The Confederate Flag [Archive] - Page 3 - Debate Policy

5stringJeff

11-05-2008, 08:53 PM

Sorry for bumping a kind of old topic, but I can find this interesting sometimes and maybe some discussion of it can be revived.

I think that in general the Confederate flag should be considered a racist symbol. I think this is connected to the way that the US Civil War was about slavery. It wasn't about slavery in that the North went to war with the South with the noble goal of ending slavery, the simply though that the South was not justified in unilaterally. Though it is obvious that there were some more abolitionist attitudes in the North. The factor of slavery was brought in by the South because it was a major motivation for them leaving, they feared that control by the Republicans, most of who held some degree of anti-slavery sentiment, that their institution was threatened. There was also anger over lax enforcement of the fugitive slave law that contributed to their descision to leave the country.

So I think that it would be correct to take a flag that represents a government that had as one it's primary goals the preservation of racially based slavery as racist.

On a side note I always find it odd when the war is called the war of Northern Aggression since it seems to me that the South were the first aggressors.

Welcome, YamiB.

First, you should realize that any racist connotations the Confederate flag may have today is due to the post-war use of the flag by the KKK and other racist groups. The original symbolism of the flag was to represent the Confederate States of America.

Second, you say that the South was "not justified in unilaterally." I think you left out a word, which seems from the context to be "seceding." You are mistaken. All of the states were - and are currently - absolutely justified in seceding. It is the right and duty of citizens to throw off a government they believe to be unjust. For proof, go read the Declaration of Independence. If you don't believe that Southern states had the right to secede, then you must also say that the Colonies had no right to secede from Great Britain.

Third, you do realize that some slave states did not secede, correct?

Fourth, we call it the War of Northern Aggression because the North invaded the South, not the other way around. We (the South) just wanted to be left alone. Lincoln invaded, because he wanted the tariff money that came from Southern ports to subsidize Northern industry.

YamiB.

11-06-2008, 12:42 PM

Welcome, YamiB.
Thanks for the welcome.

First, you should realize that any racist connotations the Confederate flag may have today is due to the post-war use of the flag by the KKK and other racist groups. The original symbolism of the flag was to represent the Confederate States of America.

Ignoring the use by the KKK, which could conceivably add to the racist history of the flag and have a place of consideration in determining if it is a racist symbol. The Confederate States of America were founded with a primary motivation of preserving racially based slavery, I would say that makes symbols representing them racist.

Second, you say that the South was "not justified in unilaterally." I think you left out a word, which seems from the context to be "seceding." You are mistaken. All of the states were - and are currently - absolutely justified in seceding. It is the right and duty of citizens to throw off a government they believe to be unjust. For proof, go read the Declaration of Independence. If you don't believe that Southern states had the right to secede, then you must also say that the Colonies had no right to secede from Great Britain.
You are right in that I left out a word. I wasn't putting forward this position, it is an entirely different debate. I was simply saying that those who said the primary reason the North was going to war was not to end slavery were correct and that their reasoning was that they thought the South was unjustified in seceding unilaterally. I made no judgment on if that position is correct or not.

Third, you do realize that some slave states did not secede, correct?
Yes, you do realize that a primary reason given by some states seceding was the preservation of slavery and the lax enforcement of the fugitive slave law?

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/missec.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/geosec.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/texsec.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm

Fourth, we call it the War of Northern Aggression because the North invaded the South, not the other way around. We (the South) just wanted to be left alone. Lincoln invaded, because he wanted the tariff money that came from Southern ports to subsidize Northern industry.

When did the North invade the South?

emmett

11-06-2008, 01:27 PM

Enslaving any human being is wrong! Lots of states did that, not just southern states. Abe made slavery an issue after unsuccessfully orchestrating a war against the south for the first three years.

The war started at Fort Sumter, SC. Just for the record! It was intensified when Union soldiers invaded Virginia and had their royal ass kicked and ran back to Washington by The First Virginia under the command of Gen Robert Lee, headed by Thomas Jackson.

The flag in question was the Confederates battle flag. It means nothing to a wise thinker today. Groups such as were mentioned by Jeff, the KKK and others did manage to help bring back this image of racism as associated with the flag. Georgia altered their state flag in the 50's to incorporate it in to their design to bring emphasis to segregation. (This was done by the democrats...by the way)

Lester Maddox headed this effort as he was a racist of the worst origins.....AND a democrat. He later became the Governor. Personally I can't see how blacks became Democrats myself. Then again, I guess that stimulates my thinking that if blacks would latch on to a party who clearly denied them their just due as Americans I can convert freedom loving people into Libertarians.

emmett

11-06-2008, 01:29 PM

Thanks for the welcome.

Ignoring the use by the KKK, which could conceivably add to the racist history of the flag and have a place of consideration in determining if it is a racist symbol. The Confederate States of America were founded with a primary motivation of preserving racially based slavery, I would say that makes symbols representing them racist.

You are right in that I left out a word. I wasn't putting forward this position, it is an entirely different debate. I was simply saying that those who said the primary reason the North was going to war was not to end slavery were correct and that their reasoning was that they thought the South was unjustified in seceding unilaterally. I made no judgment on if that position is correct or not.

Yes, you do realize that a primary reason given by some states seceding was the preservation of slavery and the lax enforcement of the fugitive slave law?

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/missec.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/geosec.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/texsec.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm

When did the North invade the South?

They went into Virginia to do battle and with that clear intention.....that is an invasion!

YamiB.

11-06-2008, 01:33 PM

Enslaving any human being is wrong! Lots of states did that, not just southern states. Abe made slavery an issue after unsuccessfully orchestrating a war against the south for the first three years.
As I've said before I don't argue that slavery was an issue because of the North desiring to get rid of it, that was a minority. I say that it was factor when considering the Confederacy because it factors into their reasons for forming the Confederacy in the first place.

The war started at Fort Sumter, SC. Just for the record! It was intensified when Union soldiers invaded Virginia and had their royal ass kicked and ran back to Washington by The First Virginia under the command of Gen Robert Lee, headed by Thomas Jackson.

I was aware that the war started at Fort Sumter. I'm just confounded by those who consider this a war of 'Northern Aggression' twist the attacking of a Union fort by Confederate forces to be Northern Aggression.

Lester Maddox headed this effort as he was a racist of the worst origins.....AND a democrat. He later became the Governor. Personally I can't see how blacks became Democrats myself. Then again, I guess that stimulates my thinking that if blacks would latch on to a party who clearly denied them their just due as Americans I can convert freedom loving people into Libertarians.

I believe that it was because the Republican party took their support for granted and continued to give them a massive lack of support. This coupled with efforts by northern Democrats to bring blacks into the party caused the shift. The racists lost out in the ensuing struggle and we get to the current situation of the Democrats getting more support from black voters.

YamiB.

11-06-2008, 01:35 PM

They went into Virginia to do battle and with that clear intention.....that is an invasion!

And might be considered an act of aggression if the Confederacy had not previously attacked the Union. The Union can hardly be called aggressive for conducting a war that the Confederacy started.

emmett

11-06-2008, 02:21 PM

Much in the same way that the US is a part of the world but chooses not to allow Europe to dictate our agenda, any state should be allowed to succeed if they are in majority belief it is the right thing to do.

What I'm saying is that we really aren't united if we are forced to subscribe to the agenda of Nationalists if we don't want to.

Fort Sumter was in SOUTH CAROLINA!

And for the record.....I was born in Arizona and my family is from New York! I couldn't care less about that stupid battle flag the Confederacy forced some poor slob to carry at the front of the pack and be shot down with because he couldn't handle a rifle also.

The South was supporting the nation economically and Abe couldn't bridge the gaps economically that woulod bring about continuity. Southerners did have slaves but so did northerners! The big lie was that the north liberated slaves. The circumstances liberated them, Abe had no chance but to go along with the flow!

Republicans did procrastenate the issue....you are right! In the fifties noone wanted to take the lead. Republicans did three times as much however as democrats to bring about the changes the Civil Rights era saw truely enhance the lives of average black people.

Blacks have been used like a tool for democrats since the sixties! If they prospered too much they would become Conservatives because like anyone else they would not want their earnings taken to feed lazy worthless individuals. Democrats depend on keeping blacks down so as to tell them next time that they care about them and hold their issues to heart. It is the biggest lie in the history of earth.

Here is one for you. Have you ever met a lazy Republican Black person? Of course not! Every Black Republican is a hard working acheiver of their aspirations direction. They have worked harder, persevered and overcame! They are proud, want no handouts and frankly are of the finest quality people the country has to offer. I can't think of another segment of society that I admire more personally. Black Republicans have the lowest divorce rate in the nation other than people from India, who have none basically.

Babble babble babble..........

Hobbit

11-06-2008, 02:35 PM

YamiB.

11-06-2008, 03:36 PM

If the purpose of the Confederacy was to preserve slavery, then why was the first act of the Confederate government to outlaw the buying and selling of slaves?

Slavery wasn't much of an issue until the staunchly abolitionist Great Britain began eying the bottom line on their cotton textile mills and considered that maybe helping this fledgling nation would be a great boon to the British economy. By transferring focus of the issues to slavery, Lincoln (brilliantly, mind you) took British public support away from the war, and thus also ensured that France would never enter.

4. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html

The only thing I can find about not buying and selling slaves is prohibitions against bringing in slaves from foreign countries. Such an act would not necessarily be an act against slavery as an institution rather it could be a step against slave insurrection since fresh African slaves were more likely to be problems in this area.

If slavery was not a motivating factor in seceding and forming the Confederacy why is it mentioned as such in the articles of secession that I posted earlier in this thread?

Much in the same way that the US is a part of the world but chooses not to allow Europe to dictate our agenda, any state should be allowed to succeed if they are in majority belief it is the right thing to do.

Again I have not given any opinion for or against this issue. I have only mentioned it as the reason that the North was against the Confederacy.

Fort Sumter was in SOUTH CAROLINA!

Point being?

The South was supporting the nation economically and Abe couldn't bridge the gaps economically that woulod bring about continuity. Southerners did have slaves but so did northerners! The big lie was that the north liberated slaves. The circumstances liberated them, Abe had no chance but to go along with the flow!

As I have said multiple times in this thread I do not go with the myth that the reason for the North going to war was because they wanted to free the slaves. Slavery first came into the equation because it was a motivation for the seceding states to leave in the first place.

Republicans did procrastenate the issue....you are right! In the fifties noone wanted to take the lead. Republicans did three times as much however as democrats to bring about the changes the Civil Rights era saw truely enhance the lives of average black people.

I think it would be right to say that both of the parties failed the black population for a long time, I would have a hard time saying for sure which is more guilty than the other.

Here is one for you. Have you ever met a lazy Republican Black person? Of course not! Every Black Republican is a hard working acheiver of their aspirations direction. They have worked harder, persevered and overcame! They are proud, want no handouts and frankly are of the finest quality people the country has to offer. I can't think of another segment of society that I admire more personally. Black Republicans have the lowest divorce rate in the nation other than people from India, who have none basically.
So you're saying that black Democrats are lazy?

5stringJeff

11-08-2008, 05:33 PM

As I have said multiple times in this thread I do not go with the myth that the reason for the North going to war was because they wanted to free the slaves. Slavery first came into the equation because it was a motivation for the seceding states to leave in the first place.

Since this seems to be your point, I'll attempt to address it. Slavery was, indeed, one of the main reasons cited in many state's declarations of secession. However, the context of the abolition of slavery is important. In the decades preceding the War for Southern Independence, northern states outlawed slavery, allowing their citizens to sell their slaves to citizens of states where slavery was still allowed. So, when Lincoln was elected, with strong support from abolitionists, the fear was that slavery would be abolished in the rest of the states without the ability of slaveholding citizens to be repaid, in violation of the 5th Amendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." While slavery may have been the vehicle through which the issue came to a head, Southern States were most concerned about getting screwed over by the North, in violation of the Constitution.

Psychoblues

12-03-2008, 02:50 AM

Des

12-05-2008, 10:54 AM

We can argue endlessly about the reasons or not of the Civil War. The OP questions the current public display of the Confederate flag. I continue to believe it to be a stupid act of intentional race baiting and glorifying a lost cause in a lost war by losers that are still sore about it.

Psychoblues

I grew up in the north, and anyone with a confederate flag was a racist. That's how it was meant to be displayed. Now that I live in the south, I know that's not always true. Because of my childhood, I personally don't like seeing it and I am wary of those who display it. Because of my experience in the past few years where I live today, I question my childhood experience. The north and south really are two different places with two different mentalities in this country.

5stringJeff

12-06-2008, 10:19 AM

Psychoblues

12-09-2008, 04:53 AM

dupe,,,,,,,forgetaboutit

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

Psychoblues

12-09-2008, 04:53 AM

Fine with me, too, 5 stringer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What Southern determination?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!

Fine. I believe it to be the symbol of Southern self-determination, and have no issues about anyone flying it.

Fly it if you got it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

DannyR

01-15-2009, 11:13 PM

Abbey Marie

01-16-2009, 09:45 AM

...
Coming to this discussion late, but I'd have to concur. There is not much one can argue against the fact that the Georgia flag, bearing the Confederate Battle emblem, was not the original flag of Georgia, and was only made the state symbol shortly after Brown vs Board of Education. The tensions were high, and the flag was changed to the new emblem the same year that Ga. Sen. Russell wrote Southern Manifesto, which attacked the Supreme Court ruling on Brown v. Board of Education...

Interesting logic and presumption here. If my great uncle was born the same year Hitler was defeated, does that make him a Nazi?

Do you have proof that the two things are connected?

5stringJeff

01-17-2009, 09:41 AM

I continue to believe it to be a stupid act of intentional race baiting and glorifying a lost cause in a lost war by losers that are still sore about it.

Coming to this discussion late, but I'd have to concur. There is not much one can argue against the fact that the Georgia flag, bearing the Confederate Battle emblem, was not the original flag of Georgia, and was only made the state symbol shortly after Brown vs Board of Education. The tensions were high, and the flag was changed to the new emblem the same year that Ga. Sen. Russell wrote Southern Manifesto, which attacked the Supreme Court ruling on Brown v. Board of Education

The flag in Mississippi one can argue is a symbol of southern pride. Its been there much longer, but the old flag of Georgia and the raising of the flag on the Capitol in SC were done as protests against black uppitiness.

Frankly, I love the symbolism in the new Georgia flag. The blue union has thirteen stars, symbolizing the thirteen colonies of which GA was a part. The state seal is in the middle of the 13 stars, symbolizing the state itself. But the flag itself is modeled off the Confederate national flag (the Stars and Bars), symbolizing Georgia's time in the Confederacy. As a flag, it captures the history and heritage of the state wonderfully.

Now, that doesn't stop me from wanting to fly the Confederate flag next to it, but as state flags go, it's a great flag.

Hobbit

01-17-2009, 12:19 PM

Immanuel

01-17-2009, 06:56 PM

Personally, I like the Confederate Flag and I am proud of my Southern Heritage. However, I do realize that in today's world the flag is seen as a symbol of racism and hatred. Therefore, I choose not to display it out of respect for my brothers and sisters in America who see it as an oppressive memory of the past.

