate. Any rally that involved the Tea party you could find the Confederate flag on display, any rally that was against blacks flew the Confederate flag. June 17th, 2015 a 21 year old open fire and killed 9 church members because they were black. There were pictures of him holding the Confederate flag and burning the American flag.
How's that?
Safety old pal
Nice bit of BS.
There is much more than you told.
You recall General Washington the later president? Did he take slaves with him to fight? He had plenty you know.
Why did he not take his slaves given he could force them into combat for free?
When have you barked over his owning slaves? I asked you on this and you just snuck off.
We had 12 slave owning presidents.
It is one thing to get snarky over, say our recent presidents, but you of all people shoudl be would up raring to go and raging that presidents owned slaves.
Nope, not a whining word from you.
Now, if they did not become president, those you target.
When a people live in a country that has legal slavery, how can you get upset that they owned slaves?
You were not a slave. Nobody owned you.
I can understand whining over the then living slaves. I might join you too if you went balls at the then presidents.
The war by Abe was an invasion.
If you tell me it was over slaves, then that is worse. It means you condone the deaths of over 630,000 humans over that issue.
A couple thousand dead and you may get me to show more sympathy over the joining back of the union.
But over 600,000 dead over slaves?
Isn't that even too much for you to take? i don't mind ou taking the slaves side. But you crap on 600,000 dead white people.
I don't expect you to get it.
Worse, you blame we republicans over what Democrats did. Then make up kooky explanations making statements we are now the party that likes slavery.
We are insulted.
I mean really insulted. I call that a taunt in fact.
Excusing the hateful Democrats of 1964. That sucks. It makes me sick to watch Democrats lie about history.
Thank god the Congress has the actual written records were we can read for ourselves the hate Democrats had even in 1964 to blacks.
I said it.
Lastly, where is the apology by Democrats over what they did to blacks? Why don't you ask them for a deep apology.
But you joined them.
Man, that is so vucked up thinking.
domer76
06-24-2015, 09:25 PM
This flag is revealing how cowardly politicians are. They have no principles
If they had principles, they'd be sitting on the sidelines watching other politicians.
But, every-once-in-awhile they do something right. This happens to be one of them.
Safety
06-24-2015, 09:25 PM
This whining post could be made into a movie. Wait, hasn't it?
Safety old pal
Nice bit of BS.
There is much more than you told.
You recall General Washington the later president? Did he take slaves with him to fight? He had plenty you know.
Why did he not take his slaves given he could force them into combat for free?
When have you barked over his owning slaves? I asked you on this and you just snuck off.
We had 12 slave owning presidents.
It is one thing to get snarky over, say our recent presidents, but you of all people shoudl be would up raring to go and raging that presidents owned slaves.
Nope, not a whining word from you.
Now, if they did not become president, those you target.
When a people live in a country that has legal slavery, how can you get upset that they owned slaves?
You were not a slave. Nobody owned you.
I can understand whining over the then living slaves. I might join you too if you went balls at the then presidents.
The war by Abe was an invasion.
If you tell me it was over slaves, then that is worse. It means you condone the deaths of over 630,000 humans over that issue.
A couple thousand dead and you may get me to show more sympathy over the joining back of the union.
But over 600,000 dead over slaves?
Isn't that even too much for you to take? i don't mind ou taking the slaves side. But you crap on 600,000 dead white people.
I don't expect you to get it.
Worse, you blame we republicans over what Democrats did. Then make up kooky explanations making statements we are now the party that likes slavery.
We are insulted.
I mean really insulted. I call that a taunt in fact.
Excusing the hateful Democrats of 1964. That sucks. It makes me sick to watch Democrats lie about history.
Thank god the Congress has the actual written records were we can read for ourselves the hate Democrats had even in 1964 to blacks.
I said it.
Lastly, where is the apology by Democrats over what they did to blacks? Why don't you ask them for a deep apology.
But you joined them.
Man, that is so vucked up thinking.
Yet, at no time in your reply did you once address any of the items in the post. What you delivered was a soiled bag of wares that nobody wants to purchase. Want to give it another try, or did you already forget why you stepped into the thread?
domer76
06-24-2015, 09:27 PM
Yep. America is a normal country, just like all the rest. Hate to burst your bubble.
I always knew that. It's the chest thumping, Christian, super-patriots that have always claimed otherwise. I would be willing to bet that they support retaining that flag. 'Merica!
Dr. Who
06-24-2015, 09:37 PM
I still don't get why people give a shit about the flag, on both sides. It's a piece of colored cloth. Whoop-de-doo.
Symbols are very powerful to people. The stars and bars represent hate to a great many people - not really because it was a battle flag, but because of what it became - the symbol of white supremacy. There is no dry cleaning the stain of hate off that flag. It has flown longer as the symbol of American apartheid than it ever spent as a battle flag. Just as the swastika, once a Sanskrit symbol of good fortune, is now a symbol of death and destruction, so now the stars and bars represent decades of prejudice and hatred. It will take time to erase that taint from the flag. So long as it continues to be associated with white supremacists, it will continue to inspire disdain in many people. Should it be banned - no. Should it continue to fly in the south with pride - I leave that to southerners to decide.
Chris
06-24-2015, 09:38 PM
This whining post could be made into a movie. Wait, hasn't it?
Safety old pal
Nice bit of BS.
There is much more than you told.
You recall General Washington the later president? Did he take slaves with him to fight? He had plenty you know.
Why did he not take his slaves given he could force them into combat for free?
When have you barked over his owning slaves? I asked you on this and you just snuck off.
We had 12 slave owning presidents.
It is one thing to get snarky over, say our recent presidents, but you of all people shoudl be would up raring to go and raging that presidents owned slaves.
Nope, not a whining word from you.
Now, if they did not become president, those you target.
When a people live in a country that has legal slavery, how can you get upset that they owned slaves?
You were not a slave. Nobody owned you.
I can understand whining over the then living slaves. I might join you too if you went balls at the then presidents.
The war by Abe was an invasion.
If you tell me it was over slaves, then that is worse. It means you condone the deaths of over 630,000 humans over that issue.
A couple thousand dead and you may get me to show more sympathy over the joining back of the union.
But over 600,000 dead over slaves?
Isn't that even too much for you to take? i don't mind ou taking the slaves side. But you crap on 600,000 dead white people.
I don't expect you to get it.
Worse, you blame we republicans over what Democrats did. Then make up kooky explanations making statements we are now the party that likes slavery.
We are insulted.
I mean really insulted. I call that a taunt in fact.
Excusing the hateful Democrats of 1964. That sucks. It makes me sick to watch Democrats lie about history.
Thank god the Congress has the actual written records were we can read for ourselves the hate Democrats had even in 1964 to blacks.
I said it.
Lastly, where is the apology by Democrats over what they did to blacks? Why don't you ask them for a deep apology.
But you joined them.
Man, that is so vucked up thinking.
Yet, at no time in your reply did you once address any of the items in the post. What you delivered was a soiled bag of wares that nobody wants to purchase. Want to give it another try, or did you already forget why you stepped into the thread?
And next time leave out the highlighted personal crapola, Bob. Try to argue rationally instead of emotionally.
Chris
06-24-2015, 09:40 PM
Symbols are very powerful to people. The stars and bars represent hate to a great many people - not really because it was a battle flag, but because of what it became - the symbol of white supremacy. There is no dry cleaning the stain of hate off that flag. It has flown longer as the symbol of American apartheid than it ever spent as a battle flag. Just as the swastika, once a Sanskrit symbol of good fortune, is now a symbol of death and destruction, so now the stars and bars represent decades of prejudice and hatred. It will take time to erase that taint from the flag. So long as it continues to be associated with white supremacists, it will continue to inspire disdain in many people. Should it be banned - no. Should it continue to fly in the south with pride - I leave that to southerners to decide.
The stars and bars represent hate to a great many people....
According to some here their feeling the Confederate battle flag represents hate is cause to ban it. Doesn't it logically follow then that those who think that way should also call for banning the US flag because some think it represents hate too?
Safety
06-24-2015, 09:44 PM
According to some here their feeling the Confederate battle flag represents hate is cause to ban it. Doesn't it logically follow then that those who think that way should also call for banning the US flag because some think it represents hate too?
I don't think anybody wants to ban it, just like they don't want to ban the swatsika. They just don't think it should be flying in front of a government building, especially if their taxes don't have a problem being collected at said building.
Yet, at no time in your reply did you once address any of the items in the post. What you delivered was a soiled bag of wares that nobody wants to purchase. Want to give it another try, or did you already forget why you stepped into the thread?
No
I tried
I failed
And next time leave out the highlighted personal crapola, Bob. Try to argue rationally instead of emotionally.
Bias noted. Thanks will do.
Green Arrow
06-24-2015, 09:53 PM
Bias noted. Thanks will do.
It's not bias, Bob. The way you talk to people sucks ass, but you think you are pure as the driven snow, mostly because you have the self-awareness of a rock.
Dr. Who
06-24-2015, 09:53 PM
According to some here their feeling the Confederate battle flag represents hate is cause to ban it. Doesn't it logically follow then that those who think that way should also call for banning the US flag because some think it represents hate too?
Since the Stars and Stripes represent different things to people outside of the US than it does within the US, I don't see it as the same thing. US citizens in general may commiserate with the sentiments of the innocent victims of US foreign policy, in the final analysis they are still Americans, and the Stars and Stripes represent America, for good or bad. The Stars and Bars belong to a finite episode in history, now co-opted by agenda driven losers who choose to believe that the only reason for the Civil War was the preservation of slavery. While I know that is not so, although it was a factor, it appears to be the only part of it that most people really care about or focus on, so that flag is the symbol of that focus. At the end of the day, perception is everything.
Tahuyaman
06-24-2015, 09:56 PM
Thanks for bringing absolute enlightenment into the thread, what would we do without your wisdom... :rollseyes:
So stop giving your input.
And yet again, Frick and Frack chime in with their usual nothingness.
It's not bias, Bob. The way you talk to people sucks ass, but you think you are pure as the driven snow, mostly because you have the self-awareness of a rock.
Green Arrow
Bias noted
Thanks for the super kind words.
Be brave and proud of how you talked to a person you wanted as an equal
Tahuyaman
06-24-2015, 09:57 PM
The rainbow flag is offensive. Ban it.
Safety
06-24-2015, 09:59 PM
The rainbow flag is offensive. Ban it.
Is it flying in government buildings or just your room?
Tahuyaman
06-24-2015, 10:05 PM
Are you intolerant of a certain group of people? I'm just wondering why you are trying to throw out an insult by by making fun of people who's cause you claim to support?
Safety
06-24-2015, 10:05 PM
Bias noted
Thanks for the super kind words.
Be brave and proud of how you talked to a person you wanted as an equal
I don't think Green Arrow should lower his standards.
I don't think @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868) should lower his standards.
Bias
Insult
noted
Safety
06-24-2015, 10:10 PM
Bias
Insult
noted
I guess watermelon and picking cotton jokes only gets you so far. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. :rollseyes:
I guess watermelon and picking cotton jokes only gets you so far. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. :rollseyes:
I eat watermelon
I chopped cotton
Bias noted as usual
Chris
06-24-2015, 10:30 PM
I don't think anybody wants to ban it, just like they don't want to ban the swatsika. They just don't think it should be flying in front of a government building, especially if their taxes don't have a problem being collected at said building.
I think we use the word ban differently. If you want it banned from government buildings then why not the same for the US flag for the same reasons.?
Safety
06-24-2015, 10:33 PM
I think we use the word ban differently. If you want it banned from government buildings then why not the same for the US flag for the same reasons.?
Because the Confederate and US flag are different?
Because the Confederate and US flag are different?
That is true.
The USA flag in use, minus states of course, flew from what? The time of Washington, the slave owner?
Lets start at 1789 until 1865. That is 76 years.
The confederate did not so much fly over slavery as a busted union. Check with Abe if you don't believe that.
About 4 years.
Sad how long the USA flag flew over slavery where it was entirely legal.
Democrats hate the truth. I am told.
iustitia
06-24-2015, 10:40 PM
I think we use the word ban differently. If you want it banned from government buildings then why not the same for the US flag for the same reasons.?
Because Southern slavery, segregation, racism, torture, violence and terrorism is different than American slavery, segregation, racism, torture, violence, terrorism, theft, imperialism, genocide, war crimes, concentration camps, forced sterilization, human experimentation, drug-trafficking, war-mongering, central banking, compulsory schooling, rape, and militarized cops.
domer76
06-24-2015, 10:41 PM
Because Southern slavery, segregation, racism, torture, violence and terrorism is different than American slavery, segregation, racism, torture, violence, terrorism, theft, imperialism, genocide, war crimes, concentration camps, forced sterilization, human experimentation, drug-trafficking, war-mongering, central banking, compulsory schooling, rape, and militarized cops.
Why do you hate 'Merica?
iustitia
06-24-2015, 10:42 PM
Why do you hate 'Merica?
So you're Mac-7 now?
Safety
06-24-2015, 10:44 PM
That is true.
The USA flag in use, minus states of course, flew from what? The time of Washington, the slave owner?
Lets start at 1789 until 1865. That is 76 years.
The confederate did not so much fly over slavery as a busted union. Check with Abe if you don't believe that.
About 4 years.
Sad how long the USA flag flew over slavery where it was entirely legal.
Democrats hate the truth. I am told.
US flag is the official and only US flag. It flew during slavery, it flew when the Confederate states went to war, it flew when the Confederate states surrendered, it flew when slavery was abolished.
The Confederate flag is the flag in which 13 states wanted to leave the union flew, those very states made it clear that they did not want to forego the institution of slavery. It flew during slavery, it flew during the war, it stopped flying when the Confederacy surrendered, it never flew after slavery was abolished.
I can't seem to understand why this concept is so difficult to grasp.
Dr. Who
06-24-2015, 10:45 PM
Because Southern slavery, segregation, racism, torture, violence and terrorism is different than American slavery, segregation, racism, torture, violence, terrorism, theft, imperialism, genocide, war crimes, concentration camps, forced sterilization, human experimentation, drug-trafficking, war-mongering, central banking, compulsory schooling, rape, and militarized cops.
Because the Stars and Stripes are the current symbol of America and the Stars and Bars was the battle flag of a conflict. One is contemporary and one is historical and specific to that historical context. The Stars and Bars never represented a nation.
domer76
06-24-2015, 10:53 PM
So you're Mac-7 now?
Why do you hate 'Merica?
Safety
06-24-2015, 10:54 PM
Because the Stars and Stripes are the current symbol of America and the Stars and Bars was the battle flag of a conflict. One is contemporary and one is historical and specific to that historical context. The Stars and Bars never represented a nation.
I believe this is beginning to become a circular argument where the same questions and comments will be made in order to just keep kicking the can down the street. There really is no further explanation needed for what the difference between the flags are. It's not up for interpretation, there are historical documents available to show the mindset of the individuals during that time. Really, this is showing signs of desperation that is becoming more and more obvious of the underlying unspoken issue.
US flag is the official and only US flag. It flew during slavery, it flew when the Confederate states went to war, it flew when the Confederate states surrendered, it flew when slavery was abolished.
The Confederate flag is the flag in which 13 states wanted to leave the union flew, those very states made it clear that they did not want to forego the institution of slavery. It flew during slavery, it flew during the war, it stopped flying when the Confederacy surrendered, it never flew after slavery was abolished.
I can't seem to understand why this concept is so difficult to grasp.
We really are telling the same story. You like your story better is all.
Safety
06-24-2015, 10:57 PM
We really are telling the same story. You like your story better is all.
The story I am telling is backed by historical documents, are yours backed by personal experiences?
domer76
06-24-2015, 10:59 PM
I believe this is beginning to become a circular argument where the same questions and comments will be made in order to just keep kicking the can down the street. There really is no further explanation needed for what the difference between the flags are. It's not up for interpretation, there are historical documents available to show the mindset of the individuals during that time. Really, this is showing signs of desperation that is becoming more and more obvious of the underlying unspoken issue.
Here's the simple answer. The reason we don't fly the Confederate flag is the same reason we don't fly the Nazi flag. That side and what it stood for lost the fucking war.
The story I am telling is backed by historical documents, are yours backed by personal experiences?
Well back on the high horse
My story is 100 percent accurate
Safety
06-24-2015, 11:01 PM
Well back on the high horse
My story is 100 percent accurate
To Bob, too bad the world doesn't operate on Bob's account.
To Bob, too bad the world doesn't operate on Bob's account.
You want to sound different
We agree here
Washington owned slaves
Democrats refuse to speak ill of him
Abe the outlaw invaded VA
Not in dispute
Naturally the people of the south fought back
Self defense is no vice
Abe was killed
Somebody sure was mad as hell
Slaves in free states were not declared free
Abe forgot them
Abe says he freed slaves
In the south he means?
Since at the time the South was fighting, what gall
Today Democrats refuse to accept blame for the problems of blacks
They deny they do it
Smart blacks, like Thomas Sowell and Justice Thomas are republicans
For very good reasons
We are the party that helps blacks
Democrats lie when they say they help
That sort of sums up the gist of the story
All facts
Take a bite of that and like it.
Dr. Who
06-24-2015, 11:20 PM
I believe this is beginning to become a circular argument where the same questions and comments will be made in order to just keep kicking the can down the street. There really is no further explanation needed for what the difference between the flags are. It's not up for interpretation, there are historical documents available to show the mindset of the individuals during that time. Really, this is showing signs of desperation that is becoming more and more obvious of the underlying unspoken issue.
I don't understand the reluctance to admit that said flag has taken on a singular meaning notwithstanding its historical provenance and only if you don't care whether it is alienating millions of people. Imagine if Berlin flew the Nazi flag because it had historical significance irrespective of all of the people who related it to the deaths of millions.
The fact remains that the stars and bars represents the last holdover of slavery in America and flying it in front of government buildings in the south suggests any such state government still supports that traditional confederate ideology.
Safety
06-24-2015, 11:28 PM
I don't understand the reluctance to admit that said flag has taken on a singular meaning notwithstanding its historical provenance and only if you don't care whether it is alienating millions of people. Imagine if Berlin flew the Nazi flag because it had historical significance irrespective of all of the people who related it to the deaths of millions.
The fact remains that the stars and bars represents the last holdover of slavery in America and flying it in front of government buildings in the south suggests any such state government still supports that traditional confederate ideology.
Actually, Dr. Who , it speaks volumes. There is no need to read between the lines, it's pretty clear.
I don't understand the reluctance to admit that said flag has taken on a singular meaning notwithstanding its historical provenance and only if you don't care whether it is alienating millions of people. Imagine if Berlin flew the Nazi flag because it had historical significance irrespective of all of the people who related it to the deaths of millions.
The fact remains that the stars and bars represents the last holdover of slavery in America and flying it in front of government buildings in the south suggests any such state government still supports that traditional confederate ideology.
Who should admit it?
Not we posters. We don't fly the flag on government buildings.
Heck, I have never flown my confederate flag. Not one moment.
It has that you explain to some people.
What this boils down to, do we allow them to demand what we do?
Is there a trade in the works?
We give and they give?
Not really, they refuse to give.
For my money, the public living on the effected states ought to vote. If they vote to remove it, fine by me.
I am up to that sort of solution. @Dr Who
In all my years, and I am 76, which is pretty old on this forum, I have never ever at any time met any slaves.
I was once based in Georgia. Nope, never saw slaves.
It could be different say that in Obama's time, he freed the slaves. But he did not.
Republicans freed them.
pjohns
06-25-2015, 12:36 AM
The matter of the Confederate flag is really a bit more complicated than many would care to admit--on either side of the issue.
For some, it is a symbol of vitriol and racism (which seems almost like a redundancy).
For others, it is merely a symbol of a heritage that should be embraced.
Sadly, too many people refuse to see the other side's point of view.
Precisely because it is seen by some, however, as a symbol of racism--and because I utterly detest racism!--it is probably best to remove the Confederate flag from official positions (such as the statehouse). And this view of the Confederate flag is not at all unsupportable: The Klan, for instance, has adopted it as its symbol.
Still, I would much prefer that the states make individual decisions here. Anything else smacks of political correctness--which I utterly despise!
And I am just a bit fearful that this may spread to other states--and that it may not be limited to the Confederate battle flag. For instance, some people, in different states, are now pushing for the removal of statues of Robert E. Lee, Nathan Bedford Forrest, et al.
As I noted previously, this looks too much like political correctness to make me entirely comfortable...