A lot of good men from both the North and the South lost their lives in a fight for what they believed in. Slavery only played a small part of those beliefs. The North wasn't fighting for the cause of eliminating slavery. The majority of people in the North hated blacks as much as the people in the South. The battle was over State's rights. President Lincoln did a great thing by freeing the slaves, but it wasn't all out of the goodness of his heart. He did it to get them to fight for his cause.

Immie

5stringJeff

01-17-2009, 10:07 PM

President Lincoln did a great thing by freeing the slaves, but it wasn't all out of the goodness of his heart. He did it to get them to fight for his cause.

Immie

Don't believe the hype, Immie. Lincoln didn't free the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation "freed" the slaves only in those areas not under Federal control on January 1, 1863. In other words, he proclaimed the slaves free in areas where he could not enforce his edict. Meanwhile, he freed no slaves in any Union-controlled areas, throughout the war!

Lincoln did not free a single slave.

Immanuel

01-18-2009, 12:58 PM

Don't believe the hype, Immie. Lincoln didn't free the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation "freed" the slaves only in those areas not under Federal control on January 1, 1863. In other words, he proclaimed the slaves free in areas where he could not enforce his edict. Meanwhile, he freed no slaves in any Union-controlled areas, throughout the war!

Lincoln did not free a single slave.

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to get at, but technically you are correct. He only proclaimed that the slaves in the states that refused to capitulate were free. In other words, he only freed slaves in the states that left the union... which, theoretically, he had no ability to free them.

Immie

Roomy

01-18-2009, 01:20 PM

5stringJeff

01-18-2009, 02:38 PM

Come on Johnny Reb.

I love those movies where Americans are killing each other over the right to own slaves.

I always end up cheering the rebs on, I especially like 'Shenandoah' James Stewart was fantastic in that.

The War wasn't fought over slavery. It was fought over the right to secede. The Confederate states believed (as the Founders did) that states remained supreme under the Constitution, and could secede from the Union if it no longer served the purpose of securing liberty. Lincoln believed the federal government to be a national government that held the states in perpetual union, and so he fought to keep the 11 seceding states under the Constitution.

Roomy

01-18-2009, 02:48 PM

Abbey Marie

01-18-2009, 08:44 PM

The War wasn't fought over slavery. It was fought over the right to secede. The Confederate states believed (as the Founders did) that states remained supreme under the Constitution, and could secede from the Union if it no longer served the purpose of securing liberty. Lincoln believed the federal government to be a national government that held the states in perpetual union, and so he fought to keep the 11 seceding states under the Constitution.

But didn't the southern states want to secede because the north under Lincoln was seen as threatening to force abolition? If so, you can see secession as the proximate cause, and the desire to continue to keep slaves, as the underlying or root cause.

Selections from "South Carolina's Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union":

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/secession_causes.htm

Hobbit

01-19-2009, 01:36 AM

5stringJeff

01-19-2009, 09:51 AM

But didn't the southern states want to secede because the north under Lincoln was seen as threatening to force abolition? If so, you can see secession as the proximate cause, and the desire to continue to keep slaves, as the underlying or root cause.

Selections from "South Carolina's Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union":

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/secession_causes.htm

That was only part of the concern. With the more populous northern states in control of the house, the southern states were getting trampled on. Aside from just slavery, the north was imposing its will on the south, and the south was sick of it.

Abbey, Hobbit's response is right on. At the time, slaves were (wrongly, of course) seen as property. The growing abolitionist movement threatened the property rights of slaveholders, because they advocated liberty to the slaves without economic recompense to slaveholders. This was much different from the way the Northern states got rid of slavery - they allowed their slaveowners to sell their slaves off to citizens of other states. So it wasn't so much that the South wanted to keep slavery in perpetuity (many Southerners believed slavery could only last another generation or so anyway), it's that the abolitionists wanted to deny the federally recognized property rights of current slaveowners.

The bigger issue, though, was the balance of power between North and South on many issues: industrialization, tariffs, state's rights, etc. Slavery was the most prominent of these issues, but was certainly not the only one.

DannyR

01-20-2009, 01:53 PM

Interesting logic and presumption here. If my great uncle was born the same year Hitler was defeated, does that make him a Nazi?

I'd have to say my own logic is a lot clearer than your poor example. When much of the legislative action that year was in how to get around Brown vs Board of Education, you think it only a coincidence they changed the long standing flag of Georgia to the battle emblem all on their own?

How can anyone argue the change was a symbol of "southern pride" when the old Georgia flag had already reflected a version of the Confederate flag since 1879.

The legislative actions that year also pretty much make it a slam dunk on exactly why the flag was changed:

In 1956, Governor Marvin Griffin gave his state of the State address, declaring that "there will be no mixing of races in public schools, in college classrooms in Georgia as long as I am Governor."

Later in the year, in an address to the States' Rights Council of Georgia at the beginning of the 1956 legislative session, Governor Griffin proclaimed that "the rest of the nation is looking to Georgia for the lead in segregation."

Several bills in the 1956 legislative session reflected an underlying resistance to desegregation: The so-called interposition resolution declared that the United States Supreme Court had usurped powers reserved for the states. Namely, the resolution declared that Georgia had the fundamental right to decide how to educate its children; accordingly, the United States Supreme Court decisions in Brown I and II were "null and void." Days after the resolution passed with only a single dissenting vote, Senator Willis Hardin sponsored a bill to adopt a new flag design incorporating the Confederate battle flag. Concurrently, the General Assembly was in the process of adopting several bills and resolutions as part of Governor Griffin's "massive resistance" campaign.

DannyR

01-20-2009, 01:56 PM

It is true that the Georgia flag that incorporated the Confederate Battle Flag was a response to the Civil Rights Movement and should have been changed. However, this thread is about the Confederate Battle Flag all by its lonesome. It was not created as a racist symbol, but as a rallying banner by those who did not want to be oppressed by a large federal government.

I agree.

Its original use was certainly valid enough. However to ignore the century plus of its use since then is just to be blind to history. 150 years of its use by bigots and rednecks kind of leaves a bit of a stain compared to the handful of years it was used by an actual Confederacy wanting only state's rights.

Roomy

01-20-2009, 02:23 PM

I watched the first part of Ken Burns 'The American Civil War' last night and slavery was most certainly the catalyst for the secession and ultimately the war.I have the rest of the series to watch.

Hobbit

01-21-2009, 01:50 PM

Psychoblues

01-21-2009, 09:26 PM

The flag in Mississippi is just as much a symbol of racial hatred as the one in Georgia and elsewhere, DR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I continue to believe it to be a stupid act of intentional race baiting and glorifying a lost cause in a lost war by losers that are still sore about it.

Coming to this discussion late, but I'd have to concur. There is not much one can argue against the fact that the Georgia flag, bearing the Confederate Battle emblem, was not the original flag of Georgia, and was only made the state symbol shortly after Brown vs Board of Education. The tensions were high, and the flag was changed to the new emblem the same year that Ga. Sen. Russell wrote Southern Manifesto, which attacked the Supreme Court ruling on Brown v. Board of Education

The flag in Mississippi one can argue is a symbol of southern pride. Its been there much longer, but the old flag of Georgia and the raising of the flag on the Capitol in SC were done as protests against black uppitiness.

BTW, WELCOME to DP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I read your intro and I must say that we think a lot alike!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am, however, a moderate and center leaning Democrat with a capital "D"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for finding us here and thanks for all that you care to share with us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can I offer you a cyber refreshment?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!? I usually tend bar in the Lounge and I appreciate it when I have thirsty barstool cowgirls/boys with whom I can intelligently discuss particular issues!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

DannyR

01-29-2009, 02:55 PM

The cross was also used by the KKK. Does that make Christians bigots for hanging at least one in every church?

If it were pretty much ONLY the KKK that used the Cross, it would certainly become such a symbol.

Symbols aren't static. Years of abuse will tarnish them. The nazi swastika had a totally different meaning before the Nazi's started using it. Do you really expect people to think someone wearing one today should just be judged on the original use and ignore the latter?

Confederate battle flag is no different. Its most visible uses were in the hands of those who hated blacks and desegregation. Its been forever tarnished.

The flag in Mississippi is just as much a symbol of racial hatred as the one in Georgia and elsewhere, DR!

I think its much harder to argue that point, as their flag was raised at the end of reconstruction, long before the civil rights era. It wasn't done so much to spite blacks, as to spite the Union.

Lincoln didn't free the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation "freed" the slaves only in those areas not under Federal control on January 1, 1863. In other words, he proclaimed the slaves free in areas where he could not enforce his edict. Meanwhile, he freed no slaves in any Union-controlled areas, throughout the war!

You were right, until you said "throughout the war". While the EP didn't free any slaves immediately in the original union controlled area, as the war moved south and slaveholder's lands came under Union control, those slaves were directly freed as a result.

5stringJeff

01-29-2009, 06:43 PM

You were right, until you said "throughout the war". While the EP didn't free any slaves immediately in the original union controlled area, as the war moved south and slaveholder's lands came under Union control, those slaves were directly freed as a result.

Those slaves were freed by the Union Army, not by Lincoln's edict.

emmett

01-31-2009, 11:25 AM

The flag in Mississippi is just as much a symbol of racial hatred as the one in Georgia and elsewhere, DR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BTW, WELCOME to DP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I read your intro and I must say that we think a lot alike!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am, however, a moderate and center leaning Democrat with a capital "D"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for finding us here and thanks for all that you care to share with us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can I offer you a cyber refreshment?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!? I usually tend bar in the Lounge and I appreciate it when I have thirsty barstool cowgirls/boys with whom I can intelligently discuss particular issues!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

Be careful, our bartender has been known to spikie the punch!!!!!

:laugh2:

DannyR

01-31-2009, 11:23 PM

Those slaves were freed by the Union Army, not by Lincoln's edict.

Who was CiC of the Union Army? *lol* You still can't say Lincoln freed no slaves.

emmett

01-31-2009, 11:27 PM

Emancipation Proclamation is credited to Lincoln like the Iraqi War is to Bush. To say Lincoln freed no slaves is to say Bush had nothing to do with that war!

You do see the parity right Psycho? Or do you only see those types of comparisons when you make the points.

I'll have a gotcha please, extra everything! With an umbrella!

Psychoblues

02-04-2009, 04:23 AM

I never argue with intentional ignorance, emmie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Emancipation Proclamation is credited to Lincoln like the Iraqi War is to Bush. To say Lincoln freed no slaves is to say Bush had nothing to do with that war!

You do see the parity right Psycho? Or do you only see those types of comparisons when you make the points.

I'll have a gotcha please, extra everything! With an umbrella!

Could you pass the gas someplace else?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!? BTW, thanks for the juice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

sgtdmski

02-12-2009, 06:09 AM

In 2000, during the controversy of the state of South Carolina flying the Confederate Battle Flag over the state Capitol, Gallup took a poll regarding the flag. I find that the results were quite interesing. Remember this was a national poll.

59% of respondents believed that the Confederate Battle Flag represented Southern pride in its history and traditions.

27% of respondents believed that the Confederate Battle Flag represented a symbol of racism and hatred.

9% of respondents believed that it represented both.

5% of respondents had no view on the debate.

The problem with symbols is that they can represent different things to different people. One person can look at the flag and see a symbol of racism another can look at it and see a symbol of the heritage and pride of the South. The problem is when you take your view of the flag and assign it to others. Those of you who claim it is racist and then continue to assign your view to others who fly the flag are guilty of the very thing you are condemning. You are using your own preconceived notion to judge someone else, or if you like the big words you are guilty of prejudice.

I am a Yankee, I was born in Pittsburgh, PA (Sixburgh to you football fans GO STEELERS!!!!). However, thanks to the Army I have spent many years in the South. I have learned to love the South, from NASCAR (GO JEFF GORDON) to all the other great traditions including love of family, Country, God, Friends, and Neighbors. I love to hunt and fish and live in the outdoors, that is why today I live in Alaska (Coldest State!!! Hottest Governor!!!!!)

The Confederate Battle Flag represents the men and women of the Confederate Army, a great majority of whom did not own slaves. It represents standing up to tyranny and defending one's home. It is for that flag that they fought and died, and we can never forget the sacrifices they made to defend their rights, including the belief in State's Rights, something guaranteed by our Constitution.

Your belief about the symbolism of the Flag is your right, you can believe whatever you like about the Flag. However, do not use your belief to judge why others fly that flag, when you do you are nothing more than a bigot.

dmk

Psychoblues

02-12-2009, 06:38 AM

It is bigots that insist on the public display of that symbolism of racial hatred and national disgrace, sgt.

In 2000, during the controversy of the state of South Carolina flying the Confederate Battle Flag over the state Capitol, Gallup took a poll regarding the flag. I find that the results were quite interesing. Remember this was a national poll.

59% of respondents believed that the Confederate Battle Flag represented Southern pride in its history and traditions.

27% of respondents believed that the Confederate Battle Flag represented a symbol of racism and hatred.

9% of respondents believed that it represented both.

5% of respondents had no view on the debate.

The problem with symbols is that they can represent different things to different people. One person can look at the flag and see a symbol of racism another can look at it and see a symbol of the heritage and pride of the South. The problem is when you take your view of the flag and assign it to others. Those of you who claim it is racist and then continue to assign your view to others who fly the flag are guilty of the very thing you are condemning. You are using your own preconceived notion to judge someone else, or if you like the big words you are guilty of prejudice.

I am a Yankee, I was born in Pittsburgh, PA (Sixburgh to you football fans GO STEELERS!!!!). However, thanks to the Army I have spent many years in the South. I have learned to love the South, from NASCAR (GO JEFF GORDON) to all the other great traditions including love of family, Country, God, Friends, and Neighbors. I love to hunt and fish and live in the outdoors, that is why today I live in Alaska (Coldest State!!! Hottest Governor!!!!!)

The Confederate Battle Flag represents the men and women of the Confederate Army, a great majority of whom did not own slaves. It represents standing up to tyranny and defending one's home. It is for that flag that they fought and died, and we can never forget the sacrifices they made to defend their rights, including the belief in State's Rights, something guaranteed by our Constitution.

Your belief about the symbolism of the Flag is your right, you can believe whatever you like about the Flag. However, do not use your belief to judge why others fly that flag, when you do you are nothing more than a bigot.

dmk

There is no legitimate defense of that ignorance.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

Jeff

02-12-2009, 09:49 AM

It is bigots that insist on the public display of that symbolism of racial hatred and national disgrace, sgt.

There is no legitimate defense of that ignorance.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

Psyco I lived in SC during this time , most of the ppl complaining and boycotting things were ppl from NY and other northern states , we had Sharpton , Jackson and others leading the protest, yes there were some from SC black and white that felt it was a racist symbol but most felt it was a symbol of the south.

As you know I was born and raised in the north , but I figure let the majority win , and the majority in SC wanted to keep flying the flag.

It was the same here in GA, we got a Republican govenor cause he promised the ppl they could vote on the flag issue, than once he got in he let the ppl vote , but the old GA flag (witch had the rebel flag in it) was not included in the vote.

The funny part about SC was all these Racist came to town to protest a flag but never once mentioned anything about how low the SC school system was ranked, maybe we could of taken all the money it took to get the flag down and put it into the school system.