Safety
06-25-2015, 06:26 AM
You want to sound different
We agree here
Washington owned slaves
Democrats refuse to speak ill of him
Abe the outlaw invaded VA Your opinion
Not in dispute Your opinion
Naturally the people of the south fought back Who fired on Ft. Sumpter?
Self defense is no vice The North was following the South around like Zimmerman did, the South decided to confront the North like Martin, the North Zimmerman'd the South. As like every one of you conservatives like to say, Zimmerman did nothing wrong, so the North should be heralded as heroes like ya'll see Zimmerman.
Abe was killed Did you phone a friend for that information?
Somebody sure was mad as hell
Slaves in free states were not declared free
Abe forgot them He was assassinated by someone who hates that he put in motion the freeing of the slaves. You a Booth sympathizer?
Abe says he freed slaves Link?
In the south he means?
Since at the time the South was fighting, what gall
Today Democrats refuse to accept blame for the problems of blacks Link?
They deny they do it
Smart blacks, like Thomas Sowell and Justice Thomas are republicans "Smart Blacks"...What if someone said the "Smart Whites" are liberals in the Democratic Party?
For very good reasons
We are the party that helps blacks The party historically, absolutely. The current members..... :rofl:
Democrats lie when they say they help
That sort of sums up the gist of the story That was a nice piece of creative writing, you get a "C" for effort.
All facts ....escape Bob.
Take a bite of that and like it.
Calypso Jones
06-25-2015, 06:43 AM
Slavery was dying in the south. WIth the invention of machines that did work better than slaves, they'd have lost their jobs. Jefferson always wanted to free blacks but had an idea of what would happen if that many uneducated,incapable people were released on the population.
That war was a matter of States Rights and one section of the country taking advantage of the other section of the country. Seeing as the winner writes the history I doubt too many of you will be willing to look at that bit of truth.
The flag represents courage, loyalty, honor, of the people willing to stand up against the federal gov't and there may just come a time when you will regret the loss of the good qualities associated with that flag.
Southerners like that flag for what it represents. Their ancestors had the guts to stand against Federal tyranny. So. It's a southern thing and I doubt you can understand it.
So ban the flag, ban Gone with the Wind, the Jefferson memorial, Erase all the names of southern generals. Tear down their statues, destroy their character and continue to re-write history...cause liberalism has made a damn mess of the country and won't stop till they destroy it.
History repeats.
Safety
06-25-2015, 06:54 AM
The matter of the Confederate flag is really a bit more complicated than many would care to admit--on either side of the issue.
For some, it is a symbol of vitriol and racism (which seems almost like a redundancy)....ok, let's read on
For others, it is merely a symbol of a heritage that should be embraced. Ah, subjective
Sadly, too many people refuse to see the other side's point of view. Ironic, ("Which seems almost like a redundancy")
Precisely because it is seen by some, however, as a symbol of racism--and because I utterly detest racism!--it is probably best to remove the Confederate flag from official positions (such as the statehouse). And this view of the Confederate flag is not at all unsupportable: The Klan, for instance, has adopted it as its symbol.
Still, I would much prefer that the states make individual decisions here. Anything else smacks of political correctness--which I utterly despise!
And I am just a bit fearful that this may spread to other states--and that it may not be limited to the Confederate battle flag. For instance, some people, in different states, are now pushing for the removal of statues of Robert E. Lee, Nathan Bedford Forrest, et al.
As I noted previously, this looks too much like political correctness to make me entirely comfortable...
Safety
06-25-2015, 06:56 AM
Slavery was dying in the south. WIth the invention of machines that did work better than slaves, they'd have lost their jobs. Jefferson always wanted to free blacks but had an idea of what would happen if that many uneducated,incapable people were released on the population.
That war was a matter of States Rights and one section of the country taking advantage of the other section of the country. Seeing as the winner writes the history I doubt too many of you will be willing to look at that bit of truth.
The flag represents courage, loyalty, honor, of the people willing to stand up against the federal gov't and there may just come a time when you will regret the loss of the good qualities associated with that flag.
Southerners like that flag for what it represents. Their ancestors had the guts to stand against Federal tyranny. So. It's a southern thing and I doubt you can understand it.
So ban the flag, ban Gone with the Wind, the Jefferson memorial, Erase all the names of southern generals. Tear down their statues, destroy their character and continue to re-write history...cause liberalism has made a damn mess of the country and won't stop till they destroy it.
History repeats.
Yep, that's the memo for 2015.
Mister D
06-25-2015, 07:50 AM
I would say that the need to feel like something needs to be done is superior to feeling the need for nothing at all.
Why? They have the same effect.
Mister D
06-25-2015, 07:51 AM
It appears that you agree with his assessment that the US is a POS country.
In some respects, it is.
Chloe
06-25-2015, 08:41 AM
Slavery was dying in the south. WIth the invention of machines that did work better than slaves, they'd have lost their jobs. Jefferson always wanted to free blacks but had an idea of what would happen if that many uneducated,incapable people were released on the population.
That war was a matter of States Rights and one section of the country taking advantage of the other section of the country. Seeing as the winner writes the history I doubt too many of you will be willing to look at that bit of truth.
The flag represents courage, loyalty, honor, of the people willing to stand up against the federal gov't and there may just come a time when you will regret the loss of the good qualities associated with that flag.
Southerners like that flag for what it represents. Their ancestors had the guts to stand against Federal tyranny. So. It's a southern thing and I doubt you can understand it.
So ban the flag, ban Gone with the Wind, the Jefferson memorial, Erase all the names of southern generals. Tear down their statues, destroy their character and continue to re-write history...cause liberalism has made a damn mess of the country and won't stop till they destroy it.
History repeats.
"It wasn't about slavery, it was about states rights". What was the primary right that those states wanted exactly?
PolWatch
06-25-2015, 08:46 AM
"It wasn't about slavery, it was about states rights". What was the primary right that those states wanted exactly?
sshhh....that isn't what history by Gone With the Wind says
donttread
06-25-2015, 09:24 AM
To some the Confederate flag represents bigotry , racism and even a belief in slavery. To some, like me, it represents State's Rights albeit incorrectly interpreted State's Rights as clearly the Constitution as written is anti slavery.
I'm inclined to give them this one. Government agencies probably should not fly the Confederate flag , although I also believe this to be a State by state choice, I understand the movement against it.
What we really need is a non-racist symbol ( lets say a flag) that represents State's Rights and maybe even the right to secede based upon federal Constitutional infringements.
I took some liberties with vocabulary however, your a smart guy, so I'm pretty sure you were a smart 5 year old
Lineman
06-25-2015, 09:30 AM
Those caving to the political moment and calling for removal of that flag - when prior to the church murders they were in no hurry to take it down and supported its display - are spineless cowards who wont stand on their own principles.
They claim to be patriots, but they are race traitors. I wouldnt want em near me in a fight.
I dont like the symbolism of the flag, and dont support slavery.
Chris
06-25-2015, 09:36 AM
"It wasn't about slavery, it was about states rights". What was the primary right that those states wanted exactly?
My impression, loosely, from reading 20 years or so ago a lot of the history, is was about a way of life, a more aristocratic, agricultural, independent way of life, with all the ideals of individual liberty and limited government. For some, regretfully, that included slavery, for others not.
It is interesting to note that when the South turned against racist Democrats and elected young Republicans, it was in part because those Republicans accepted the CRA but also because they still retained that spirit of independence etc as what's called state's rights.
donttread
06-25-2015, 09:38 AM
Those caving to the political moment and calling for removal of that flag - when prior to the church murders they were in no hurry to take it down and supported its display - are spineless cowards who wont stand on their own principles.
They claim to be patriots, but they are race traitors. I wouldnt want em near me in a fight.
I dont like the symbolism of the flag, and dont support slavery.
Do you not support the State's right to remove the flag from government property and the people's will. No one should support banning citizens from displaying whatever flag they wish
Common Sense
06-25-2015, 09:46 AM
sshhh....that isn't what history by Gone With the Wind says
Frankly my dear, I don't think they give a damn.
;)
Mister D
06-25-2015, 10:02 AM
My impression, loosely, from reading 20 years or so ago a lot of the history, is was about a way of life, a more aristocratic, agricultural, independent way of life, with all the ideals of individual liberty and limited government. For some, regretfully, that included slavery, for others not.
It is interesting to note that when the South turned against racist Democrats and elected young Republicans, it was in part because those Republicans accepted the CRA but also because they still retained that spirit of independence etc as what's called state's rights.
In reality, the Democrats gradually alienated southern whites by abandoning their values. if it was entirely or even primarily about race we would have seen a sea change much earlier but we didn't. It took decades. Over the course of the 1970's and 1980's the Democrats transformed themselves from a party representing southern interests to a party increasingly alien to those interests.
Chris
06-25-2015, 10:13 AM
In reality, the Democrats gradually alienated southern whites by abandoning their values. if it was entirely or even primarily about race we would have seen a sea change much earlier but we didn't. It took decades. Over the course of the 1970's and 1980's the Democrats transformed themselves from a party representing southern interests to a party increasingly alien to those interests.
Agree, it took time. And, yes, it wasn't just about race, the ideas behind states right were more important, I think.
Safety
06-25-2015, 10:19 AM
Those caving to the political moment and calling for removal of that flag - when prior to the church murders they were in no hurry to take it down and supported its display - are spineless cowards who wont stand on their own principles.
They claim to be patriots, but they are race traitors. I wouldnt want em near me in a fight.
I dont like the symbolism of the flag, and dont support slavery.
Race traitors? I hope that's hyperbole.
Slavery was dying in the south. WIth the invention of machines that did work better than slaves, they'd have lost their jobs. Jefferson always wanted to free blacks but had an idea of what would happen if that many uneducated,incapable people were released on the population.
That war was a matter of States Rights and one section of the country taking advantage of the other section of the country. Seeing as the winner writes the history I doubt too many of you will be willing to look at that bit of truth.
The flag represents courage, loyalty, honor, of the people willing to stand up against the federal gov't and there may just come a time when you will regret the loss of the good qualities associated with that flag.
Southerners like that flag for what it represents. Their ancestors had the guts to stand against Federal tyranny. So. It's a southern thing and I doubt you can understand it.
So ban the flag, ban Gone with the Wind, the Jefferson memorial, Erase all the names of southern generals. Tear down their statues, destroy their character and continue to re-write history...cause liberalism has made a damn mess of the country and won't stop till they destroy it.
History repeats.
Were slavery dying, don't you think Abe the Outlaw would have stated this?
I have to read something authoritative saying Jefferson wanted to free his slaves. I saw his place and he was set up to own them. If he wanted them educated then freed, all he had to do was educate them. He was an educated person.
Good post. Just had the two tweeks.
"It wasn't about slavery, it was about states rights". What was the primary right that those states wanted exactly?
If you mean it was all about slavery, explain the fact, and it still is in the constitution, owning slaves then was entirely legal. The South was guaranteed the right to own slaves.
Do you really think the dozen presidents that owned slaves were then lawbreakers?
Posters get so emotional over this issue. I just look at the law that then allowed slavery to exist.
As to the flag, vote. Don't have riots. Cajole the state congress provided you are a citizen of the state. We living in other states have no dog in this hunt.
We have the Grizzly Bear on our flag. I can just imagine gay pride going crazy telling us it is a super dangerous animal, no longer is in CA and demanding the state remove that bear as a hate symbol.
This is that crazy.
PolWatch
06-25-2015, 10:53 AM
Why do you think gay pride would care about a grizzly bear? Do they have some special aversion to bears?
The Sage of Main Street
06-25-2015, 11:03 AM
I still have no idea why this is a thing. Was there a cause to this uproar? I'm sure people didn't just realize the flag a week ago. Why is this a thing? Americans fighting under one flag supported slavery. Soldiers carrying the other flag supported the wage-slavery of sweatshops. The sweatshoppers won. They are continuing to cover up their equally immoral cause by banishing the other side's flag.
donttread
06-25-2015, 11:19 AM
If you mean it was all about slavery, explain the fact, and it still is in the constitution, owning slaves then was entirely legal. The South was guaranteed the right to own slaves.
Do you really think the dozen presidents that owned slaves were then lawbreakers?
Posters get so emotional over this issue. I just look at the law that then allowed slavery to exist.
As to the flag, vote. Don't have riots. Cajole the state congress provided you are a citizen of the state. We living in other states have no dog in this hunt.
We have the Grizzly Bear on our flag. I can just imagine gay pride going crazy telling us it is a super dangerous animal, no longer is in CA and demanding the state remove that bear as a hate symbol.
This is that crazy.
The states have no more right to violate the Constitution than do the feds. Owning people violates the Constitution
@Safety
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1150223#post1150223)
You want to sound different
We agree here
Washington owned slaves
Democrats refuse to speak ill of him
Abe the outlaw invaded VA Your opinion
No, the national park maintains the actual invasion site at Manassas. Visit and see where Abe invaded. His shock troops were defeated, sent reeling back to Maryland and DC.
Not in dispute Your opinion (See above)
Naturally the people of the south fought back Who fired on Ft. Sumpter? People living then in South Carolina. I remind you (leaving out legal issues) Major Anderson was asked nicely to bail out. Second, not one person inside the fort was injured by the South.
Self defense is no vice The North was following the South around like Zimmerman did, the South decided to confront the North like Martin, the North Zimmerman'd the South. As like every one of you conservatives like to say, Zimmerman did nothing wrong, so the North should be heralded as heroes like ya'll see Zimmerman
It is difficult to argue against what is false. I don't agree. The North invaded. I know you seem quite unaware that Abe the Outlaw massed troops, invaded VA, fought at Manassas and was sent packing. The people living in VA though attacked were heros. They defended their property from invaders. I wager the Zimmerman defense is unique to this forum.
Abe was killed ******Did you phone a friend for that information?
We agree then.
Somebody sure was mad as hell
Slaves in free states were not declared free
Abe forgot them He was assassinated by someone who hates that he put in motion the freeing of the slaves. You a Booth sympathizer?
You have long noted I never advocate murder. Please, stop being personal.
Abe says he freed slaves Link?
Let's start with you reading the emancipation proclamation. When you are done, you will no doubt add new information to what you know today.
In the south he means?
Since at the time the South was fighting, what gall
Today Democrats refuse to accept blame for the problems of blacks Link?
If you don't believe me, point me at something said by Democrats where they admit their complicity. They fought hard to prevent the civil rights act. I am sorry, but those in the South were voting Democrats.
They deny they do it
Smart blacks, like Thomas Sowell and Justice Thomas are republicans "Smart Blacks"...What if someone said the "Smart Whites" are liberals in the Democratic Party?
You surprise me that you do not acknowledge the smart black republicans. I did not ask a question, I stand admiring those I named as well as a lot more blacks, such as Ben Carson that are republicans. This is what I mean partly saying Democrats refuse to admit their faults. They will hate me for saying bad things about blacks yet they say bad things about blacks. I could remind posters of bad terms by democrats directed at black republicans.
For very good reasons
We are the party that helps blacks The party historically, absolutely. The current members..... :rofl:
Again, the laughter by you is what is wrong here. I should point to you plenty of articles by Thomas Sowell and other famous blacks stating just what I say.
Democrats lie when they say they help
That sort of sums up the gist of the story That was a nice piece of creative writing, you get a "C" for effort.
There are other posters on this left wing forum that agree with me. I won't name them but they have told you that you are wrong.
All facts ....escape Bob.
You can't escape my facts.
Take a bite of that and like it.
This should have been two separate posts.
I wrestled with the editing that changed his reply from red to black. I gave it my best shot but was not able to change colors. I could have tried to separate it but will be happy to respond to separated posts from now on.
Common Sense
06-25-2015, 11:22 AM
If Bob knew what the gay community considered a "bear", he'd probably want the bear removed from California's flag. ;)
Why do you think gay pride would care about a grizzly bear? Do they have some special aversion to bears?
I explained the bear very well. Grizzlies were killed off as dangerous animals.
As to them, I think here on the forum most of my objectors are homosexuals. AKA gays.
Chris
06-25-2015, 11:26 AM
@Safety
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1150223#post1150223)
You want to sound different
We agree here
Washington owned slaves
Democrats refuse to speak ill of him
Abe the outlaw invaded VA Your opinion
No, the national park maintains the actual invasion site at Manassas. Visit and see where Abe invaded. His shock troops were defeated, sent reeling back to Maryland and DC.
Not in dispute Your opinion (See above)
Naturally the people of the south fought back Who fired on Ft. Sumpter? People living then in South Carolina. I remind you (leaving out legal issues) Major Anderson was asked nicely to bail out. Second, not one person inside the fort was injured by the South.
Self defense is no vice The North was following the South around like Zimmerman did, the South decided to confront the North like Martin, the North Zimmerman'd the South. As like every one of you conservatives like to say, Zimmerman did nothing wrong, so the North should be heralded as heroes like ya'll see Zimmerman
It is difficult to argue against what is false. I don't agree. The North invaded. I know you seem quite unaware that Abe the Outlaw massed troops, invaded VA, fought at Manassas and was sent packing. The people living in VA though attacked were heros. They defended their property from invaders. I wager the Zimmerman defense is unique to this forum.
Abe was killed ******Did you phone a friend for that information?
We agree then.
Somebody sure was mad as hell
Slaves in free states were not declared free
Abe forgot them He was assassinated by someone who hates that he put in motion the freeing of the slaves. You a Booth sympathizer?
You have long noted I never advocate murder. Please, stop being personal.
Abe says he freed slaves Link?
Let's start with you reading the emancipation proclamation. When you are done, you will no doubt add new information to what you know today.
In the south he means?
Since at the time the South was fighting, what gall
Today Democrats refuse to accept blame for the problems of blacks Link?
If you don't believe me, point me at something said by Democrats where they admit their complicity. They fought hard to prevent the civil rights act. I am sorry, but those in the South were voting Democrats.
They deny they do it
Smart blacks, like Thomas Sowell and Justice Thomas are republicans "Smart Blacks"...What if someone said the "Smart Whites" are liberals in the Democratic Party?
You surprise me that you do not acknowledge the smart black republicans. I did not ask a question, I stand admiring those I named as well as a lot more blacks, such as Ben Carson that are republicans. This is what I mean partly saying Democrats refuse to admit their faults. They will hate me for saying bad things about blacks yet they say bad things about blacks. I could remind posters of bad terms by democrats directed at black republicans.
For very good reasons
We are the party that helps blacks The party historically, absolutely. The current members..... :rofl:
Again, the laughter by you is what is wrong here. I should point to you plenty of articles by Thomas Sowell and other famous blacks stating just what I say.
Democrats lie when they say they help
That sort of sums up the gist of the story That was a nice piece of creative writing, you get a "C" for effort.
There are other posters on this left wing forum that agree with me. I won't name them but they have told you that you are wrong.
All facts ....escape Bob.
You can't escape my facts.
Take a bite of that and like it.
This should have been two separate posts.
I wrestled with the editing that changed his reply from red to black. I gave it my best shot but was not able to change colors. I could have tried to separate it but will be happy to respond to separated posts from now on.
http://i.snag.gy/q5kHC.jpg
Private Pickle
06-25-2015, 11:27 AM
I explained the bear very well. Grizzlies were killed off as dangerous animals.
As to them, I think here on the forum most of my objectors are homosexuals. AKA gays.
No.
The Sage of Main Street
06-25-2015, 11:30 AM
This flag is revealing how cowardly politicians are. They have no principles Why wouldn't they be gutless pukes? Chickenhawks and Chickendoves never have to bleed under any flag.
"It wasn't about slavery, it was about states rights". What was the primary right that those states wanted exactly? @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565)
Again, they did not WANT, they had the rights.
Abe rejected what 12 presidents approved and decided he was the ruler.
Private Pickle
06-25-2015, 11:36 AM
No what?
I can count on one finger how many people agree with you...
If Bob knew what the gay community considered a "bear", he'd probably want the bear removed from California's flag. ;)
You can explain the gay community all you wish to.
The vanished bear is the symbol. Would i fight to keep it? What for?
I can count on one finger how many people agree with you...
Not true. Unless you have a finger with many branches.
The states have no more right to violate the Constitution than do the feds. Owning people violates the Constitution
Today you mean. That is not the dispute.
12 presidents owned slaves. Do you want to argue they did not know law?
Agree, it took time. And, yes, it wasn't just about race, the ideas behind states right were more important, I think.
At the time of the Civil war, 12 presidents had been legal slave owners. This is not a pipedream, it is just history.
Given presidents owned slaves, it would be very difficult for Abe the Outlaw to make his case that Slavery was not then legal.
Surely you don't invade the State of VA over some post in the harbor in some other state being shelled? Abe was aware there were no casualties in the fort due to the cannon fire.