I am not sure if they went threw with it , but once the flag came down they then were going to have a african American walk, it was to go from Columbia to Charelston, monuments and diffrent things from history for the blacks, this to me is reverse discrimanation , why not a Polish walk a Italin walk or so on, and all this and the majority of SC residents wanted to keep the flag .

DannyR

02-12-2009, 11:35 AM

27% of respondents believed that the Confederate Battle Flag represented a symbol of racism and hatred.

9% of respondents believed that it represented both.

Black population of SC (2006) is 29%. I believe nationally its 12%. Polls on the topic are pretty likely to always favor the majority and ignore the minority. Civil rights issues generally can't be progressed by majority vote, which is why the judicial branch had to get involved and force desegregation and many civil right's laws.

Why do I get the feeling whites of the state have blinders on and just don't see the impact of what the symbol means to blacks?

Immanuel

02-12-2009, 11:41 AM

Black population of SC (2006) is 29%.

Why do I get the feeling whites of the state have blinders on and just don't see the impact of what the symbol means to blacks?

I imagine the 2% difference is within the margin of error. ;)

I think the flag is a symbol of American pride. However, knowing that many others see it as a racist symbol, I will not display it. I choose not to display it out of respect for my neighbors.

Immie

DragonStryk72

02-12-2009, 11:53 AM

5stringJeff

02-12-2009, 05:21 PM

Why do I get the feeling whites of the state have blinders on and just don't see the impact of what the symbol means to blacks?

And likewise, why do I get the feeling blacks in general have blinders on and just don't see the impact of what the symbol means to those who have pride in being a Southerner?

DannyR

02-12-2009, 05:28 PM

And likewise, why do I get the feeling blacks in general have blinders on and just don't see the impact of what the symbol means to those who have pride in being a Southerner?The Confederate Battle flag isn't the only symbol representing the south. It is the one most used by racists however. Why fight so hard to keep one symbol that doesn't even have the history of the flag used before?

Georgia's flag was already based on a Confederate emblem before it was changed, a flag that had been flying in some fashion over the state for 75 years. But suddenly it was changed during a year when desegregation was the issue of the day.

Sorry, I think blacks see all too clearly exactly what it represented and why it was put up. They also see that "southern pride" is just the excuse whites use when they don't want to appear to be racist.

And denial of racism is very strong in America. My parents and other people of their age will swear up and down they aren't racist, but you see their true colors if too many of "them" move into the neighborhood. I heard enough comments this year about fried chicken and watermelon in the White House to fully illustrate exactly the extent that racism still exists in America today. People may not claim to be racist, but many of the generation that lived through segregation still keeps a bit of fear in their hearts.

5stringJeff

02-12-2009, 05:37 PM

They also see that "southern pride" is just the excuse whites use when they don't want to appear to be racist.

That, sir, is bullshit. I have multiple ancestors that fought for the South, and I'm very proud of that fact. It has nothing to do with anyone's skin color.

Yurt

02-12-2009, 05:44 PM

The Confederate Battle flag isn't the only symbol representing the south. It is the one most used by racists however. Why fight so hard to keep one symbol that doesn't even have the history of the flag used before?

Georgia's flag was already based on a Confederate emblem before it was changed, a flag that had been flying in some fashion over the state for 75 years. But suddenly it was changed during a year when desegregation was the issue of the day.

Sorry, I think blacks see all too clearly exactly what it represented and why it was put up. They also see that "southern pride" is just the excuse whites use when they don't want to appear to be racist.

And denial of racism is very strong in America. My parents and other people of their age will swear up and down they aren't racist, but you see their true colors if too many of "them" move into the neighborhood. I heard enough comments this year about fried chicken and watermelon in the White House to fully illustrate exactly the extent that racism still exists in America today. People may not claim to be racist, but many of the generation that lived through segregation still keeps a bit of fear in their hearts.

the klu klux klan's official flag is the US flag...better take down that flag :rolleyes:

DannyR

02-12-2009, 05:52 PM

That, sir, is bullshit. I have multiple ancestors that fought for the South, and I'm very proud of that fact. It has nothing to do with anyone's skin color.Being proud of your ancestors if fine and dandy. I'm certainly proud of mine as well.

But why do you feel the need to show that pride by raising a flag that is offensive to your black neighbors? There are other flags out there you could have raised instead that show southern heritage just as well.

And yet you continue to fight to raise the flag of racism even when that concern has been voiced. Sorry, thats not southern pride in my opinion, but a blatant showing that the feelings of blacks don't matter.

DannyR

02-12-2009, 05:55 PM

the klu klux klan's official flag is the US flag...better take down that flag :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: Did segregationalists raise the US flag in defiance? I think not. Most blacks today have probably never even seen a KKK rally. They are an irrelevant speck of history with absolutely no power today.

DragonStryk72

02-13-2009, 12:53 AM

Being proud of your ancestors if fine and dandy. I'm certainly proud of mine as well.

But why do you feel the need to show that pride by raising a flag that is offensive to your black neighbors? There are other flags out there you could have raised instead that show southern heritage just as well.

And yet you continue to fight to raise the flag of racism even when that concern has been voiced. Sorry, thats not southern pride in my opinion, but a blatant showing that the feelings of blacks don't matter.

Because, for one, the belief that the Civil War was fought over slavery is, for one, completely bogus, coming from a born NYer. It's complete crap, from the top on down. The only reason slavery became involved so heavily was because of England, they were going to side with the South, since the South was the major exporter of cotton to England at the time. The only reason it got stopped was because of the Emancipation Proclamation, which, btw, did nothing to free even one slave, would have made England contradict its stance on slavery in order to stand with the South.

Bad education is no reason to take down a flag.

Yurt

02-13-2009, 01:01 AM

DannyR

02-13-2009, 10:31 AM

Because, for one, the belief that the Civil War was fought over slavery is, for one, completely bogus
You moved off target. What do the reasons why the civil war was fought have to do with this issue?

Most blacks don't care about other confederate symbols. The change of Georgia's flag to the pre-1956 flag was generally met with approval, and its still a Confederate based flag. So obviously not all things confederate are met with the same response.

Its the specific battle flag that has become the tainted image. Its the flag flow by racists and segregationalists. NOT the USA flag, NOT other confederate flags.

so because somebody gets offended we shouldn't do something?Yes, you should do something. You should stop the actions that are offending them out of respect! They got offended BECAUSE of what people did... raising the Confederate Battle flag to spite them.

Yurt

02-13-2009, 10:59 AM

You moved off target. What do the reasons why the civil war was fought have to do with this issue?

Most blacks don't care about other confederate symbols. The change of Georgia's flag to the pre-1956 flag was generally met with approval, and its still a Confederate based flag. So obviously not all things confederate are met with the same response.

Its the specific battle flag that has become the tainted image. Its the flag flow by racists and segregationalists. NOT the USA flag, NOT other confederate flags.

Yes, you should do something. You should stop the actions that are offending them out of respect! They got offended BECAUSE of what people did... raising the Confederate Battle flag to spite them.

rap music offends me, they should stop making rap music :poke:

moderate democrat

02-13-2009, 11:07 AM

rap music offends me, they should stop making rap music :poke:

now, if your entire race had been held as property by rap artists for centuries, and a war was fought to free you from their grasp... your complaint would have some more merit.

Yurt

02-13-2009, 11:14 AM

now, if your entire race had been held as property by rap artists for centuries, and a war was fought to free you from their grasp... your complaint would have some more merit.

meadowmuffins, you obviously have no idea what danny and i are talking about, so no need for your input.

we are talking solely about something offending someone, if you want to discuss that without adding your irrelevant nonsense, feel free.

moderate democrat

02-13-2009, 11:18 AM

meadowmuffins, you obviously have no idea what danny and i are talking about, so no need for your input.

we are talking solely about something offending someone, if you want to discuss that without adding your irrelevant nonsense, feel free.
the confederate flag IS offensive, especially to blacks. I merely applied some congruence to your comment about rap music.

Yurt

02-13-2009, 11:23 AM

the confederate flag IS offensive, especially to blacks. I merely applied some congruence to your comment about rap music.

my question to danny was solely: if something is offensive, should we stop doing it.....

he answered yes. and then i replied that rap music offends me, so we should stop it. has nothing to do with race, slavery, only that if something is offensive should we stop.

care to answer that question

moderate democrat

02-13-2009, 11:27 AM

Yurt

02-13-2009, 12:27 PM

I do not think that merely because rap music is offensive to YOU, individually, that we should ban it from our nation.

On the other hand, if something is offensive to large groups of people or communities, I think that banning it makes some sense.

For example, rap music bothers YOU... T shirts with obscence language and pornographic images are offensive to MOST people. Banning the former does not make sense...banning the latter does.

rap does offend many people :poke:

i also do not support your censorship just because a large group finds it offensive, you view clearly violates the first amendment. i am not surprised you do not respect the constitution. once we start banning things simply becuase a majority is offended is the day we become akin to a totalitarian state.

your view is further contradicted by your support of the fairness doctrine. obviously a majority of those who listen to the radio find liberal talk offensive, thus they don't listen, but you wish to implement a law that forces people to play liberal talk, thus in essence, forcing people to listen to your POV. party over country, ho hum.

Hobbit

02-13-2009, 12:28 PM

Obscene language bothers Christians, a pretty solid majority. Nudity also bothers Christians, a pretty solid majority.

Let's face it, offensive things are only considered offensive if they offend a minority segment of a protected minority that just happens to have a redwood sized stick up its ass.

DannyR

02-13-2009, 01:35 PM

my question to danny was solely: if something is offensive, should we stop doing it.....

he answered yes. and then i replied that rap music offends me, so we should stop it. has nothing to do with race, slavery, only that if something is offensive should we stop.

Something you find offensive, and something done to intentionally to offend are two different types of action. To be clear, if your actions are the later, yes you should stop. Didn't realize you were trying to change the subject to all offenses, as silly me, I thought we were still talking about the flag.

You don't have a right to not be offended. If someone does something, and it doesn't impact you at all, tough luck.

Are rap artists performing in your face to intentionally to spite you? I think not. They don't even know you exist and they play their music on channels you can easily avoid, paid for by consumers who appreciate it. It doesn't infringe upon your rights at all.

Your next door neighbor, knowing you hate rap music, begins to blast it at your house 24 hours a day is an action they should rightfully stop, and you are in your rights to take legal action to have it stopped.

meadowmuffins, you obviously have no idea what danny and i are talking about, so no need for your input.Given your tendency to twist words, I didn't have any idea what you were talking about either. I found MD's post 561 dead on.

moderate democrat

02-13-2009, 02:22 PM

rap does offend many people :poke:

i also do not support your censorship just because a large group finds it offensive, you view clearly violates the first amendment. i am not surprised you do not respect the constitution. once we start banning things simply becuase a majority is offended is the day we become akin to a totalitarian state.

your view is further contradicted by your support of the fairness doctrine. obviously a majority of those who listen to the radio find liberal talk offensive, thus they don't listen, but you wish to implement a law that forces people to play liberal talk, thus in essence, forcing people to listen to your POV. party over country, ho hum.

forcing radio stations to carry liberal talk is not anywhere near the same thing as forcing people to LISTEN to it.:poke::poke:

Yurt

02-13-2009, 02:45 PM

UOTE=DannyR;349030]Something you find offensive, and something done to intentionally to offend are two different types of action. To be clear, if your actions are the later, yes you should stop. Didn't realize you were trying to change the subject to all offenses, as silly me, I thought we were still talking about the flag.

You don't have a right to not be offended. If someone does something, and it doesn't impact you at all, tough luck.

my question is wholly related to the flag, as the reason you don't support the flag is because it is offensive, thus, i was trying to establish your opinion on offensive issues, things, words, etc... your second paragraph seems to contradict your first. if you don't have a right to "not" be offended, why should someone stop doing something offensive, even if they are doing it intentionally. intent is not entirely relevant to whether something is offensive. the question is:

just because something is offensive, is that grounds for banning it? you say on the one hand, yes, if intentional, yet on the other hand you say you do not have a right to be "not" offended.

Are rap artists performing in your face to intentionally to spite you? I think not. They don't even know you exist and they play their music on channels you can easily avoid, paid for by consumers who appreciate it. It doesn't infringe upon your rights at all.

Your next door neighbor, knowing you hate rap music, begins to blast it at your house 24 hours a day is an action they should rightfully stop, and you are in your rights to take legal action to have it stopped.

not what i am talking about. if someone is putting flags in your yard (the music analogy as the sound does enter your yard) then that is not protected. apples/oranges.

Given your tendency to twist words, I didn't have any idea what you were talking about either. I found MD's post 561 dead on.

uh huh

Yurt

02-13-2009, 02:47 PM

forcing radio stations to carry liberal talk is not anywhere near the same thing as forcing people to LISTEN to it.:poke::poke:

no surprise you skip virtually the entire post and hit on nearly irrelevant point....you stomp on the constitution by banning things simply because a majority finds it offensive. your censorship is unamerican. let's you spin and dance your way out of this now....

Yurt

02-13-2009, 02:48 PM

moderate democrat

02-13-2009, 02:55 PM

no surprise you skip virtually the entire post and hit on nearly irrelevant point....you stomp on the constitution by banning things simply because a majority finds it offensive. your censorship is unamerican. let's you spin and dance your way out of this now....

what have I advocated banning? what have I advocated censoring?

and interesting how you ignored the point I made.

Yurt

02-13-2009, 03:09 PM

moderate democrat

02-13-2009, 03:20 PM

so you are perfectly OK with young school children going to school with Tshirts saying "ASS FUCKING ROCKS" adorned with photographs of two naked men engaging in anal sex? YOu would not think that banning that would be appropriate for society? What about public masturbation? What about public sex with animals on the sidewalk outside of a school during recess? Are you suggesting that there are not displays that the public has a right to ban? Are you suggesting that any and all such bans are unconstitutional?

Yurt

02-13-2009, 03:28 PM

oh, so you are admit you lied or forgot and were in fact talking about banning....

in that case, following your examples, the flag is protected speech :poke:

next

moderate democrat

02-13-2009, 04:12 PM

oh, so you are admit you lied or forgot and were in fact talking about banning....

in that case, following your examples, the flag is protected speech :poke:

next

oh, so you admit that you lied and that you are perfectly ok with banning certain things when society as a whole agrees to it?:poke:

Yurt

02-13-2009, 04:38 PM

oh, so you admit that you lied and that you are perfectly ok with banning certain things when society as a whole agrees to it?:poke:

what? are you drunk? society as a "whole" has nothing to do with legally banned or protected speech. it is the law and nothing to do with simply because a majority finds it offensive we should ban it <--- which is what you said, you are now twisting your words and my words. i knew you would do that as you are the master of the twist and shout.

there are certain things that are offensive to the majority of americans that is not banned speech. do you understand the difference between what i said about the law and what you said about simply banning it because the majority find it is offensive? tell me the difference.

are you going to apologize and admit you were wrong that you never talked about banning?

moderate democrat

02-13-2009, 06:04 PM

what? are you drunk? society as a "whole" has nothing to do with legally banned or protected speech. it is the law and nothing to do with simply because a majority finds it offensive we should ban it <--- which is what you said, you are now twisting your words and my words. i knew you would do that as you are the master of the twist and shout.

there are certain things that are offensive to the majority of americans that is not banned speech. do you understand the difference between what i said about the law and what you said about simply banning it because the majority find it is offensive? tell me the difference.

are you going to apologize and admit you were wrong that you never talked about banning?

so are you going to admit that you lied and that you have absolutely no problem with allowing children in school to wear Tshirts with images of whatever disgusting things they want to - including men having anal sex? Are you going to finally admit that you are totally down with that?