Those using the Ft. Sumter argument do not start out telling you that the South gunners inflicted zero injuries.
I urge this point be considered since the shelling of property should never start wars.
PolWatch
06-25-2015, 11:45 AM
I'm still trying to figure out how anyone can say that American troops can 'invade' an American fort (Sumter). When you have to start with such basic facts, its hopeless.
Private Pickle
06-25-2015, 11:46 AM
Not true. Unless you have a finger with many branches.
Whatever makes you sleep at night.
Chris
06-25-2015, 11:48 AM
At the time of the Civil war, 12 presidents had been legal slave owners. This is not a pipedream, it is just history.
Given presidents owned slaves, it would be very difficult for Abe the Outlaw to make his case that Slavery was not then legal.
Surely you don't invade the State of VA over some post in the harbor in some other state being shelled? Abe was aware there were no casualties in the fort due to the cannon fire.
Those using the Ft. Sumter argument do not start out telling you that the South gunners inflicted zero injuries.
I urge this point be considered since the shelling of property should never start wars.
None of that was my point.
Chris
06-25-2015, 12:01 PM
None of that was my point.
My point has to do with what Albert Jay Nock is talking about as the remnant in Isaiah's Job (http://www.bigeye.com/isaiahs_job.htm).
(Mister D, you might appreciate that piece.)
My impression, loosely, from reading 20 years or so ago a lot of the history, is was about a way of life, a more aristocratic, agricultural, independent way of life, with all the ideals of individual liberty and limited government. For some, regretfully, that included slavery, for others not.
It is interesting to note that when the South turned against racist Democrats and elected young Republicans, it was in part because those Republicans accepted the CRA but also because they still retained that spirit of independence etc as what's called state's rights.
Let's establish some facts.
1. 12 presidents owned slaves. To do so, means slavery was legal. It then was the law of the land.
2. The South had not invaded the North. Sumter is no issue given there were no injuries. The fact is, Major Anderson had been told to remove all troops. He refused. He was further told to stay would mean he would be removed by force. But Abe invaded VA. Proof stands today. At Manassas the park service has the battleground preserved.
3. The issue of the legality of slavery need not be defended due to it's provisions in the then standing constitution.
We talk as if then is now. We act at times like our present laws were then on the books. That is wrong headed thinking by those believing in that.
Democrats were enraged at the Civil rights law. They did all they could to prevent it. Sure, some Democrats wanted it to pass. But like today's Democrats stood up to the fast track treaty for Obama, it can't be claimed later that they were all for it. They are not.
The next claim Democrats make is that the pro civil rights republicans that fought Democrats hard, tried to block the bill. Democrats tried to block it. A few republicans believed each state has constitutional rights. But they were for the civil rights law. They wanted it decided at the state level is all. One famous republican instituted the civil rights laws into his states laws. Later Democrats pretended he was against civili rights. California passed our civil rights laws by 1959
An interesting point is that D Governor Pat Brown was in office in 1959, yet Wikipedia gives him much credit, he is not credited for the CA civil rights law. I wonder why not?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Brown#Legacy
Legacy[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Brown&action=edit§ion=11)]Although he left office defeat, Brown's time in office is one which has fared well. Brown was a relatively popular Democrat in what was, at the time, a Republican-leaning state. After his re-election victory over Richard Nixon in 1962, he was strongly considered for Lyndon Johnson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_Johnson)'s running mate in 1964, a position that eventually went to Hubert Humphrey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Humphrey). However, Brown's popularity began to sag amidst the civil disorders of the Watts Riots (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Riots) and the early anti-Vietnam war demonstrations at U.C. Berkeley. His monumental infrastructure projects, building aqueducts, canals, and pump stations, established new fertile lands in the central valley; the Governor Edmund G. Brown California Aqueduct (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Aqueduct) was named after him. The state saw four new Universities of California (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California), and seven new California State Universities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_University) built, making the Master Plan's education system the largest in the world. While no person elected Governor of California has been denied a second term since Earl Warren defeated Culbert Olson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culbert_Olson) in 1942, Brown's losing bid for a third term to Ronald Reagan was the last time, as of 2014, an incumbent Governor lost in the general election (Gray Davis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Davis)' loss in the 2003 recall was a non-quadrennial election). Today, Governor Brown is widely credited with the building of modern California.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Brown#cite_note-:1-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Brown#cite_note-:2-2)
Read about Jesse Unruh who often fought with D Governor Pat Brown
None of that was my point.
Probably none of what you said was my point.
Mister D
06-25-2015, 12:08 PM
My point has to do with what Albert Jay Nock is talking about as the remnant in Isaiah's Job (http://www.bigeye.com/isaiahs_job.htm).
(@Mister D (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=4), you might appreciate that piece.)
Reading it now.
"tyranny of windiness" Love that
Whatever makes you sleep at night.
This is not about me.
I believe we are asked to discuss topics and not members.
I'm still trying to figure out how anyone can say that American troops can 'invade' an American fort (Sumter). When you have to start with such basic facts, its hopeless.
Sumter was not invaded. Major Anderson it's commander elected to bail out.
Chris
06-25-2015, 12:12 PM
Let's establish some facts.
1. 12 presidents owned slaves. To do so, means slavery was legal. It then was the law of the land.
2. The South had not invaded the North. Sumter is no issue given there were no injuries. The fact is, Major Anderson had been told to remove all troops. He refused. He was further told to stay would mean he would be removed by force. But Abe invaded VA. Proof stands today. At Manassas the park service has the battleground preserved.
3. The issue of the legality of slavery need not be defended due to it's provisions in the then standing constitution.
We talk as if then is now. We act at times like our present laws were then on the books. That is wrong headed thinking by those believing in that.
Democrats were enraged at the Civil rights law. They did all they could to prevent it. Sure, some Democrats wanted it to pass. But like today's Democrats stood up to the fast track treaty for Obama, it can't be claimed later that they were all for it. They are not.
The next claim Democrats make is that the pro civil rights republicans that fought Democrats hard, tried to block the bill. Democrats tried to block it. A few republicans believed each state has constitutional rights. But they were for the civil rights law. They wanted it decided at the state level is all. One famous republican instituted the civil rights laws into his states laws. Later Democrats pretended he was against civili rights. California passed our civil rights laws by 1959
An interesting point is that D Governor Pat Brown was in office in 1959, yet Wikipedia gives him much credit, he is not credited for the CA civil rights law. I wonder why not?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Brown#Legacy
Read about Jesse Unruh who often fought with D Governor Pat Brown
We're talking about wholly different things, Bob.
Chris
06-25-2015, 12:13 PM
Probably none of what you said was my point.
I didn't reply to you, you replied to me.
Good God, what am I doing going down this rabbithole! :angry:
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Chris http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1150422#post1150422)
Agree, it took time. And, yes, it wasn't just about race, the ideas behind states right were more important, I think.
At the time of the Civil war, 12 presidents had been legal slave owners. This is not a pipedream, it is just history.
Given presidents owned slaves, it would be very difficult for Abe the Outlaw to make his case that Slavery was not then legal.
Surely you don't invade the State of VA over some post in the harbor in some other state being shelled? Abe was aware there were no casualties in the fort due to the cannon fire.
Those using the Ft. Sumter argument do not start out telling you that the South gunners inflicted zero injuries.
I urge this point be considered since the shelling of property should never start wars.
Chris makes the point about states rights.
I too did. By discussing the presidents that lawfully owned slaves. They realized it was not banned in Federal law and owned slaves legally in their states.
Actually, come to think of it, since slavery was legal in the Federal constitution, the states in the South were not in violation of any law at all.
Witness the 12 presidents of these USA that owned slaves. I can't see them being in violation of laws.
I didn't reply to you, you replied to me.
Good God, what am I doing going down this rabbithole! :angry:
You and I agreed so I can't explain why you said none of my comment was about your comment. We both talked of states rights though I did add more detailed information.
We're talking about wholly different things, Bob.
In my world Chris, one can add more information to a developing discussion.
Chris
06-25-2015, 12:28 PM
In my world Chris, one can add more information to a developing discussion.
A reply ought to be relevant to what was posted. That's the expectation. I suggest adding whatever you want to talk about without reply. Then i can ignore it.
A reply ought to be relevant to what was posted. That's the expectation. I suggest adding whatever you want to talk about without reply. Then i can ignore it.
You and I both discussed states rights. I don't understand the problem.
I gave examples of you being correct.
Mister D
06-25-2015, 12:39 PM
My point has to do with what Albert Jay Nock is talking about as the remnant in Isaiah's Job (http://www.bigeye.com/isaiahs_job.htm).
(@Mister D (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=4), you might appreciate that piece.)
That was quite enjoyable.
Mister D
06-25-2015, 12:42 PM
@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) I had characterized the Civil War as the victory of quantity over quality (I believe that's from one of Francis Parker Yockey's books) so I believe we are thinking along the same lines.
@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) I had characterized the Civil War as the victory of quantity over quality (I believe that's from one of Francis Parker Yockey's books) so I believe we are thinking along the same lines.
What was quality of the equipment in the South?
For instance take cannons.
The south had smooth bore cannon. The north brought in cannon with rifling. Same with the troops hand weapons and rifles.
Factories of the north (to greatly simplify) along with production of food by the North, along with more men to throw into the gauntlet won for them, not to exclude other vital reasons won. For instance Sherman's march was one of enormous destruction to cities. When Lee invaded PA and fought at Gettysburg,. his intent was not to demolish Gettysburg or the nearby city of Harrisburg.
Richmond was a mess when Grant finished with it.
Chris
06-25-2015, 12:49 PM
@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) I had characterized the Civil War as the victory of quantity over quality (I believe that's from one of Francis Parker Yockey's books) so I believe we are thinking along the same lines.
In more ways than one, it was such a victory. More soldiers, more ordinance, more factories, etc. You read Lee, Stonewall, Longstreet, they stood for something, defended something, home, family, honor, chivalry, things--qualities of the past that were dying. The last remnant.
In more ways than one, it was such a victory. More soldiers, more ordinance, more factories, etc. You read Lee, Stonewall, Longstreet, they stood for something, defended something, home, family, honor, chivalry, things--qualities of the past that were dying. The last remnant.
I would also imagine that Lee and his generals pointed out that 12 presidents owned slaves. By this, they knew they were on the correct side. I am speaking of the then law of the USA. If Abe fought over slavery, he fought against the law of the USA.
The victory as you say can't be doubted.
Mister D
06-25-2015, 12:53 PM
In more ways than one, it was such a victory. More soldiers, more ordinance, more factories, etc. You read Lee, Stonewall, Longstreet, they stood for something, defended something, home, family, honor, chivalry, things--qualities of the past that were dying. The last remnant.
Exactly.
Chloe
06-25-2015, 12:54 PM
@Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565)
Again, they did not WANT, they had the rights.
Abe rejected what 12 presidents approved and decided he was the ruler.
They wanted to keep that disgusting right and they were willing to secede and fight a war to keep it. Also are you saying that slavery should have continued because of past presidents or are you applauding Lincoln for rejecting the disgusting practice of slavery?
Chris
06-25-2015, 12:56 PM
You and I both discussed states rights. I don't understand the problem.
I gave examples of you being correct.
Your view of states right and mine are different. Yours is purely political, mine is much more than that, it's part of a way of life, almost spiritual, and perhaps I use the wrong word, and is why I raised the idea of remnant as Nock wrote about.
Chris
06-25-2015, 12:57 PM
I would also imagine that Lee and his generals pointed out that 12 presidents owned slaves. By this, they knew they were on the correct side. I am speaking of the then law of the USA. If Abe fought over slavery, he fought against the law of the USA.
The victory as you say can't be doubted.
Again, I'm not interested in mere political conceptions of the South and slavery.
Safety
06-25-2015, 12:58 PM
@Safety
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1150223#post1150223)
You want to sound different
We agree here
Washington owned slaves
Democrats refuse to speak ill of him
Abe the outlaw invaded VA Your opinion
No, the national park maintains the actual invasion site at Manassas. Visit and see where Abe invaded. His shock troops were defeated, sent reeling back to Maryland and DC.
Not in dispute Your opinion (See above)
Naturally the people of the south fought back Who fired on Ft. Sumpter? People living then in South Carolina. I remind you (leaving out legal issues) Major Anderson was asked nicely to bail out. Second, not one person inside the fort was injured by the South.
Self defense is no vice The North was following the South around like Zimmerman did, the South decided to confront the North like Martin, the North Zimmerman'd the South. As like every one of you conservatives like to say, Zimmerman did nothing wrong, so the North should be heralded as heroes like ya'll see Zimmerman
It is difficult to argue against what is false. I don't agree. The North invaded. I know you seem quite unaware that Abe the Outlaw massed troops, invaded VA, fought at Manassas and was sent packing. The people living in VA though attacked were heros. They defended their property from invaders. I wager the Zimmerman defense is unique to this forum.
Abe was killed ******Did you phone a friend for that information?
We agree then.
Somebody sure was mad as hell
Slaves in free states were not declared free
Abe forgot them He was assassinated by someone who hates that he put in motion the freeing of the slaves. You a Booth sympathizer?
You have long noted I never advocate murder. Please, stop being personal.
Abe says he freed slaves Link?
Let's start with you reading the emancipation proclamation. When you are done, you will no doubt add new information to what you know today. Why does your position change in every thread. In a previous thread you expound on the fact that Lincoln died before the slaves were free, now you say he freed them. Pick one position and stick with it.
In the south he means?
Since at the time the South was fighting, what gall
Today Democrats refuse to accept blame for the problems of blacks Link?
If you don't believe me, point me at something said by Democrats where they admit their complicity. They fought hard to prevent the civil rights act. I am sorry, but those in the South were voting Democrats.
They deny they do it
Smart blacks, like Thomas Sowell and Justice Thomas are republicans "Smart Blacks"...What if someone said the "Smart Whites" are liberals in the Democratic Party?
You surprise me that you do not acknowledge the smart black republicans. I did not ask a question, I stand admiring those I named as well as a lot more blacks, such as Ben Carson that are republicans. This is what I mean partly saying Democrats refuse to admit their faults. They will hate me for saying bad things about blacks yet they say bad things about blacks. I could remind posters of bad terms by democrats directed at black republicans.
For very good reasons
We are the party that helps blacks The party historically, absolutely. The current members..... :rofl:
Again, the laughter by you is what is wrong here. I should point to you plenty of articles by Thomas Sowell and other famous blacks stating just what I say.
Democrats lie when they say they help
That sort of sums up the gist of the story That was a nice piece of creative writing, you get a "C" for effort.
There are other posters on this left wing forum that agree with me. I won't name them but they have told you that you are wrong.
All facts ....escape Bob.
You can't escape my facts.
Take a bite of that and like it.
This should have been two separate posts.
I wrestled with the editing that changed his reply from red to black. I gave it my best shot but was not able to change colors. I could have tried to separate it but will be happy to respond to separated posts from now on.
The rest of this discombobulated mess, I am not going to attempt to decipher. I will just leave this simple test for you to try.
Take the posts from self identified conservatives here, and then take posts from the people you call liberal, or "left", or "democrat" and compare the context and descriptions whenever the topic of blacks or basically anyone non-white is discussed. Let's see how well you score, to even help you out, I won't count the little watermelon and cotton snips from yesterday.
Chloe
06-25-2015, 12:59 PM
If you mean it was all about slavery, explain the fact, and it still is in the constitution, owning slaves then was entirely legal. The South was guaranteed the right to own slaves.
Do you really think the dozen presidents that owned slaves were then lawbreakers?
Posters get so emotional over this issue. I just look at the law that then allowed slavery to exist.
As to the flag, vote. Don't have riots. Cajole the state congress provided you are a citizen of the state. We living in other states have no dog in this hunt.
We have the Grizzly Bear on our flag. I can just imagine gay pride going crazy telling us it is a super dangerous animal, no longer is in CA and demanding the state remove that bear as a hate symbol.
This is that crazy.
Slavery was tradition and the glue for the souths economy. Slavery being abolished would have altered their landscape. To say that the powers that be in the confederacy weren't fighting to keep slavery legal is naive. The sad part is that so many people viewed slavery as morally right when there were also so many people that clearly saw the evil of it.
They wanted to keep that disgusting right and they were willing to secede and fight a war to keep it. Also are you saying that slavery should have continued because of past presidents or are you applauding Lincoln for rejecting the disgusting practice of slavery?
You are only being emotional.
If you recall, it was after the civil war that the constitution changed.
But prior to the change, yes, slavery was entirely legal. Even George Washington legally owned slaves.
They indeed were willing to secede. We know they did so and stated they wanted to keep their rights.
The same right Jefferson then had, and other presidents that owned slaves. It can be called a sorry perior of the usa , but then and there it was legal.
I assure you the South preference was not for Abe to invade VA. Have you yet visited Manassas the site of his illegal invasion of the state of VA? Chloe
I am not arguing to say slavery should have always been legal. To me it was a sorry period. But I argue what really was and try to say why it took place.
Chloe
06-25-2015, 01:02 PM
You are only being emotional.
If you recall, it was after the civil war that the constitution changed.
But prior to the change, yes, slavery was entirely legal. Even George Washington legally owned slaves.
They indeed were willing to secede. We know they did so and stated they wanted to keep their rights.
The same right Jefferson then had, and other presidents that owned slaves. It can be called a sorry perior of the usa , but then and there it was legal.
I assure you the South preference was not for Abe to invade VA. Have you yet visited Manassas the site of his illegal invasion of the state of VA? @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565)
I am not arguing to say slavery should have always been legal. To me it was a sorry period. But I argue what really was and try to say why it took place.
The American army being sent to an American state to put down an armed rebellion is not an invasion.
Chloe
06-25-2015, 01:03 PM
Also I'm not being emotional at all
Ethereal
06-25-2015, 01:07 PM
The American army being sent to an American state to put down an armed rebellion is not an invasion.
Just like British armies being sent to British colonies to put down an armed rebellion is not an invasion.
Slavery was tradition and the glue for the souths economy. Slavery being abolished would have altered their landscape. To say that the powers that be in the confederacy weren't fighting to keep slavery legal is naive. The sad part is that so many people viewed slavery as morally right when there were also so many people that clearly saw the evil of it.
I agree with every word you say but the term naive.
It was then the right to own slaves. The constitution then had not been changed. This came post war. Even so, it is difficult to change laws where the changes were not in the constitution of the South. Don't forget they too had a constitution.
Slavery being abolished by war is an abomination. Too many people pass off as nothing the deaths of over 630,000 human beings. We say it is states rights because it was entirely legal. This does not mean I personally approved of slavery. I don't. But Abe the outlaw should have worked to change the constitution and not invaded VA. And he could have done what mostly happens, sit with the South leaders to persuade them.
In history courses, do you believe the teachers explain the legal nature of 12 presidents that owned slaves?
Why dismiss those presidents so casually?
Chris
06-25-2015, 01:10 PM
They wanted to keep that disgusting right and they were willing to secede and fight a war to keep it. Also are you saying that slavery should have continued because of past presidents or are you applauding Lincoln for rejecting the disgusting practice of slavery?
Slavery was tradition and the glue for the souths economy. Slavery being abolished would have altered their landscape. To say that the powers that be in the confederacy weren't fighting to keep slavery legal is naive. The sad part is that so many people viewed slavery as morally right when there were also so many people that clearly saw the evil of it.
No, slavery was never a right, it could never be justified as such, it is absolutely morally wrong. It is regrettable that it was still part of the South and prejudice such a prevalent part of the US back then.
It cannot be dismissed or forgotten, but, on my part, I'm just saying it was not what defined the South, and really wasn't what many Southerners fought for, that was something else.
Chloe
06-25-2015, 01:10 PM
Just like British armies being sent to British colonies to put down an armed rebellion is not an invasion.
It wasn't an invasion but the rebellion was successful and formed a new country. If the south would have won then in their history books they could have called it an invasion all they want but it wouldn't be factually accurate in my opinion. It would have been a successful rebellion from a mother country. An invasion would be us invading Iraq.
Chloe
06-25-2015, 01:14 PM
No, slavery was never a right, it could never be justified as such, it is absolutely morally wrong. It is regrettable that it was still part of the South and prejudice such a prevalent part of the US back then.
It cannot be dismissed or forgotten, but, on my part, I'm just saying it was not what defined the South, and really wasn't what many Southerners fought for, that was something else.
Fighting for your land or your family is one thing but fighting for your states ability to enslave, among other things, is still wrong even if at the time you didn't accept it as wrong. To say that slavery was a minor issue for the civil war is just wrong in my opinion. States rights is one thing but one of those big rights they were fighting for was the workers (I.e. Slaves) that powered the engine of their economy.