DannyR

02-13-2009, 07:08 PM

just because something is offensive, is that grounds for banning it? you say on the one hand, yes, if intentional, yet on the other hand you say you do not have a right to be "not" offended.

Not certain why you are bringing the word banning into the picture. I never said one must ban anything.

There is nothing contradictory about my statements. Its impossible to please everyone. A couple kissing in front of me, sucking face and trying to swallow each other's tongues makes me very uncomfortable and can be offensive. But they have the right to do so. I'm not protected by law from being offended.

If however I tell them this, then yes they should stop. Doing so is the right thing to do. Nothing to do with banning it. Just simple respect. Keep their amorous affections private rather than flaunting them in public and making others uncomfortable. Note in my post I said what one should do, not what one legally must do. There is no way I can force the couple to stop being offensive.

The raising of the confederate flag was an intentional spite, and people of good conscience who recognize this should have no problem taking it down. Problem is, too many people hear blacks are uncomfortable with the flag, and rather than celebrate their "heritage" in a way that doesn't have that stain, they just ignore the issue or try to argue it doesn't exist.

Yurt

02-13-2009, 08:22 PM

so are you going to admit that you lied and that you have absolutely no problem with allowing children in school to wear Tshirts with images of whatever disgusting things they want to - including men having anal sex? Are you going to finally admit that you are totally down with that?

what the hell are you talking about...you making stuff up and obviously can't debate the issues anymore so you create strawman arguments and then insinuate that i am going to be finally down with anal sex. psssst....i don't swing for your team homo...so you can stop fantasizing about my sexual orientation :poke:

you said you didn't talk about banning anything, but i showed you clearly did....and AGAIN, you fail to answer my question, you obviously have no clue what the difference is....pity, no wonder all you have are insults

are you man enough to admit you were wrong, cause i hope you didn't lie about that

Yurt

02-13-2009, 08:26 PM

Not certain why you are bringing the word banning into the picture. I never said one must ban anything.

There is nothing contradictory about my statements. Its impossible to please everyone. A couple kissing in front of me, sucking face and trying to swallow each other's tongues makes me very uncomfortable and can be offensive. But they have the right to do so. I'm not protected by law from being offended.

If however I tell them this, then yes they should stop. Doing so is the right thing to do. Nothing to do with banning it. Just simple respect. Keep their amorous affections private rather than flaunting them in public and making others uncomfortable. Note in my post I said what one should do, not what one legally must do. There is no way I can force the couple to stop being offensive.

The raising of the confederate flag was an intentional spite, and people of good conscience who recognize this should have no problem taking it down. Problem is, too many people hear blacks are uncomfortable with the flag, and rather than celebrate their "heritage" in a way that doesn't have that stain, they just ignore the issue or try to argue it doesn't exist.

if you have no right to be offended, they why should they stop simply because you asked....you are disrespecting them because you have no right to be offended and yet you ask them to stop.

you didn't say banning, i thought, after talking with mfm, that when you said stop you mean ban....my bad

moderate democrat

02-13-2009, 09:13 PM

what the hell are you talking about...you making stuff up and obviously can't debate the issues anymore so you create strawman arguments and then insinuate that i am going to be finally down with anal sex. psssst....i don't swing for your team homo...so you can stop fantasizing about my sexual orientation :poke:

you said you didn't talk about banning anything, but i showed you clearly did....and AGAIN, you fail to answer my question, you obviously have no clue what the difference is....pity, no wonder all you have are insults

are you man enough to admit you were wrong, cause i hope you didn't lie about that

would you "ban" sexually explicit T shirts from being worn by grade schools students at a public school? yes or no?

moderate democrat

02-13-2009, 09:14 PM

if you have no right to be offended, they why should they stop simply because you asked....you are disrespecting them because you have no right to be offended and yet you ask them to stop.

you didn't say banning, i thought, after talking with mfm, that when you said stop you mean ban....my bad

and once and for all, quit referring to me as mfm... I have a name and that ain't it, greg.... got it?

Yurt

02-13-2009, 09:35 PM

and once and for all, quit referring to me as mfm... I have a name and that ain't it, greg.... got it?

who the hell is greg?

Yurt

02-13-2009, 09:38 PM

would you "ban" sexually explicit T shirts from being worn by grade schools students at a public school? yes or no?

when you can answer the question i posed about the differences? when can you admit you did in fact talk about banning when you said you didn't?

when you answer the difference question, you will have answered your question. now, can you do that?

DannyR

02-13-2009, 10:38 PM

if you have no right to be offended, they why should they stop simply because you asked....you are disrespecting them because you have no right to be offended and yet you ask them to stop. Very simple. People do things all the time that give offense, but don't realize it. A couple in the midst of a passionate kiss might not realize they are being quite so affectionate, as they have other things on their mind. A boy playing his rap music loudly might actually turn it down if you ask him to.

My "I'd tap that" joke in a different thread being a perfect example.

Should I have ignored the request not to say such things? Was the act of them asking me to not tell such jokes a disrespect of me as you say? I think not.

Its possible raising the battle flag of the confederacy was done without insult being intended (thats a very generous way of looking at it in my opinion). But upon being told it was no longer such a pure symbol of southern pride, but was tainted by a multitude of hateful acts, the real southern gentleman would respectfully put that symbol away and use another in its place that did not hold such hurtful memories.

Yurt

02-13-2009, 11:59 PM

Very simple. People do things all the time that give offense, but don't realize it. A couple in the midst of a passionate kiss might not realize they are being quite so affectionate, as they have other things on their mind. A boy playing his rap music loudly might actually turn it down if you ask him to.

My "I'd tap that" joke in a different thread being a perfect example.

Should I have ignored the request not to say such things? Was the act of them asking me to not tell such jokes a disrespect of me as you say? I think not.

Its possible raising the battle flag of the confederacy was done without insult being intended (thats a very generous way of looking at it in my opinion). But upon being told it was no longer such a pure symbol of southern pride, but was tainted by a multitude of hateful acts, the real southern gentleman would respectfully put that symbol away and use another in its place that did not hold such hurtful memories.

you again take the stance that the "southern gentleman" is the one causing the harm. what if the person who misunderstands the flag is wrong? what if a muslim, an american citizen, finds christian church bells offensive...would you support a "stop" (not a ban i guess) on that?

now....what about the majority in a town that find islamic call to prayer offensive....because they find islam and islamic ideas hateful, a pure symbol of hate towards non-muslilms, would you support a "stop" to that, if i asked?

afterall, what is the polite thing to do....

Mugged Liberal

02-14-2009, 08:31 AM

when you can answer the question i posed about the differences? when can you admit you did in fact talk about banning when you said you didn't?

when you answer the difference question, you will have answered your question. now, can you do that?

Some people cannot talk to each other reasonably. It always degenerates into a “I did not” “Yes you did” exchange. That’s what should be banned. The personal dispute which results ruins every discussion.

Immanuel

02-14-2009, 08:50 AM

Some people cannot talk to each other reasonably. It always degenerates into a “I did not” “Yes you did” exchange. That’s what should be banned. The personal dispute which results ruins every discussion.

Amen! Couldn't have said it better myself.

Immie

Yurt

02-14-2009, 03:25 PM

Immanuel

02-14-2009, 04:53 PM

fine, ban me....:poke:

whiner

Oh if only I could! :poke::laugh2:

Immie

DannyR

02-14-2009, 08:01 PM

what if the person who misunderstands the flag is wrong? Any symbol has multiple meanings. As I mentioned before, even the Nazi symbol has meanings associated with it other than the one its known for today. And what a symbol means is open to interpretation obviously. But this is why people looked at why the flag was raised anew and who did it, and the actions of those who used it.

The excuse is that the flag was raised as a symbol of southern pride. Problem with that excuse is that the flag used at the time was already a symbol of that, a confederate emblem that had already been flying for 75 years.

The legislature actions the year the Georgia flag was changed were dominated by laws meant to fight desegregation. One is judged by the company one keeps, and this law had very poor company. It was part of a larger set of laws passed aimed at fighting desegregation.

And of course this isn't just a couple of blacks who think the flag is wrong. A rather large majority of them didn't want it. When a minority complains its rights are infringed, believing in the honest intentions of the majority who is oppressing them just doesn't hold much value. Perhaps the oppression isn't intentional, but again, we are back to the point that if someone claims to be insulted, a gentlemen will stop the actions out of respect.

And finally of course is that a state flag is a symbol of ALL the state, and not just a portion of it. As such, it should be a symbol all the state wants. That alone in my opinion justifies restoring the flag to its original symbol and removing the battle emblem.

So perhaps they are wrong... but I don't think so for the Georgia case.

Yurt

02-14-2009, 08:18 PM

Any symbol has multiple meanings. As I mentioned before, even the Nazi symbol has meanings associated with it other than the one its known for today. And what a symbol means is open to interpretation obviously. But this is why people looked at why the flag was raised anew and who did it, and the actions of those who used it.

The excuse is that the flag was raised as a symbol of southern pride. Problem with that excuse is that the flag used at the time was already a symbol of that, a confederate emblem that had already been flying for 75 years.

The legislature actions the year the Georgia flag was changed were dominated by laws meant to fight desegregation. One is judged by the company one keeps, and this law had very poor company. It was part of a larger set of laws passed aimed at fighting desegregation.

And of course this isn't just a couple of blacks who think the flag is wrong. A rather large majority of them didn't want it. When a minority complains its rights are infringed, believing in the honest intentions of the majority who is oppressing them just doesn't hold much value. Perhaps the oppression isn't intentional, but again, we are back to the point that if someone claims to be insulted, a gentlemen will stop the actions out of respect.

And finally of course is that a state flag is a symbol of ALL the state, and not just a portion of it. As such, it should be a symbol all the state wants. That alone in my opinion justifies restoring the flag to its original symbol and removing the battle emblem.

So perhaps they are wrong... but I don't think so in this case.

good post, though i disagree.

1. i do not understand how you can logically see that the swastika is not solely about nazis and yet you say that the dixie flag is only an excuse and is racist when you know that not all who believe in the flag are racist. seems contradictory.

2. the majority is not always right. america protects minority rights, our government was founded on protecting the minority from the tryanny of the majority. so i do not understand your reliance on stopping something merely because a majority find it offensive or simply because you ask someone to stop...further, you have admitted that you have no right to be offended. where then does your right to ask them to stop come from?

3. i'm right, you wrong. :laugh2:

DannyR

02-14-2009, 08:27 PM

1. i do not understand how you can logically see that the swastika is not solely about nazis and yet you say that the dixie flag is only an excuse and is racist when you know that not all who believe in the flag are racist. seems contradictory.I never said the battle flag is always racist. I'm sure people fly it for southern pride. The excuse however comes into play when they refuse to admit that its a tainted symbol or try to tell other people how to feel about it.

If I put a swastika in front of my house and tried to convince everyone that it was a common christian cross or hindu symbol of hope you'd say that was a lame excuse as well. And good luck if I actually tried to convince a jewish person that their objection to my using it was just wrong because I wasn't using it the ways the nazi's did. *lol* That is as laughable as the scene in Clerks 2 where he tries to "take back" the porch-monkey insult.

2. the majority is not always right. america protects minority rights, our government was founded on protecting the minority from the tryanny of the majority. so i do not understand your reliance on stopping something merely because a majority find it offensive or simply because you ask someone to stop...further, you have admitted that you have no right to be offended. where then does your right to ask them to stop come from? I never said the majority is always right. In fact, when it comes to civil rights, the opposite has more often been true. The majority not being right is how the battle flag got put up in the first place. It was an attempt to trample the spirit of the minority.

Its anyone's right to ask someone to stop something. If they do or not depends on how much that person values the other. I find it to be a good sign and natural progression that the hatred of the 1950's and 60's has finally been replaced and the flag taken down, as the respect of the white majority for their black brethren has increased over the years.

As for one's right to be offended... there is also a difference between what one does in private versus what is done as a symbol for the public as a while. A state flag isn't the same as putting the flag in the window of your pickup truck. One is a symbol that supposedly represents the entire state, and citizens who object to that symbol have the right to make that objection known. The other is a symbol of what that specific individual believes. I might object to it, but if he doesn't care, I don't have the right to force him to take it down.

Ultimately the state flag issue isn't a civil right issue, which is why it was changed by legislative action and somewhat by vote. As such, I think the fact that people respected the opinions of those who said it was a tainted symbol is why it was taken down. If that respect didn't exist, it would still be flying.

3. i'm right, you wrong. :laugh2:Back at you, although I'm not certain what your actual opinion on the issue is. You've pretty much just argued against mine. Is it your opinion that the battle flag has no association with racism at all?

Yurt

02-14-2009, 09:36 PM

my opinion:

sure, it is associated with racism. just like the swastika though, it doesn't mean it is racist as you said.

so, unless it is a sign solely for racism, then i support the 1st amendment right to display it. i support the right to display for southern pride. if someone is offended because some people have misused the symbol, that does not in anyway give them a right to ask or demand that all people stop using the symbol.

DannyR

02-14-2009, 09:49 PM

i support the 1st amendment right to display it. i support the right to display for southern pride. if someone is offended because some people have misused the symbol, that does not in anyway give them a right to ask or demand that all people stop using the symbol.Sounds like we are in agreement then on the basics.

I wouldn't tell someone to repaint the General Lee because it has the battle emblem on its roof. You can ask if you want, but here is where one's right to not be offended comes into play. What someone does in relative privacy doesn't directly impact your life. Simply seeing a car drive down the road doesn't change who you are.

Someone flies the flag at a KKK rally marching down main street, I'd be correct in chastising them though in my opinion. Sure it doesn't directly impact my life, but they are making a political statement, and I've got the right to respond in kind. Again though, nobody is saying they don't have the right to fly the flag. But likewise you have the right to protest it.

Wanting the state flag changed is different from both cases, as it is a symbol of the entire state, giving everyone of that state the right to have a voice in what it should be.

Yurt

02-14-2009, 10:32 PM

i edit my ealier post to say:

even if a racist purpose, i support the free speech right to say it or display it.

danny,

i don't think we agree on the basics. can you tell me why you think we do? because i really don't see it.

DannyR

02-14-2009, 11:27 PM

I support the 1st amendment right to display it as well. I've never suggested display of the flag should be banned or forcibly stopped. I'd certainly not force someone to take down a flag they put up on their own property. I just said its not always appropriate to wave it, and out of respect you sometimes shouldn't. No different than telling jokes in inappropriate settings.

I have no problem displaying it for southern pride - in an appropriate setting. Confederate memorials, confederate celebrations, General Lee, Stone Mountain park, etc. are the ideal setting. You display it at your house or in the back of your truck is fine too, but that doesn't mean you are proof from someone thinking you are a redneck racist, because ultimately while you might think it represents southern pride, others are equally correct in thinking it might mean something else. They obviously don't have the right to take your flag down, but they certainly can tell you what they think. And its up to you if you respect that person enough to want to not offend them, or don't give a damn.