Mister D
06-25-2015, 01:14 PM
Slavery was tradition and the glue for the souths economy. Slavery being abolished would have altered their landscape. To say that the powers that be in the confederacy weren't fighting to keep slavery legal is naive. The sad part is that so many people viewed slavery as morally right when there were also so many people that clearly saw the evil of it.
It's equally naive to to believe that most Federal troops were fighting to free black people. Indeed, the majority had an equally racist view of blacks regardless of how they felt about slavery. The truth is that most men volunteered out of a sense of duty and of patriotism. They fought to preserve the union. Similarly, most southern whites fought for reasons that were not identical with the ultimate political and economic causes of the conflict.
Ethereal
06-25-2015, 01:14 PM
It wasn't an invasion...
Then what was it?
...but the rebellion was successful and formed a new country.
Why should that matter?
If the south would have won then in their history books they could have called it an invasion all they want but it wouldn't be factually accurate in my opinion. It would have been a successful rebellion from a mother country. An invasion would be us invading Iraq.
What is a "mother country" and how does it come into existence?
Mister D
06-25-2015, 01:15 PM
Fighting for your land or your family is one thing but fighting for your states ability to enslave, among other things, is still wrong even if at the time you didn't accept it as wrong. To say that slavery was a minor issue for the civil war is just wrong in my opinion. States rights is one thing but one of those big rights they were fighting for was the workers (I.e. Slaves) that powered the engine of their economy.
It was in fact a minor factor in why men risked their lives in combat.
The American army being sent to an American state to put down an armed rebellion is not an invasion.
Let say for the fun of it, Abe sent troops into Massachusetts or Vermont. Neither of those two states filed legal papers upon a public vote to leave the union. He could send troops there legally.
Today, this can't happen. Troops of the Feds can only be put on federal reservations ... often known as forts.
Obama is not allowed to send in federal troops as policemen. That was not law when Abe was around but today it is the law.
In the case of the South, they filed legal documents. Why legal? They were debated by the states and voted on ahead of time. If you recall, some states also voted to not leave. They did not want the same constitution of the South states who had a new constitution.
Too often we forget that when one can't tolerate the government, one has the right to vote to leave that government.
With Kansas, Abe put troops there and he was very legally doing so.
You have some absolute rights. The right to not be party to doing illegal acts is no vice. Abe was illegal in his invasion of VA. Same as if he had invaded Canada.
Ethereal
06-25-2015, 01:16 PM
Fighting for your land or your family is one thing...
That's exactly what the southern soldiery was fighting for.
...but fighting for your states ability to enslave, among other things, is still wrong even if at the time you didn't accept it as wrong. To say that slavery was a minor issue for the civil war is just wrong in my opinion. States rights is one thing but one of those big rights they were fighting for was the workers (I.e. Slaves) that powered the engine of their economy.
Most of the southern soldiers did not even own slaves, so why would they fight and die to protect slavery?
Chloe
06-25-2015, 01:18 PM
Then what was it?
Why should that matter?
What is a "mother country" and how does it come into existence?
The British were fighting to maintain is colonies, the colonies belonged to England. It was a rebellion by a large number of citizens which ultimately led to a new country. If you left your country to start a new colony in its name then you are expanding the reach of the country you left. Short of rebellion that colony is the child of the country you left. It's just a descriptive word.
Safety
06-25-2015, 01:18 PM
No, slavery was never a right, it could never be justified as such, it is absolutely morally wrong. It is regrettable that it was still part of the South and prejudice such a prevalent part of the US back then.
It cannot be dismissed or forgotten, but, on my part, I'm just saying it was not what defined the South, and really wasn't what many Southerners fought for, that was something else.
Yea, it was more based upon this....
The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.”
and this...
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
That's what the new government (Confederate States) was founded upon. I know every time I post this, it gets ignored, but that's ok, I prefer for people to form their own opinion from historical data.
Private Pickle
Have noticed all the approval my arguments get on this forum by now?
Mister D
06-25-2015, 01:19 PM
I think this is a good opportunity to point out the difference between the causes of a conflict and what keeps men on the battlefield.
Ethereal
06-25-2015, 01:22 PM
The British were fighting to maintain is colonies, the colonies belonged to England.
Why did they belong to the English?
It was a rebellion by a large number of citizens which ultimately led to a new country. If you left your country to start a new colony in its name then you are expanding the reach of the country you left. Short of rebellion that colony is the child of the country you left. It's just a descriptive word.
What is a "country" and how does it come into existence?
Chloe
06-25-2015, 01:22 PM
That's exactly what the southern soldiery was fighting for.
Most of the southern soldiers did not even own slaves, so why would they fight and die to protect slavery?
Why secede then in the first place? Why allow your state leaders to secede and fight a war if not to protect a lifestyle that powered their economy? If you lived in a slave state and didn't have slaves and didn't agree with slavery why fight for those that fight to sustain it? If slavery was such a non issue why secede?
Private Pickle
06-25-2015, 01:22 PM
@Private Pickle (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=615)
Have noticed all the approval my arguments get on this forum by now?
No...
Chloe
06-25-2015, 01:24 PM
Why did they belong to the English?
What is a "country" and how does it come into existence?
This is crossing into like a philosophical debate. All I am saying is that American troops going into an American state is not an invasion. If that were the case then every military base in this country is an occupation of that region.
Ethereal
06-25-2015, 01:24 PM
Yea, it was more based upon this....
and this...
That's what the new government (Confederate States) was founded upon. I know every time I post this, it gets ignored, but that's ok, I prefer for people to form their own opinion from historical data.
I believe I addressed this previously.
The assumption seems to be that political statements are automatically reflective of the southern people generally, but I've seen little evidence to support that assumption.
In fact, the evidence would seem to suggest that southern soldiers were fighting to repel an alien power from invading their homeland, not to protect slavery, an institution which they did not generally participate in.
The British were fighting to maintain is colonies, the colonies belonged to England. It was a rebellion by a large number of citizens which ultimately led to a new country. If you left your country to start a new colony in its name then you are expanding the reach of the country you left. Short of rebellion that colony is the child of the country you left. It's just a descriptive word.
When I read posts such as the above, I understand more and more that teachers all over America are not teaching history, they teach opinion. They ignore law.
One poster claimed slavery was never legal.
Yes it certainly was legal. 12 Presidents owned slaves. To say they violated the law is naive.
We can study the amendment all day long and study it's date since it is what made slavery not legal.
Were it not legal, the amendment never needed to be put into law.
After that amendment, slavery was illegal. As it should always have been.
Chloe
And others
My arguments are never that slavery should have been legal. I studied the founding arguments and documents. They did not spend a day discussing slavery. They really did not want or intend to make slavery an issue other than for census provisions. Slaves were counted as the South wanted but only 3/5. Slaves could not vote yet they were used for political purposes.
PolWatch
06-25-2015, 01:26 PM
No...
I can't believe you are not tracking your approval rating! :rollseyes:
Safety
06-25-2015, 01:27 PM
I believe I addressed this previously.
The assumption seems to be that political statements are automatically reflective of the southern people generally, but I've seen little evidence to support that assumption.
In fact, the evidence would seem to suggest that southern soldiers were fighting to repel an alien power from invading their homeland, not to protect slavery, an institution which they did not generally participate in.
Sorry man, but I have to believe the sentiments are pretty much the driving force behind why we have the divisions in the country today. If the case was like you say, then there never would have been the continued subjugated treatment of blacks after the war. Actions speak more loudly than words.
Mister D
06-25-2015, 01:27 PM
I believe I addressed this previously.
The assumption seems to be that political statements are automatically reflective of the southern people generally, but I've seen little evidence to support that assumption.
In fact, the evidence would seem to suggest that southern soldiers were fighting to repel an alien power from invading their homeland, not to protect slavery, an institution which they did not generally participate in.
You don't see any because there isn't much available. Why soldiers risked death on the battlefield is a separate matter from the ultimate causes of the war.
I believe I addressed this previously.
The assumption seems to be that political statements are automatically reflective of the southern people generally, but I've seen little evidence to support that assumption.
In fact, the evidence would seem to suggest that southern soldiers were fighting to repel an alien power from invading their homeland, not to protect slavery, an institution which they did not generally participate in.
We agree entirely
See PP, I have supporters.
Mister D
06-25-2015, 01:28 PM
Sorry man, but I have to believe the sentiments are pretty much the driving force behind why we have the divisions in the country today. If the case was like you say, then there never would have been the continued subjugated treatment of blacks after the war. Actions speak more loudly than words.
Blacks faced barriers in Ohio as well as Alabama. In fact, at least some northern states forbid blacks from residing there.
PolWatch
06-25-2015, 01:28 PM
Why does any soldier go to war? What direct reason did anyone who served in Iraq or Afghanistan have? Did they own oil wells or poppy fields they wanted to protect?
Safety
06-25-2015, 01:29 PM
Blacks faced barriers in Ohio as well as Alabama. In fact, at least some northern states forbid blacks from residing there.
No doubt, I didn't say the south contained all the anti-black rhetoric. The north just did a better job at hiding it.
Safety
06-25-2015, 01:29 PM
Why does any soldier go to war? What direct reason did anyone who served in Iraq or Afghanistan have? Did they own oil wells or poppy fields they wanted to protect?
oooopp.
Chris
06-25-2015, 01:29 PM
Why secede then in the first place? Why allow your state leaders to secede and fight a war if not to protect a lifestyle that powered their economy? If you lived in a slave state and didn't have slaves and didn't agree with slavery why fight for those that fight to sustain it? If slavery was such a non issue why secede?
Because the "Northern" states were growing too powerful and legislating against the "Southern" states. It was all about slavery.
Private Pickle
06-25-2015, 01:31 PM
This is crossing into like a philosophical debate. All I am saying is that American troops going into an American state is not an invasion. If that were the case then every military base in this country is an occupation of that region.
That's kinda Ethereal's thing... He combats logic and facts with philosophical arguments.
Chris
06-25-2015, 01:31 PM
Fighting for your land or your family is one thing but fighting for your states ability to enslave, among other things, is still wrong even if at the time you didn't accept it as wrong. To say that slavery was a minor issue for the civil war is just wrong in my opinion. States rights is one thing but one of those big rights they were fighting for was the workers (I.e. Slaves) that powered the engine of their economy.