But private use is not the same as using the image as a State symbol and in that regard this isn't a 1st amendment topic. I get the feeling you are not separating the two issues, or you see my statements about the appropriateness of the symbol used on the flag as somehow being my stance when it comes to private use.

DragonStryk72

02-15-2009, 01:43 AM

You moved off target. What do the reasons why the civil war was fought have to do with this issue?

Most blacks don't care about other confederate symbols. The change of Georgia's flag to the pre-1956 flag was generally met with approval, and its still a Confederate based flag. So obviously not all things confederate are met with the same response.

Its the specific battle flag that has become the tainted image. Its the flag flow by racists and segregationalists. NOT the USA flag, NOT other confederate flags.

Yes, you should do something. You should stop the actions that are offending them out of respect! They got offended BECAUSE of what people did... raising the Confederate Battle flag to spite them.

You mean, the issues that formed the Confederacy have nothing to do with the Confederate flag? Just as our current flag must have nothing to do with us, obviously.

DannyR

02-16-2009, 01:25 PM

You mean, the issues that formed the Confederacy have nothing to do with the Confederate flag?Eh? You totally lost me now. Arguing the reasons behind the confederacy is a totally different issue than taking down one particular confederate symbol, the battle flag.

The removal of the confederate battle flag in not because its a confederate symbol, but because its a symbol raised by racists long after the war.

Most blacks have little problems with confederate symbols, and the proof of that can be seen by the overwhelming support the current Georgia flag, ALSO a confederate symbol, enjoys.

So no, the reasons behind the confederacy have no play in this topic. Its not the confederacy that tainted the battle flag, but its use a hundred years later!

moderate democrat

02-16-2009, 02:39 PM

Its not the confederacy that tainted the battle flag, but its use a hundred years later!
bingo.

very well said.

Yurt

02-16-2009, 03:05 PM

so you guys support the banning of a symbol, though its historical meaning has nothing to do with race or racism, because SOME racists have used it for their purposes...

why don't you ban the bible or the quran, both have been used by racists, murderers to further their agenda :poke:

DannyR

02-16-2009, 03:58 PM

so you guys support the banning of a symbol, though its historical meaning has nothing to do with race or racism, because SOME racists have used it for their purposes...Not just some racists, but enough to tarnish it severely.

And again with the "banning" language. Drop it already. Wanting not to use a tarnished symbol to represent everyone is not the same as banning it.

Do you deny that the swastika has a different meaning after the 1940's than it did before? You seem to be arguing that symbols are static and can't change. Thats not the case. Or do you really think that the "historical meaning" of the swastika trumps its use by the nazis? *lol*

why don't you ban the bible or the quran, both have been used by racists, murderers to further their agenda :poke:Oh, I thought religious rights groups were complaining we'd already done that. And again with the poor analogy. Far more people use the bible than just racists. Ero, its not just a racist symbol. A cross is used by far more people than just racists too. Set that cross on fire however, and it has a different meaning because pretty much only the KKK and racists ever did that!

During civil war times it may have been an innocent flag. In the 1960's however it was forever tarnished. You can't just wish that away and claim it never happened.

You want to fly the Confederate flag, do so here:

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/3eh2ck.jpg

Jeff

02-16-2009, 04:56 PM

Not just some racists, but enough to tarnish it severely.

And again with the "banning" language. Drop it already. Wanting not to use a tarnished symbol to represent everyone is not the same as banning it.

Do you deny that the swastika has a different meaning after the 1940's than it did before? You seem to be arguing that symbols are static and can't change. Thats not the case. Or do you really think that the "historical meaning" of the swastika trumps its use by the nazis? *lol*

Oh, I thought religious rights groups were complaining we'd already done that. And again with the poor analogy. Far more people use the bible than just racists. Ero, its not just a racist symbol. A cross is used by far more people than just racists too. Set that cross on fire however, and it has a different meaning because pretty much only the KKK and racists ever did that!

During civil war times it may have been an innocent flag. In the 1960's however it was forever tarnished. You can't just wish that away and claim it never happened.

You want to fly the Confederate flag, do so here:

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/3eh2ck.jpg

I can't remember the flag ever looking so good !!!:thumb:

Yurt

02-16-2009, 05:20 PM

i did stop the banning issue, however, you keep stating you want it stopped, you want people to stop flying the flag or whatnot. what you are advocating is a ban.

i wholly disagree "stopping" the use of something because some bad apples ruined it. you say on the one hand if a minority misuse a symbol, then the symbol is still permissable, whereas a majority misuse a symbol and it is no longer permissable. a logical contradiction.

further, a misuse may not always continue. you agree that any misuse is fairly recent and not historical. as such, the misuse is in fact a minority misuse over the history of the symbol. you can't just say that because a "majority" now misuses a symbol so we should now "stop" its use. you wouldn't stand for that if a majority now misused the bible, so why you support such a stance with a flag is beyond me.

DannyR

02-16-2009, 09:48 PM

i did stop the banning issue, however, you keep stating you want it stopped, you want people to stop flying the flag or whatnot. what you are advocating is a ban.A ban is forcible censorship. I've never advocated any such thing. Please quote exactly where I've used any such words. Only one using the word ban here has been you.

you say on the one hand if a minority misuse a symbol, then the symbol is still permissable, whereas a majority misuse a symbol and it is no longer permissable. a logical contradiction.Contradiction? Not at all. The more people do something, the bigger the problem.

Eric Rudolph killing a few gays isn't likely to tarnish Christianity, because we all know he was a nutcase. The current war on terrorism has many of you conservatives saying all Islam is bad. But now you're going to argue numbers don't matter?

further, a misuse may not always continue.

Perhaps. But the number of years the confederate flag was used as a symbol of racism sort of outnumber the years it actually flew over the Confederacy itself, so I won't hold my breath.

you wouldn't stand for that if a majority now misused the bible, so why you support such a stance with a flag is beyond me.

ha. I'd fight tooth and nail if someone tried to put the bible as the state symbol representing me. Its not MY faith, and doesn't represent me at all.

And this again brings us back to the point you keep ignoring. The flag is a symbol of the ENTIRE state. Not just those who want to claim southern heritage. It represents everyone, and as such should be a symbol the entire state can rally behind.

Changing a state symbol isn't banning is use elsewhere. I'm not telling anybody to quit flying their own flags. I want MY flag to represent all the state, not just a portion of it.

actsnoblemartin

02-16-2009, 09:49 PM

i'll tell ya what

blacks stop saying nigga

then ill take down the confederate flag :coffee:

DannyR

02-16-2009, 09:53 PM

i'll tell ya what

blacks stop saying nigga

then ill take down the confederate flag :coffee:That makes no sense at all.

One is an insult kept in the family. Blacks insulting each other is their own business.

The other is an insult aimed at someone else. A confederate flag is a symbol whites used to oppress blacks.

Or to put it another way. Suppose you had a sister. You probably wouldn't think anything of insulting her and treating her rudely. You're family and siblings tease each other. However if some stranger came up to her and started doing so, calling her a bitch and slut, thats ok?

Yurt

02-16-2009, 09:56 PM

That makes no sense at all.

One is an insult kept in the family. Blacks insulting each other is their own business.

The other is an insult aimed at someone else. A confederate flag is a symbol whites used to oppress blacks.

Or to put it another way. Suppose you had a sister. You probably wouldn't think anything of insulting her and treating her rudely. You're family and siblings tease each other. However if some stranger came up to her and started doing so, calling her a bitch and slut, thats ok?

wrong. SOME white use it that way, does not mean "whites" use it that way. why don't we ban rolling paper as MOST rolling paper is used for ganja which is illegal....

actsnoblemartin

02-17-2009, 12:21 AM

That makes no sense at all.

One is an insult kept in the family. Blacks insulting each other is their own business.

so, because im not black, the word nigga cannot be offensive to me?

The other is an insult aimed at someone else. A confederate flag is a symbol whites used to oppress blacks.

but free speech is about protecting speech that is inflammatory and not popular.

Or to put it another way. Suppose you had a sister. You probably wouldn't think anything of insulting her and treating her rudely. You're family and siblings tease each other. However if some stranger came up to her and started doing so, calling her a bitch and slut, thats ok?

im not saying we disagree here, I dont like the confederate flag. but should we really ban things we dont like?

even words, i dont like the word n***a but i wouldnt ban it.

hopefully i make some sense my good friend

DannyR

02-17-2009, 01:47 AM

so, because im not black, the word nigga cannot be offensive to me?

Sure it can be. You can be offended by whatever you want to be. That doesn't change the fact that blacks often use it between themselves in a way a white person simply can't. Is that fair? No, but it is just a fact of life that those outside of a select group can't get away with the same sort of insults those on the inside can.

but free speech is about protecting speech that is inflammatory and not popular.

...

but should we really ban things we dont like?Yurt is the only one here using the word ban. I do not advocate banning anything when it comes to expressing one's opinion. I do not advocate any censorship. However there are things one should not say or do out of respect for others. If they go ahead and say them, well, I guess you know where you stand with that person.

Yurt

02-17-2009, 10:16 AM

Sure it can be. You can be offended by whatever you want to be. That doesn't change the fact that blacks often use it between themselves in a way a white person simply can't. Is that fair? No, but it is just a fact of life that those outside of a select group can't get away with the same sort of insults those on the inside can.

Yurt is the only one here using the word ban. I do not advocate banning anything when it comes to expressing one's opinion. I do not advocate any censorship. However there are things one should not say or do out of respect for others. If they go ahead and say them, well, I guess you know where you stand with that person.

you're advocating a ban:

1. An excommunication or condemnation by church officials.
2. A prohibition imposed by law or official decree: a ban on cigarette smoking on airplanes.
3. Censure, condemnation, or disapproval expressed especially by public opinion.
4. A curse; an imprecation.
5. A summons to arms in feudal times.

DragonStryk72

02-17-2009, 10:33 AM

Eh? You totally lost me now. Arguing the reasons behind the confederacy is a totally different issue than taking down one particular confederate symbol, the battle flag.

The removal of the confederate battle flag in not because its a confederate symbol, but because its a symbol raised by racists long after the war.

Most blacks have little problems with confederate symbols, and the proof of that can be seen by the overwhelming support the current Georgia flag, ALSO a confederate symbol, enjoys.

So no, the reasons behind the confederacy have no play in this topic. Its not the confederacy that tainted the battle flag, but its use a hundred years later!

Well, a whole slew of arabs hate the flag now, and feel it stands for oppression, so do we get rid of our current flag? And the KKK, the largest racist organization in our country uses the red, white, and blue, so again, we have to get rid of it now?

DragonStryk72

02-17-2009, 10:38 AM

Not just some racists, but enough to tarnish it severely.

And again with the "banning" language. Drop it already. Wanting not to use a tarnished symbol to represent everyone is not the same as banning it.

Do you deny that the swastika has a different meaning after the 1940's than it did before? You seem to be arguing that symbols are static and can't change. Thats not the case. Or do you really think that the "historical meaning" of the swastika trumps its use by the nazis? *lol*

Oh, I thought religious rights groups were complaining we'd already done that. And again with the poor analogy. Far more people use the bible than just racists. Ero, its not just a racist symbol. A cross is used by far more people than just racists too. Set that cross on fire however, and it has a different meaning because pretty much only the KKK and racists ever did that!

During civil war times it may have been an innocent flag. In the 1960's however it was forever tarnished. You can't just wish that away and claim it never happened.

You want to fly the Confederate flag, do so here:

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/3eh2ck.jpg

Like, say, the quran or the bible being used as justification for war for the past, oh, 1500 years, wherein we go into the Middle East to "take back" a holy land we never owned, from the "savages", or then we have the Witch Hunts and the Inquisition to look at, then there's all the killing over the Quran interpretations, and seriously, that's where sectarian violence came from. Do you really want to go in the direction of saying religion hasn't cost lives, or been used for hate on a large scale?

82Marine89

02-17-2009, 10:43 AM

Noir

02-17-2009, 10:47 AM

As far as I see it...

The flag is as ligit as anyother countries flag, yes it has been used by racists, but so has the union flag over here, bith the National front and the British Nationalist Party use the union flag, doesn't mean we should all stop using it.

What I do find odd though is why someone would use the confed. Flag, do y'all fly it outside your house or what?

DannyR

02-17-2009, 11:03 AM

What I do find odd though is why someone would use the confed. Flag, do y'all fly it outside your house or what?

I've got neighbors who do!

Shut up cracker.

hehe. See I find that funny. Of course, racial insults against a majority have never had the sting of those against minorities.

Well, a whole slew of arabs hate the flag now, and feel it stands for oppression, so do we get rid of our current flag?Not their flag, but ours. Analogy fails when comparing this to blacks wanting to change their OWN flag!

And the KKK, the largest racist organization in our country uses the red, white, and blue, so again, we have to get rid of it now?Been over this part already. See past posts. KKK's use of the USA flag isn't nearly as popular as other uses. Their use of the confederate flag however is a much larger slice of all confederate displays in comparison.

3. Censure, condemnation, or disapproval expressed especially by public opinion.Fine, you win on the definition war. But you know full well I was talking official censorship and legal type of ban, not a lesser known use of the word. That really what you want to base your argument upon?

DragonStryk72

02-17-2009, 11:13 AM

I've got neighbors who do!

hehe. See I find that funny. Of course, racial insults against a majority have never had the sting of those against minorities.

Not their flag, but ours. Analogy fails when comparing this to blacks wanting to change their OWN flag!

Been over this part already. See past posts.

I want you to go tell black people that the confederate flag is their flag, and we'll have this talk again afterwards, hopefully. Yes, you went over stuff, then blatantly contradicted yourself, thus nullifying your prior points, thanks. I play that devil's advocate crap, you wanna just argue, do it with someone else, because I will bring up these sorts of things.

You can't just wish that away and claim it never happened.

Hm, now who could possibly have a problem with the general American flag that we use now, maybe the Native Americans, you know, those guys we stole all the land from, then forced onto reservations? Our flag has done a ton of crap that others would find oppressive.

Far more people use the bible than just racists.

Far more people use the confederate flag than just racists.

Its not the confederacy that tainted the battle flag, but its use a hundred years later!

Again here, Our current flag has been seen, currently, as a bad symbol, so it use in the current days trumps all the good we've done. Now, you're saying the actual confederates didn't use it improperly, and in that, have every right to be proud of it, but that, since a bunch of assholes used it improperly, it no longer means what it means, so both my point still stand, by your own argument, and I'd like to thank for giving them greater credence. Apparently, for you, a symbol is only as good as the worst person using for their own ends.

82Marine89

02-17-2009, 11:28 AM

hehe. See I find that funny. Of course, racial insults against a majority have never had the sting of those against minorities.

A racial insult is a racial insult. It doesn't matter if it's a white calling another white a cracker or a black calling another black a nigger. If one can't say it, why can another? Why the double standard? Who is to say I am less offended by being called a cracker than someone calling a black a nigger? Explain how there is less of a sting.

DannyR

02-17-2009, 11:53 AM

I want you to go tell black people that the confederate flag is their flag, and we'll have this talk again afterwards, hopefully.

Um, the confederate flag WAS their flag for 50 odd years when it was incorporated into the Georgia flag. Seems like you are agreeing with me that they didn't think it should be.

Yes, you went over stuff, then blatantly contradicted yourself, thus nullifying your prior pointsI don't see any contradictions at all. Specific examples?

Hm, now who could possibly have a problem with the general American flag that we use now, maybe the Native Americans, you know, those guys we stole all the land from, then forced onto reservations? Our flag has done a ton of crap that others would find oppressive.

If you haven't been on an Indian reservation lately, they fly their own flags there too. But yes, I'd think most Indians would have good cause to hate the USA flag. Most Indians I know (and half my family is Indian) however have put that long aside. And of course it helps that we pretty much killed or interbred with most of the Indian population over the years. Hard to object when you're dead or your own culture is inseparably now mixed with your conquerors.

Far more people use the confederate flag than just racists.They don't get as much press.

Apparently, for you, a symbol is only as good as the worst person using for their own ends.Its only as good as the most vocal and obvious people using it. For the confederate flag, those were the racists. See example of nazi swastika... a symbol once used many places, but now forever tarnished.

Why the double standard? Who is to say I am less offended by being called a cracker than someone calling a black a nigger? Explain how there is less of a sting.There is a double standard because life isn't fair. Get used to it. In a perfect world, nobody would ever use racial slurs against anyone. We don't live there. And there is less of a sting because the majority, by nature of being a majority, isn't exactly as persecuted. Were most white's ancestors slaves in the past hundred years, and lacking civil rights in the last 50? I think not, and I laugh at you trying to compare the sting. One has hundreds of years of history behind it, the other doesn't.

82Marine89

02-17-2009, 12:08 PM

There is a double standard because life isn't fair. Get used to it. In a perfect world, nobody would ever use racial slurs against anyone. We don't live there. And there is less of a sting because the majority, by nature of being a majority, isn't exactly as persecuted. Were most white's ancestors slaves in the past hundred years, and lacking civil rights in the last 50? I think not, and I laugh at you trying to compare the sting. One has hundreds of years of history behind it, the other doesn't.

So I guess growing up being called a Dago, wop, guinea, grease ball should have no effect on me because I'm white. I guess the Irish shouldn't be pissed because of the INNA signs in store fronts. I don't cry because life isn't fair, I never expected it to be. I only expect that the same standards be applied to all and for you to say it's OK that the rules are skewed makes you part of the problem, not the solution.

Yurt

02-17-2009, 02:53 PM

Fine, you win on the definition war. But you know full well I was talking official censorship and legal type of ban, not a lesser known use of the word. That really what you want to base your argument upon?

of course...it worked

you are in fact arguing for a type of ban.

DannyR

02-17-2009, 04:07 PM

So I guess growing up being called a Dago, wop, guinea, grease ball should have no effect on me because I'm white.I'm sure you've had years of therapy to recover by now. But I would guess that no, they didn't have near as much effect on you as years of being called the n-word has had on blacks.

I guess the Irish shouldn't be pissed because of the INNA signs in store fronts.Eh? That is exactly the same sort of thing as happened with blacks, only this time based more on economic and religion than race. A poor minority, often with a different religion and culture, comes into an area and is strongly persecuted by the majority already in power.

You want to critique my examples, then find a few of the Irish oppressing rich New Yorkers. Your example only supports my arguments.

I only expect that the same standards be applied to all and for you to say it's OK that the rules are skewed makes you part of the problem, not the solution.

The standard is the same. Don't insult people! However what you are doing is ignoring the simple fact that what one person finds to be an insult may not be by another. Sorry, people aren't the same. If I call my brother an idiot its usually a term of endearment and comradship. Thats hardly the same compared to calling the local special education kid one though!

April15

02-17-2009, 04:38 PM

The confederate flag is a part of history. Many flags are part of history. As long as they remain history life is grand.

5stringJeff

02-17-2009, 06:27 PM

82Marine89

02-17-2009, 06:49 PM

I'm sure you've had years of therapy to recover by now. But I would guess that no, they didn't have near as much effect on you as years of being called the n-word has had on blacks.

Eh? That is exactly the same sort of thing as happened with blacks, only this time based more on economic and religion than race. A poor minority, often with a different religion and culture, comes into an area and is strongly persecuted by the majority already in power.

You want to critique my examples, then find a few of the Irish oppressing rich New Yorkers. Your example only supports my arguments.

The standard is the same. Don't insult people! However what you are doing is ignoring the simple fact that what one person finds to be an insult may not be by another. Sorry, people aren't the same. If I call my brother an idiot its usually a term of endearment and comradship. Thats hardly the same compared to calling the local special education kid one though!

Thanks for justifying racism. :clap:

DannyR

02-17-2009, 09:15 PM

Thanks for justifying racism.Someone insulting a person of their own race is racism? :lol:

actsnoblemartin

02-17-2009, 09:19 PM

thats true, every country has had its flag used for honorable and dishonorable events

As far as I see it...

The flag is as ligit as anyother countries flag, yes it has been used by racists, but so has the union flag over here, bith the National front and the British Nationalist Party use the union flag, doesn't mean we should all stop using it.

What I do find odd though is why someone would use the confed. Flag, do y'all fly it outside your house or what?

actsnoblemartin

02-17-2009, 09:20 PM

Someone insulting a person of their own race is racism? :lol:

is calling yourself an asshole, NOT putting yourself down?

so is calling yourself or someone of your own race a racial slur

DannyR

02-17-2009, 09:24 PM

is calling yourself an asshole, NOT putting yourself down?

so is calling yourself or someone of your own race a racial slurIt may or may not be an insult depending on who says it to whom, but you can't exactly call it racism when someone insults someone else of their own race.

You guys seem to be ignoring the small fact that words have different contexts depending on usage.

actsnoblemartin

02-17-2009, 09:25 PM

dont get me wrong. Im not saying its racism

im saying its ignorant :)

thats my story and im sticking to it

:lol:

It may or may not be an insult depending on who says it to whom, but you can't exactly call it racism when someone insults someone else of their own race.

You guys seem to be ignoring the small fact that words have different contexts depending on usage.

glockmail

02-17-2009, 09:26 PM

It may or may not be an insult depending on who says it to whom, but you can't exactly call it racism when someone insults someone else of their own race.

You guys seem to be ignoring the small fact that words have different contexts depending on usage.

You can't be from the Atlanta that I know. Here we say "Y'all".

DannyR

02-17-2009, 09:28 PM

dont get me wrong. Im not saying its racism

im saying its ignorant :)

No disagreement there. Blacks calling each other the n-word and the like are rather ignorant. But its still laughable to call it racist. And who cares if someone overhearing it gets offended. Those of you supporting the Confederate flag have already established that someone feeling offended by something doesn't mean squat. :laugh2:

actsnoblemartin

02-17-2009, 09:28 PM

oh yeah. trivia time

what do they say in texas

You can't be from the Atlanta that I know. Here we say "Y'all".

glockmail

02-17-2009, 09:30 PM

oh yeah. trivia time

what do they say in texas Y'all. They are correct there as well.

actsnoblemartin

02-17-2009, 09:32 PM

Y'all. They are correct there as well.

true, but they say, im blank too get mad

im blank to go eat

want a hint or just say it

DannyR

02-17-2009, 09:32 PM

You can't be from the Atlanta that I know. Here we say "Y'all".You can't be from the Atlanta that I know. Half the people here are transplanted Yankees. You have to go outside the city limits to get the really deep southern accent. :laugh2:

Seriously, I've lived in Georgia since I was two, but my family is from the midwest, so I've got a bit of a mixed dialect.

actsnoblemartin

02-17-2009, 09:33 PM

how you like georgia?

hows the weather?

You can't be from the Atlanta that I know. Half the people here are transplanted Yankees. You have to go outside the city limits to get the really deep southern accent. :laugh2:

Seriously, I've lived in Georgia since I was two, but my family is from the midwest, so I've got a bit of a mixed dialect.

glockmail

02-17-2009, 09:35 PM

true, but they say, im blank too get mad

im blank to go eat

want a hint or just say it
Just say it.

actsnoblemartin

02-17-2009, 09:37 PM

Just say it.

sorry :)

they say fixin'

im fixin' to get mad

im fixin' to go eat

and so on

:) :coffee:

DannyR

02-17-2009, 09:37 PM

how you like georgia?

hows the weather?I think we've had perhaps 2 weeks of cold weather and perhaps only a handful of days we had to worry about freezing. I've been walking around in short sleeves the rest of this "winter".

Probably all those confederate flags waving in the breeze warming things up.

glockmail

02-17-2009, 09:37 PM

You can't be from the Atlanta that I know. Half the people here are transplanted Yankees. You have to go outside the city limits to get the really deep southern accent. :laugh2:

Seriously, I've lived in Georgia since I was two, but my family is from the midwest, so I've got a bit of a mixed dialect. True dat. I'm not from Atlanta. I'm not from North Carolina, but I got here as soon as I could.

glockmail

02-17-2009, 09:39 PM

sorry :)

they say fixin'

im fixin' to get mad

im fixin' to go eat

and so on

:) :coffee: Here they say "wantin' ", as "I've been wantin' one of them 50 calibers...".

Psychoblues

02-21-2009, 06:25 AM

I think you missed his point and mine too!!!!!!!!!!!!

Way to skip his entire point, PB.

Ain't that a bitch!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Adult conversations aren't your forte', are they?!?!??!?!?!?!??!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

DragonStryk72

02-22-2009, 10:31 PM

I think you missed his point and mine too!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ain't that a bitch!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Adult conversations aren't your forte', are they?!?!??!?!?!?!??!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

Uh, no, I didn't, thanks, and why do you insist on always taking the offensive. Now, I don't agree with Danny, but he's never in this whole thing gotten derogatory, or even snide. Is it that much of a problem for you to act with maturity, PB?

Psychoblues

02-23-2009, 04:54 AM

DS72, uh, you've known me a while now. Are you trying to be snarky?!?!?!?!?!

Uh, no, I didn't, thanks, and why do you insist on always taking the offensive. Now, I don't agree with Danny, but he's never in this whole thing gotten derogatory, or even snide. Is it that much of a problem for you to act with maturity, PB?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

Truth Squad

03-06-2009, 11:23 AM

As a life-long resident of the state of Texas, I know what the Confederate flag stands for. It stands for racism and the concept of White Supremacy.

jimnyc

03-06-2009, 04:49 PM

As a life-long resident of the state of Texas, I know what the Confederate flag stands for. It stands for racism and the concept of White Supremacy.

It stands for that, or that's what YOU think it stands for. What about the others that DON'T see the flag representing that? Are their viewpoints/desires out the window because of opposing views?

DannyR

03-06-2009, 05:08 PM

It stands for that, or that's what YOU think it stands for. What about the others that DON'T see the flag representing that? Are their viewpoints/desires out the window because of opposing views?Hehe... I feel like adding a GOTO command here, pointing the thread back to the start where the answers to those questions have already been argued.

Immanuel

03-06-2009, 07:05 PM

As a life-long resident of the state of Texas, I know what the Confederate flag stands for. It stands for racism and the concept of White Supremacy.

There has to be some truth in there somewhere, but I'll be doggoned if I can find it.

Maybe that is what some "people" today use that flag for, but it originally stood for the Spirit of the South... which was in fact the Spirit that America had always possessed both North and South. It stood for rights and freedoms from what some believed was an oppressive Federal government.

Yes, the South depended upon a disgusting institution in slavery. And yes, they were fighting for the right to maintain that institution. They believed (wrongly) that their very livelihoods depended on it... but the South fought the Civil War for the same reasons the colonies fought the Revolution. They fought to maintain their rights and against a government that sought to control them. That is a fight that I fear we Americans might someday have to fight again.

Immie

5stringJeff

03-07-2009, 01:09 PM

As a life-long resident of the state of Texas, I know what the Confederate flag stands for. It stands for racism and the concept of White Supremacy.

As a native Texan (though now living in Georgia), I know what the Confederate flag stands for. It stands for the Confederate States of America. Any later attempts to hijack the flag for purposes of racism do not invalidate the original meaning.

Psychoblues

03-09-2009, 10:43 PM

Jeff, you're a smart guy. Get rid of the blacks and the fear of them and there will be no more reason for the public display or defense of the defeated flag of the Confederacy.

As a native Texan (though now living in Georgia), I know what the Confederate flag stands for. It stands for the Confederate States of America. Any later attempts to hijack the flag for purposes of racism do not invalidate the original meaning.

Don't you agree?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

Yurt

03-10-2009, 04:27 PM

Hehe... I feel like adding a GOTO command here, pointing the thread back to the start where the answers to those questions have already been argued.

nerd :lame2:

DannyR

03-10-2009, 05:27 PM

nerd :lame2:Proud of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xEzGIuY7kw

Yurt

03-10-2009, 06:06 PM

Proud of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xEzGIuY7kw

i have no doubt you are proud and proud that you are a nerd. you are very proud danny, very proud.

5stringJeff

03-10-2009, 07:20 PM

Jeff, you're a smart guy. Get rid of the blacks and the fear of them and there will be no more reason for the public display or defense of the defeated flag of the Confederacy.

Don't you agree?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

It has nothing to do with getting rid of blacks. It has everything to do with an independent South.

DannyR

03-10-2009, 07:37 PM

i have no doubt you are proud and proud that you are a nerd. you are very proud danny, very proud.Sorry I can't be as humble as yourself. :poke: I never did take that advice you gave me to get over myself. ;)

Yurt

03-10-2009, 08:02 PM

Sorry I can't be as humble as yourself. :poke: I never did take that advice you gave me to get over myself. ;)

yes danny, we all know.....thank you for proving my point :beer:

Psychoblues

04-11-2009, 01:19 PM

Jeff,,,,,,I don't know why I take the trouble to answer this again but here we go,,,,,,,,that was then, jeff, this is now. You know that I live in Mississippi, don't you?!?!?!??! I deal with people everyday that proudly display their confederate flags. And they are very proud to share their views and their feelings about that miserable rag to anyone they believe might share their sickness. These people quite clearly demonstate an intense hatred for black people, yankees (northerners) in general and the American standards and values that I found so meaningful that I went to war for the protection and preservation of them. Some of the jerks I am speaking of also went to war but they apparently did so for an entirely different reason than me.

It has nothing to do with getting rid of blacks. It has everything to do with an independent South.

It's a fear and loathing thing with them, don't you know?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

5stringJeff

04-11-2009, 01:39 PM

Jeff,,,,,,I don't know why I take the trouble to answer this again but here we go,,,,,,,,that was then, jeff, this is now. You know that I live in Mississippi, don't you?!?!?!??! I deal with people everyday that proudly display their confederate flags. And they are very proud to share their views and their feelings about that miserable rag to anyone they believe might share their sickness. These people quite clearly demonstate an intense hatred for black people, yankees (northerners) in general and the American standards and values that I found so meaningful that I went to war for the protection and preservation of them. Some of the jerks I am speaking of also went to war but they apparently did so for an entirely different reason than me.