Yes, different, but I don't think too many Southerners fought for slavery, only about 5% (I read somewhere) owned slaves. The other 95% had other reasons.
Safety
06-25-2015, 01:31 PM
I believe I addressed this previously.
The assumption seems to be that political statements are automatically reflective of the southern people generally, but I've seen little evidence to support that assumption.
In fact, the evidence would seem to suggest that southern soldiers were fighting to repel an alien power from invading their homeland, not to protect slavery, an institution which they did not generally participate in.
See my point, Ethereal , this is an example of what I just posted.
We agree entirely
See PP, I have supporters.
You don't see any because there isn't much available. Why soldiers risked death on the battlefield is a separate matter from the ultimate causes of the war.
To me, it won't work by restricting posters to a narrow segment of the civil war and pretend the matter got discussed. Were I then a soldier, I would not defend slavery other than the right to own slaves was in the law of the land. A non slave owning soldier fought the invasion that Chloe et al. deny happened.
Private Pickle
06-25-2015, 01:31 PM
I can't believe you are not tracking your approval rating! :rollseyes:
Why do that? I would just be depressed all the time...
Mister D
06-25-2015, 01:32 PM
Why does any soldier go to war? What direct reason did anyone who served in Iraq or Afghanistan have? Did they own oil wells or poppy fields they wanted to protect?
If the US was invaded tomorrow would it really surprise you that men flock to the colors, so to speak, regardless of their agreement with state policy?
Yes, different, but I don't think too many Southerners fought for slavery, only about 5% (I read somewhere) owned slaves. The other 95% had other reasons.
The other reasons is they were invaded by Abe.
Private Pickle
06-25-2015, 01:33 PM
I believe I addressed this previously.
The assumption seems to be that political statements are automatically reflective of the southern people generally, but I've seen little evidence to support that assumption.
In fact, the evidence would seem to suggest that southern soldiers were fighting to repel an alien power from invading their homeland, not to protect slavery, an institution which they did not generally participate in.
I believe this to be true as well but Bob, something tells me Ethereal wouldn't describe himself as a supporter of mine...
Ethereal
06-25-2015, 01:33 PM
Why secede then in the first place?
Taxes, anti-federalism, self-government, etc.
Why allow your state leaders to secede and fight a war if not to protect a lifestyle that powered their economy? If you lived in a slave state and didn't have slaves and didn't agree with slavery why fight for those that fight to sustain it? If slavery was such a non issue why secede?
I didn't say slavery was a non-issue. Clearly it was an important factor, but it was not the only factor.
And your questions assume that the average southerner was somehow involved in the decisions made by southern politicians, but why should that be the case?
Is the average American involved in the decisions made by American politicians? Not as far as I can tell.
But once secession became a reality, and the north made plain its intention to militarily engage the south, the people living in the south felt obligated to resist what they perceived as a hostile, alien power invading their homeland.
Mister D
06-25-2015, 01:33 PM
No doubt, I didn't say the south contained all the anti-black rhetoric. The north just did a better job at hiding it.
Actually, they didn't. It was in plain sight. It's just something we don't choose to remember.
Private Pickle
06-25-2015, 01:35 PM
If the US was invaded tomorrow would it really surprise you that men flock to the colors, so to speak, regardless of their agreement with state policy?
http://thepoliticalforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11893&stc=1
Ethereal
06-25-2015, 01:35 PM
This is crossing into like a philosophical debate.
What do you mean by that?
All I am saying is that American troops going into an American state is not an invasion. If that were the case then every military base in this country is an occupation of that region.
What makes it an "American state" in the first place?
PolWatch
06-25-2015, 01:36 PM
Why do that? I would just be depressed all the time...
ahh...good point. I'd hate to think you stayed awake all night worrying about the approval of strangers.
No doubt, I didn't say the south contained all the anti-black rhetoric. The north just did a better job at hiding it.
We that studied this matter, are very well aware of the laws of the North to ban blacks from their states.
Why have you never brought this up in the past?
I suspect it might tip the scales were you to admit up front that north states had laws on the books to ban blacks.
Safety
06-25-2015, 01:37 PM
Actually, they didn't. It was in plain sight. It's just something we don't choose to remember.
Yea, I'm not seeing that, especially when it came to things like voting or treatment.
Actually, they didn't. It was in plain sight. It's just something we don't choose to remember.
We agree. Those agreeing with me are piling up fast.
Ethereal
06-25-2015, 01:40 PM
Sorry man, but I have to believe the sentiments are pretty much the driving force behind why we have the divisions in the country today. If the case was like you say, then there never would have been the continued subjugated treatment of blacks after the war. Actions speak more loudly than words.
There were more free blacks in the south than in the north in 1860, so it's not like the subjugation of blacks was a categorical imperative for the south.
Moreover, those sentiments were the sentiments of the southern political class, which is not necessarily reflective of the sentiments of the southern people generally. The former group was fighting what they perceived to be an economic and legal battle against northern industry and finance, whereas the latter group was motivated by a desire to repel a force which they perceived as a hostile, alien power that had historically exploited and oppressed them.
Mister D
06-25-2015, 01:40 PM
Yea, I'm not seeing that, especially when it came to things like voting or treatment.
Wait...policies forbidding black residence is good treatment? In a way, that might actually true in so far as segregation is beneficial but you probably wouldn't agree with that. Anyway, you aren't seeing it because you just aren't looking for it and we know damn well the popular history isn't likely to mention it.
Ethereal
06-25-2015, 01:42 PM
Why does any soldier go to war? What direct reason did anyone who served in Iraq or Afghanistan have? Did they own oil wells or poppy fields they wanted to protect?
They felt like they were protecting their country from a genuine threat, no different than the southern soldiery.
I believe this to be true as well but @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013), something tells me @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870) wouldn't describe himself as a supporter of mine...
I honestly can't find any of his points that I don't agree with. In fact I have personally made his same arguments.
The moment I and he do not agree, I will surely point it out to him.
Safety
06-25-2015, 01:43 PM
Wait...policies forbidding black residence is good treatment? In a way, that might actually true in so far as segregation is beneficial but you probably wouldn't agree with that. Anyway, you aren't seeing it because you just aren't looking for it and we know damn well the popular history isn't likely to mention it.
Yea, I'm pretty familiar with redlining, but you don't quite hear about the abundance of "sun-down" laws in the North like you did in the South. Let's also not forget about places like Mississippi or Alabama.
PolWatch
06-25-2015, 01:45 PM
They felt like they were protecting their country from a genuine threat, no different than the southern soldiery.
so ownership of slaves would have nothing to do with their service?
Ethereal
06-25-2015, 01:45 PM
No doubt, I didn't say the south contained all the anti-black rhetoric. The north just did a better job at hiding it.
The north didn't really hide it, though. Lincoln openly embraced white supremacy.
Private Pickle
06-25-2015, 01:46 PM
I honestly can't find any of his points that I don't agree with. In fact I have personally made his same arguments.
The moment I and he do not agree, I will surely point it out to him.
Bob... I know for a fact there are many things you and Ethereal disagree on... It really doesn't matter though... Go ahead and put yourself on whatever pedestal you see fit...
Ethereal
06-25-2015, 01:48 PM
so ownership of slaves would have nothing to do with their service?
Not for the most part.
Private Pickle
06-25-2015, 01:48 PM
The north didn't really hide it, though. Lincoln openly embraced white supremacy.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/abrahamlin101407.html?src=t_equality)
Abraham Lincoln (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/abraham_lincoln.html)
While I believe Lincoln was bigoted....no doubt about that...I don't think he believed in white supremacy. In addition he was a staunch anti-abolitionist.
Mister D
06-25-2015, 01:48 PM
so ownership of slaves would have nothing to do with their service?
It would have little to nothing to do with their motivation to enlist. You're conflating two things that may overlap but should sometimes remain distinct.
Safety
06-25-2015, 01:48 PM
There were more free blacks in the south than in the north in 1860, so it's not like the subjugation of blacks was a categorical imperative for the south.
Moreover, those sentiments were the sentiments of the southern political class, which is not necessarily reflective of the sentiments of the southern people generally. The former group was fighting what they perceived to be an economic and legal battle against northern industry and finance, whereas the latter group was motivated by a desire to repel a force which they perceived as a hostile, alien power that had historically exploited and oppressed them.
Yes, but that's due to the sheer number that was slaves that never made it to the North to be free. Why is it all the educated blacks were educated in the North? Why did the slaves who escaped, escape to the North if the South was just a big misunderstanding?
Mister D
06-25-2015, 01:48 PM
Not for the most part.
In terms of their motivation, I agree.
Safety
06-25-2015, 01:49 PM
The north didn't really hide it, though. Lincoln openly embraced white supremacy.
You lost me on that one. Links?
Mister D
06-25-2015, 01:51 PM
Yea, I'm pretty familiar with redlining, but you don't quite hear about the abundance of "sun-down" laws in the North like you did in the South. Let's also not forget about places like Mississippi or Alabama.
That's not red lining and that you don't hear about these things because 1) no one (save for our resident man of truth AKA Mister D) is telling you about them and 2) you aren't looking for them.
Your view of states right and mine are different. Yours is purely political, mine is much more than that, it's part of a way of life, almost spiritual, and perhaps I use the wrong word, and is why I raised the idea of remnant as Nock wrote about.
Let me ask this of you.
I believe states rights are to use the written constitution as law. States right also may be defined as some founders said, as the right to abandon the government they can't tolerate.
First and foremost. I too believe slavery was immoral. It happens it was then legal, and thank god it today is not legal.
But our presidents believed it was legal. Even Abe believed it was legal. If you recall he stated in his writings he never would fight over slavery. I believe he accepted precedent of the presidents that not only accepted slavery, but indeed practiced it.
If I am to be hated for telling the truth, why not hate 12 presidents?
PS Chris, ask me my views. I would appreciate me not being told my views but ask me.
Maybe I am not such a clever writer to get all posters to understand me. Maybe some of this is their fault.
Mister D
06-25-2015, 01:51 PM
You lost me on that one. Links?
It's common knowledge. "Search racism Abe Lincoln".
Safety
06-25-2015, 01:53 PM
That's not red lining and that you don't hear about these things because 1) no one (save for our resident man of truth AKA Mister D) is telling you about them and 2) you aren't looking for them.
Yea, it's like when I research things like black congressmen and every one of them were educated in the North, kinda explains where you would rather be if you were black during that time.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.