It's a fear and loathing thing with them, don't you know?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

I'm sure that there are plenty of people who still use the flag for purposes of hatred. There are also many who use the flag as a symbol of desired independence from the federal government.

theHawk

04-11-2009, 02:30 PM

I find it amazing that some people are so offended by the display of the Confederate flag, which is purely American in orgin, yet have no problem with LaRaza waving the Mexcian flag around at protests.

crin63

04-11-2009, 03:25 PM

I've always been of the opinion that the Confederate flag is and was a symbol of a fight for a free America. An America free from the heavy hand of a federal government out of control. A heavy handed government that was trying to subjugate the people of the south to steal their land and fortunes. To impose their will on states and not let them determine their own direction.

Slavery is and was wrong but it was a side issue and flying that flag has nothing to do racism for most people. It has everything to do with remembering what a heavy handed federal government will do to control Americans.

Psychoblues

04-19-2009, 04:06 AM

Pitiful,,,,,,just pitiful, cr.

I've always been of the opinion that the Confederate flag is and was a symbol of a fight for a free America. An America free from the heavy hand of a federal government out of control. A heavy handed government that was trying to subjugate the people of the south to steal their land and fortunes. To impose their will on states and not let them determine their own direction.

Slavery is and was wrong but it was a side issue and flying that flag has nothing to do racism for most people. It has everything to do with remembering what a heavy handed federal government will do to control Americans.

I really thought better of you than that piece of shit?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!

crin63

04-19-2009, 09:53 AM

Pitiful,,,,,,just pitiful, cr.
I really thought better of you than that piece of shit?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Psychoblues

Personally, I wouldn't fly that flag because so many have been led to believe as you do about it and its just not worth offending so many by flying it IMHO, but my opinion of it stands.

Psychoblues

04-21-2009, 07:12 PM

Well, I can appreciate that, cr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Personally, I wouldn't fly that flag because so many have been led to believe as you do about it and its just not worth offending so many by flying it IMHO, but my opinion of it stands.

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!

CockySOB

04-21-2009, 08:39 PM

Just for you, psycho, the Battle Flag flies again! Enjoy it in good health!

Psychoblues

04-21-2009, 08:48 PM

No need to fly it on my account, CSOB!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just for you, psycho, the Battle Flag flies again! Enjoy it in good health!

About half of beating any opponent is determining just how smart they might be. Whenever I see someone flying that rag and expressing pride in it I already know they aren't very smart!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Carry on, cowgirl, and fly your rag any way you please!!!!!!!!!!! This is indeed a free country and we don't get excited about the small shit like you and your rag!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mr. P

04-21-2009, 08:57 PM

I like my flag the best.

emmett

04-21-2009, 09:06 PM

I like my flag the best.

Only one that really matters!

:salute:

Psychoblues

04-23-2009, 10:17 PM

We are all aware of that signal, emmie!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Only one that really matters!

:salute:

:salute::beer::cheers2::beer::salute:

Psychoblues

Kathianne

04-23-2009, 10:21 PM

I've never liked the Confederate flag, always thought it meant 'hate.' Not so sure anymore.

Psychoblues

04-23-2009, 10:26 PM

Your premonitions were correct, kitty!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've never liked the Confederate flag, always thought it meant 'hate.' Not so sure anymore.

That rag now is the symbol of the Republicans, at least in Mississippi. Sad,,,,,,,,,ain't it?!?!?!?????!?!?!?!?!

Can I buy you a Cosmos?!?!??!??!??!?!??!??

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Mr. P

04-23-2009, 10:35 PM

I've never liked the Confederate flag, always thought it meant 'hate.' Not so sure anymore.

Just a symbol of history for me. Hijacked by the KKK so I understand your opinion of hate..Most white Southern folks view it as I do I think...it's just history.

Psychoblues

04-23-2009, 10:41 PM

Many white southern folk continue to resent the fact that the Union won in 1865, pee, and they continue to be genuinely scared to death of black folk and hate yankees (general northerners) with a passion that you may never know!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was born and raised here. I am generally accepted as "white"!!!!!!!!!!!!! These idiots tell me what they really think!!!!!!!!!!!!! They make perfect ones for exploitation by those that have only fear and loathing to sell, i.e. Republicans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just a symbol of history for me. Hijacked by the KKK so I understand your opinion of hate..Most white Southern folks view it as I do I think...it's just history.

What to do about all that?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Mr. P

04-23-2009, 11:02 PM

Many white southern folk continue to resent the fact that the Union won in 1865, pee, and they continue to be genuinely scared to death of black folk and hate yankees (general northerners) with a passion that you may never know!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was born and raised here. I am generally accepted as "white"!!!!!!!!!!!!! These idiots tell me what they really think!!!!!!!!!!!!! They make perfect ones for exploitation by those that have only fear and loathing to sell, i.e. Republicans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What to do about all that?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

I've traveled the entire south Phycho, lived here all my life also...Yes, there are small, very small, "pockets" of folks that resent the fact that the Union won but you'd be hard pressed to find one, for the most part no one gives a shit about those "pockets". Not to confuse the MORONS that fly the flag on the P/U truck..they are MORONS and don't have clue...just another hijack.

Psychoblues

04-23-2009, 11:09 PM

You calling Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia et al "small pockets?!?!??!?!?!? Do so at your own risk, cowgirl. I live here and the polls are not as inaccurate as you might pretend!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've traveled the entire south Phycho, lived here all my life also...Yes, there are small, very small, "pockets" of folks that resent the fact that the Union won but you'd be hard pressed to find one, for the most part no one gives a shit about those "pockets". Not to confuse the MORONS that fly the flag on the P/U truck..they are MORONS and don't have clue...just another hijack.

Can we be nice and you allow me to buy you a cold one?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

Mr. P

04-23-2009, 11:26 PM

You calling Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia et al "small pockets?!?!??!?!?!? Do so at your own risk, cowgirl. I live here and the polls are not as inaccurate as you might pretend!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can we be nice and you allow me to buy you a cold one?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

:laugh2: Only the small pockets would even have such a poll, and it ain't entire states...But I can imagine the poll... Q: Do you hate the North cuz they won? Q:When did you drop outta school? Q:How many cars or trucks are on blocks in yer yard? Q: Had sex with yer cuz this week yet? Q: If yer front porch collapses how many dogs die?

An Amber Bock and I'm to bed. Thanks! :beer:

Psychoblues

04-23-2009, 11:31 PM

Holy Moly!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yer kickin' my ass, pee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:laugh2: Only the small pockets would even have such a poll, and it ain't entire states...But I can imagine the poll... Q: Do you hate the North cuz they won? Q:When did you drop outta school? Q:How many cars or trucks are on blocks in yer yard? Q: Had sex with yer cuz this week yet? Q: If yer front porch collapses how many dogs die?

An Amber Bock and I'm to bed. Thanks! :beer:

Amber Bock and you're done?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

cat slave

07-26-2009, 11:10 PM

Since I've seen so many discussions on the Confederate flag, I've decided to give one southerner's view on the whole thing.

First off is the Confederacy itself. Yes, the Confederacy allowed slavery throughout its borders, and that was wrong. To be fair, though, four Union states still allowed slavery, and those were Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware. In the Union, racism was still rampant, and a free black in the South enjoyed more liberties than a black in the North. The Confederacy, rather, was formed over states' rights. The South felt that the more populous Northern states were using their legislative power to overstep the Constitution and impose their will on the South. With Northern industry heavily dependant on Southern agriculture combined with Northern condescension towards Southerners, who they thought to be stupid (sound familiar), this was probably true.

The War Between the States. When the war started, it was in response to the Union leaving a fort (Fort Sumpter) manned, despite the fact that the land it was built on was still owned by the state of South Carolina, which had seceded from the Union. Although no person was killed in the assault on either side, Lincoln moved an army into the South, which was routed at Manassas (not Bull Run, Yankee retards. Manassas was where it happened. Bull Run was the nearest river). The Southerners fought valiantly to try to save their new nation, and outfought the Union on every battlefield, but the Union had more men and resources. Knowing that the world depended on their cotton crop, the Confederacy appealed to Great Britain and France for help (France was still worth talking to for help right up until they sunk all that money into the Maginot Line in the 20s and 30s). Britain hesitated, and France awaited Britain's answer.

The war was not about slavery. Yes, you heard that right. Slavery was far from the issue. In fact, despite the hype behind the (admirable) unit portrayed in the movie "Glory," that unit did not contain America's first black soldiers. Although Confederate military records were destroyed after the war (many think to cover up this fact), photographic and mail evidence clearly show that many Confederate units were mixed, with between 30,000 and 100,000 black soldiers fighting for the South, many in exchange for emancipation. With the war already going badly and appearing long and costly, Lincoln feared France and Britain entering the war, as they would force the Union to accept the Confederacy as an independant nation. To this end, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. It was nothing more than a speech, and did not affect any slaves in the four Union slave states. However, Britain was a strongly abolitionist nation and, for appearance's sake, kept out of the war, as did France. In fact, General Ulysses S. Grant owned his own slaves until the 13th ammendment passed in 1865.

Following the war, Lincoln was willing to welcome back the Confederacy and get back to business as usual, with no penalties for former Confederates. He wanted the bloody business done and behind us, but before he could implement his plan, he was assassinated. His successors did not have such a merciful view. They were so forceful in freeing the slaves that many of them ended up starving on the streets, unable to return to their former masters for work. In addition to this, many Northern politicians created puppet governments through uneducated blacks, who now controlled most of the Southern vote. To protect the interests of the Southern states, the KKK was formed to combat the influence of Northern puppetteers and 'carpetbaggers,' so named for the luggage they carried, which was made from old carpet.

When the KKK formed, they were not racist in primary purpose, but were rather political. However, it did not take long for the goals of the KKK as a shadow political party to be hijacked by the many racists who had climbed to power in the organization. With their popularity declining, they adopted the symbol of the Confederacy, claiming they carried its legacy. Despite this, the KKK was eventually dissolved, mostly due to new laws designed specifically to bring it down. In the early 20th century, a new movie entitled "The Klansman" opened in theaters. This fictionalized version of the founding of the KKK protrayed all blacks and idiots and the KKK as being the only thing standing between white women and black rapists. It also caused the revival of the Klan, which took on not only the Confederacy, but adopted Christianity (specifically Protestantism) as another symbol, not because of religious endorsement, but to increase their popularity among the protestant majority of the South. Although it has died down from the pre-civil rights days of lynchings and partial political control of the South, the KKK still exists as a racist organization, now expanding further in its goals to take out not only blacks, but Jews, Mexicans, Asians, and even Catholics.

It is also worth noting that with few exceptions, the South integrated more swiftly and with less conflict than the North.

Now to the Confederate flag. The Confederate flag is the flag of a fallen nation. That nation fought for the rights of the states to be free from a federal government controlled by industrialists. Many of us (Southerners) have ancestors who fought for that nation, and we will not be ashamed. However, black race-baiters feed off of conflict, and portraying the South as the cause of all black problems is far easier than telling them what really happened and trying to move on. The fact that the KKK has also soiled our blessed flags in their dogmatic idiocy has not helped matters. However, given the true history of the Confederacy and the flag that the KKK adopted, it is clear that the Confederate flag is no more racist than the cross, another symbol adopted by the KKK. What needs to happen is not the politically motivated suppression of a historical symbol, but rather an abandonment of the attack on all things associated with the Confederate nation. The Confederacy is long dead, and its a horse that has been beaten for nearly 150 years, post mortem.

I, personally, have a full set of Confederate flags in my room, but they will never fly higher than the American flag also in my room, and I will never toss them aside just because some black guy doesn't want to be reminded of the country on which he blames all of his problems.

You should have a standing ovation for that post!:clap:

Binky

07-27-2009, 02:51 PM

Since I've seen so many discussions on the Confederate flag, I've decided to give one southerner's view on the whole thing.

First off is the Confederacy itself. Yes, the Confederacy allowed slavery throughout its borders, and that was wrong. To be fair, though, four Union states still allowed slavery, and those were Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware. In the Union, racism was still rampant, and a free black in the South enjoyed more liberties than a black in the North. The Confederacy, rather, was formed over states' rights. The South felt that the more populous Northern states were using their legislative power to overstep the Constitution and impose their will on the South. With Northern industry heavily dependant on Southern agriculture combined with Northern condescension towards Southerners, who they thought to be stupid (sound familiar), this was probably true.

The War Between the States. When the war started, it was in response to the Union leaving a fort (Fort Sumpter) manned, despite the fact that the land it was built on was still owned by the state of South Carolina, which had seceded from the Union. Although no person was killed in the assault on either side, Lincoln moved an army into the South, which was routed at Manassas (not Bull Run, Yankee retards. Manassas was where it happened. Bull Run was the nearest river). The Southerners fought valiantly to try to save their new nation, and outfought the Union on every battlefield, but the Union had more men and resources. Knowing that the world depended on their cotton crop, the Confederacy appealed to Great Britain and France for help (France was still worth talking to for help right up until they sunk all that money into the Maginot Line in the 20s and 30s). Britain hesitated, and France awaited Britain's answer.

The war was not about slavery. Yes, you heard that right. Slavery was far from the issue. In fact, despite the hype behind the (admirable) unit portrayed in the movie "Glory," that unit did not contain America's first black soldiers. Although Confederate military records were destroyed after the war (many think to cover up this fact), photographic and mail evidence clearly show that many Confederate units were mixed, with between 30,000 and 100,000 black soldiers fighting for the South, many in exchange for emancipation. With the war already going badly and appearing long and costly, Lincoln feared France and Britain entering the war, as they would force the Union to accept the Confederacy as an independant nation. To this end, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. It was nothing more than a speech, and did not affect any slaves in the four Union slave states. However, Britain was a strongly abolitionist nation and, for appearance's sake, kept out of the war, as did France. In fact, General Ulysses S. Grant owned his own slaves until the 13th ammendment passed in 1865.

Following the war, Lincoln was willing to welcome back the Confederacy and get back to business as usual, with no penalties for former Confederates. He wanted the bloody business done and behind us, but before he could implement his plan, he was assassinated. His successors did not have such a merciful view. They were so forceful in freeing the slaves that many of them ended up starving on the streets, unable to return to their former masters for work. In addition to this, many Northern politicians created puppet governments through uneducated blacks, who now controlled most of the Southern vote. To protect the interests of the Southern states, the KKK was formed to combat the influence of Northern puppetteers and 'carpetbaggers,' so named for the luggage they carried, which was made from old carpet.

When the KKK formed, they were not racist in primary purpose, but were rather political. However, it did not take long for the goals of the KKK as a shadow political party to be hijacked by the many racists who had climbed to power in the organization. With their popularity declining, they adopted the symbol of the Confederacy, claiming they carried its legacy. Despite this, the KKK was eventually dissolved, mostly due to new laws designed specifically to bring it down. In the early 20th century, a new movie entitled "The Klansman" opened in theaters. This fictionalized version of the founding of the KKK protrayed all blacks and idiots and the KKK as being the only thing standing between white women and black rapists. It also caused the revival of the Klan, which took on not only the Confederacy, but adopted Christianity (specifically Protestantism) as another symbol, not because of religious endorsement, but to increase their popularity among the protestant majority of the South. Although it has died down from the pre-civil rights days of lynchings and partial political control of the South, the KKK still exists as a racist organization, now expanding further in its goals to take out not only blacks, but Jews, Mexicans, Asians, and even Catholics.

It is also worth noting that with few exceptions, the South integrated more swiftly and with less conflict than the North.

Now to the Confederate flag. The Confederate flag is the flag of a fallen nation. That nation fought for the rights of the states to be free from a federal government controlled by industrialists. Many of us (Southerners) have ancestors who fought for that nation, and we will not be ashamed. However, black race-baiters feed off of conflict, and portraying the South as the cause of all black problems is far easier than telling them what really happened and trying to move on. The fact that the KKK has also soiled our blessed flags in their dogmatic idiocy has not helped matters. However, given the true history of the Confederacy and the flag that the KKK adopted, it is clear that the Confederate flag is no more racist than the cross, another symbol adopted by the KKK. What needs to happen is not the politically motivated suppression of a historical symbol, but rather an abandonment of the attack on all things associated with the Confederate nation. The Confederacy is long dead, and its a horse that has been beaten for nearly 150 years, post mortem.

I, personally, have a full set of Confederate flags in my room, but they will never fly higher than the American flag also in my room, and I will never toss them aside just because some black guy doesn't want to be reminded of the country on which he blames all of his problems.

A very well written post....quite informative. If this were a movie, I'd give you an academy award......:wink2:

Psychoblues

12-01-2009, 09:44 PM

The rebels suck yankee dicks!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

:laugh2:

Mr. P

12-01-2009, 10:11 PM

The rebels suck yankee dicks!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

:laugh2:

Nice to see ya!...where the hell have you been?

glockmail

12-01-2009, 10:14 PM

The rebels suck yankee dicks!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

:laugh2:

THIS rebel will cut your dick off and make you suck it. :slap:

Psychoblues

12-01-2009, 10:20 PM

Good to see you too, pee.

Nice to see ya!...where the hell have you been?

Thanks for you patriotism.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

:laugh2:

Psychoblues

12-01-2009, 10:23 PM

How about this, girlie?

THIS rebel will cut your dick off and make you suck it. :slap:

:pee: glockmail

:beer::cheers2::beer:

:laugh2:

Jeff

12-02-2009, 07:08 AM

Being born and raised in the North ( where we flew the flag in our P/U trucks and then moving south , where yea I see some still have them, I really don't see what the big deal is either way

I was up in DC last week and the shirts with Obama's picture on the front saying time for change and on the back saying it is our turn now is just as offensive as the flag is

IMO I don't really give a damn if someone wants to wear there Malcom X shirt or fly the rebel flag, doesn't cost me anything either way

We have much bigger fish to fry then a flag

crin63

05-05-2010, 09:53 AM

I realize this is an old thread but I just read an article from Walter Williams on the Confederate Flag. The Marine Corps is apparently turning down recruits who have the Confederate Flag tattooed on their bodies. It was a short article so I posted all of it. If thats a problem can one of you mods fix it.

Walter Williams

Misplaced priorities

http://www.jewishworldreview.com --
NOW THAT THE SCHOOLS that black youngsters attend are educating well, the devastating crime rate in black communities has abated and the black family has recovered its past stability, the NAACP can now focus on perceived indignities such as the Confederate battle flag flying over the Capitol Dome of South Carolina.

The NAACP has done just that with a proclamation that calls for boycotts and economic sanctions against South Carolina. Surely, the NAACP leadership can't really believe that blacks have reached a point where we can now focus attention and expend resources on social fine-tuning.

It must be ignorance, an ignorance I once shared. The NAACP crowd sees the Confederate battle flag as a flag of slavery. If that's so, the United States flag is even more so. Slavery thrived under the United States flag from 1776 to 1865, while under the Confederate flag a mere four years.

The birth of both flags had little or nothing to do with slavery. Both flags saw their birth in a violent and proud struggle for independence and self governance. However, if one sees the War for Southern Independence solely or chiefly as a struggle for slavery, then it's natural to resent the Confederate battle flag.

The idea that President Abraham Lincoln waged war against the South to abolish slavery is fiction created by the victors. Here's an oft-repeated sentiment by President Lincoln: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists.

I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Slavery simply emerged as a moral front for northern aggression.

A more plausible source of North-South antagonism is suggested in an 1831 speech by South Carolina Sen. John C. Calhoun where he said, "Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence and force must ultimately prevail."

A significant source of Southern discontent was tariffs Congress enacted to protect Northern manufacturing interests. Referring to those tariffs, Calhoun said, "The North has adopted a system of revenue and disbursements in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed on the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the North." Among other Southern grievances were Northern actions similar to King George III's Navigation Acts, which drove our Founders to the 1776 War of Independence.

Though it's not politically correct for our history books to report, black slaves and free blacks were among the men who fought and died heroically for the cause of the Confederacy. Professor Edward Smith, director of American studies at American University, says Stonewall Jackson had 3,000 fully-equipped black troops scattered throughout his corps at Antietam -- the war's bloodiest battle. Smith calculates that between 60,000 and 93,000 blacks served the Confederacy in some capacity. These black Confederate soldiers no more fought to preserve slavery than their successors fought in WWI and WWII to preserve Jim Crow and segregation. They fought because their homeland was attacked and fought in the hope that the future would be better and they'd be rewarded for their patriotism."

If the NAACP leadership just has to commit resources to issues surrounding the Confederacy, I'd like to see them make an effort to see to it that black Confederate soldiers are memorialized and honored.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams111799.asp

crin63

05-05-2010, 09:55 AM

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

U.S. Marine hoists Confederate flag during World War II (photo: WWII in Color)

A widely regarded Southern symbol of pride and states' rights is standing in the way of would-be Marines in their quest to serve their country – a Confederate battle flag.

Straight out of high school, one 18-year-old Tennessee man was determined to serve his country as a Marine. His friend said he passed the pre-enlistment tests and physical exams and looked forward with excitement to the day he would ship out to boot camp.

But there would be no shouting drill instructors, no rigorous physical training and no action-packed stories for the aspiring Marine to share with his family.

Your favorate flag, whether it's the Stars and Stripes, the Gadsden, the Navy Jack or another, is at the WND Superstore's flag store!

Shortly before he was scheduled to leave Nashville for boot camp, the Marine Corps rejected him.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=149729

Psychoblues

06-16-2010, 04:19 AM

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=149729

And you are proud of that, crin?

:beer::salute::beer:

Psychoblues

HogTrash

06-16-2010, 05:20 AM

I wonder how many Americans are happy that political correctness has finally infected the US Marine Corps?

Can anybody think of anyplace in America that has managed to escape this deadly destructive plague?...Anyplace?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=149729

Luna Tick

06-16-2010, 09:30 PM

HogTrash

06-17-2010, 02:16 PM

Well, last night when we had drunken sex in your bathtub I didn't notice any political correctness.Hog's hottub may be the only PC free zone left in all of America.

By the way LT...

Your 'bathtub priviledges' have been suspended untill further notice.

You know the rules, what happens at Hog's place, stays at Hog's place.

Luna Tick

06-17-2010, 09:14 PM

Hog's hottub may be the only PC free zone left in all of America.

By the way LT...

Your 'bathtub priviledges' have been suspended untill further notice.

You know the rules, what happens at Hog's place, stays at Hog's place.

Oops, sorry. I just couldn't help but brag a little.

Trinity

06-17-2010, 09:19 PM

crin63

06-18-2010, 08:47 AM

As an old symbol of opposition to a heavy-handed, over-reaching federal government yes I'm proud to see it displayed. Just as I'm proud to see the Gadsen flag displayed.

And you are proud of that, crin?

:beer::salute::beer:

Psychoblues

revelarts

06-25-2010, 08:22 PM

OK I hate to rain on the parade here. I really do. But I think I'm gonna.
I was hoping someone else would jump in here on this one, o well.

I've only got 2 problems with Hobbit's and William's comments.
1st - the idea that the war between the states wasn't because or fueled primarily by slavery.

I was open to that idea when I 1st heard it a few years back. I mean if it's true it's true but i went to read a few items just to see if the tariff and taxes issues or other issues where PARAMOUNT or even states rights.

I agree that the states should have had the right to secede I just don't believe that ever would have if it wasn't over the question of slavery.
Yes the north was just as bigoted as the south in many ways if not more so in some areas. ( I don't think either deserved an award in that department) and yes there were some slave areas left in the north at the beginning of the war.
BUT
When I read the confederates primary document, it's Constitution, the MAIN distinction it has from the the U.S. Constitution is it's CLEAR stance on slavery. It is practically Identical to the U.S. Constitution in every other way, except for SLAVERY. There are a few minor items about rivers and small technical gov't rules items but NO clarification of STATE RIGHTS or tariffs or taxes or any of the other items people assert were the real reasons for the war. If I'm wrong please show me in the confederate constitution.

Also when Jefferson Davis made his final speech to Congress he didn't mention any issue as the reason but the question of race and slavery. And as I mentioned, that the states do have a right to secede but the reason that Mississippi was seceding was over the divergent views on slavery, and black citizenship.

...It has been a conviction of pressing necessity -- it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us -- which has brought Mississippi to her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races.

If the problems were other issues why didn't he mention any of them? Why did he say it was Race and Slavery?

I don't think we in the south should to be the constant whipping boy for sins 150 years old but at the same time I don't think revising history to white wash the stains does anyone any good. Like the modern Germans there's a part of our history that we'd like to edit and we'd like to squeeze what honor we can out of it but no need to lie about it.

As far as the flag goes. the fact is some people who fly it harbor no ill toward minorities, but some do and it has sadly been used to promote those ideas. A local scenic photographer friend of mine was telling me about one his trips into a semi rural area near his home in VA where there are a fair amount of confederate flags flying -alone-. He passed one home and stopped to photograph it. there was a lone confederate flag on pole and an empty noose hanging from a nearby tree.
Sadly some people do still today put them together, but in my opinion it's like the over active fears over terrorist, there not enough of them to be a major problem. More minorities will die in car accidents and will be killed in abortion clinics than any of those backward poor idiot racist brothers will ever kill.
NOT to say that minorities shouldn't be weary when they come across someone waving a confederate flag but it's ultimately not a badge of racism for many.

Psychoblues

07-03-2010, 03:49 AM

OK I hate to rain on the parade here. I really do. But I think I'm gonna.
I was hoping someone else would jump in here on this one, o well.

I've only got 2 problems with Hobbit's and William's comments.
1st - the idea that the war between the states wasn't because or fueled primarily by slavery.

I was open to that idea when I 1st heard it a few years back. I mean if it's true it's true but i went to read a few items just to see if the tariff and taxes issues or other issues where PARAMOUNT or even states rights.

I agree that the states should have had the right to secede I just don't believe that ever would have if it wasn't over the question of slavery.
Yes the north was just as bigoted as the south in many ways if not more so in some areas. ( I don't think either deserved an award in that department) and yes there were some slave areas left in the north at the beginning of the war.
BUT
When I read the confederates primary document, it's Constitution, the MAIN distinction it has from the the U.S. Constitution is it's CLEAR stance on slavery. It is practically Identical to the U.S. Constitution in every other way, except for SLAVERY. There are a few minor items about rivers and small technical gov't rules items but NO clarification of STATE RIGHTS or tariffs or taxes or any of the other items people assert were the real reasons for the war. If I'm wrong please show me in the confederate constitution.

Also when Jefferson Davis made his final speech to Congress he didn't mention any issue as the reason but the question of race and slavery. And as I mentioned, that the states do have a right to secede but the reason that Mississippi was seceding was over the divergent views on slavery, and black citizenship.

If the problems were other issues why didn't he mention any of them? Why did he say it was Race and Slavery?

I don't think we in the south should to be the constant whipping boy for sins 150 years old but at the same time I don't think revising history to white wash the stains does anyone any good. Like the modern Germans there's a part of our history that we'd like to edit and we'd like to squeeze what honor we can out of it but no need to lie about it.

As far as the flag goes. the fact is some people who fly it harbor no ill toward minorities, but some do and it has sadly been used to promote those ideas. A local scenic photographer friend of mine was telling me about one his trips into a semi rural area near his home in VA where there are a fair amount of confederate flags flying -alone-. He passed one home and stopped to photograph it. there was a lone confederate flag on pole and an empty noose hanging from a nearby tree.
Sadly some people do still today put them together, but in my opinion it's like the over active fears over terrorist, there not enough of them to be a major problem. More minorities will die in car accidents and will be killed in abortion clinics than any of those backward poor idiot racist brothers will ever kill.
NOT to say that minorities shouldn't be weary when they come across someone waving a confederate flag but it's ultimately not a badge of racism for many.

Thanks revelarts. Your analogy is sound but still a bit flawed. It is the nigger haters that fly that disgusting flag and remain proud of it. I despise it and them.

:beer::salute::beer:

Psychoblues

country

07-30-2010, 11:00 AM

Jeff

08-02-2010, 03:52 PM

that is total B.S and you have to know it!

She probably doesn't, Poor black man ruined by a flag :rolleyes: Makes ya wonder where she would stand on the ITS A BLACK THING shirts, or Malcom X or for that matter the new shirt of choice for some black folk a pic of Obama with the words it is our turn now printed on it, guess all that's is OK :laugh:

How about go after the people that truly spread the hate (yes a lot of them use the flag as a symbol ) the flag to some is truly heritage not hatred but to simple minds it is a way to just scream racism, I wonder if Gabs called her Messiah a racist when he announced he didn't know all the facts but the police acted stupidly :laugh: Racism 101 brought to you in the comfort of your own living room there, there is racism and there always will be, but these young white kids screaming racism about something they know nothing about is ridiculous :laugh:

Dante

09-08-2010, 10:35 PM

Since I've seen so many discussions on the Confederate flag, I've decided to give one southerner's view on the whole thing.

First off is the Confederacy itself...

The War Between the States...

The war was not about slavery...

Following the war, Lincoln was willing to welcome back the Confederacy...

When the KKK formed, they were not racist in primary purpose, but were rather political...

It is also worth noting that with few exceptions, the South integrated more swiftly and with less conflict than the North.

Now to the Confederate flag. The Confederate flag is the flag of a fallen nation...

I, personally, have a full set of Confederate flags in my room, but they will never fly higher than the American flag also in my room, and I will never toss them aside just because some black guy doesn't want to be reminded of the country on which he blames all of his problems.The Confederacy was an Insurrection. They declared war on the United States. Enemies. They were enemies of the United States. The Flag of the Confederacy is a flag representing traitorous insurrection. An enemy flag.
- true story

The 14 Amendment:

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

South Carolina, the first state to join the insurrection debated what to say about why they were doing what they were doing. They didn't want to water down the causes. They put the rights of slavery at the top of the list. In their own words, the revolt was about slavery -- revisionism aside.

Comparing integration of the North and South is appalling: Jim Crow.

Default U.S. Marines boot recruits with Confederate tattoos
I wonder how many Americans are happy that political correctness has finally infected the US Marine Corps?

Can anybody think of anyplace in America that has managed to escape this deadly destructive plague?...Anyplace?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=149729

Considering the Confederacy was a traitorous insurrection, and that anyone alive today wasn't pardoned and forgiven for the crime of declaring war on America, why would the US Marines or any other branch of the United States Military want to use people who celebrate and/or glorify enemies of the United States?

DragonStryk72

09-08-2010, 11:32 PM

The Confederacy was an Insurrection. They declared war on the United States. Enemies. They were enemies of the United States. The Flag of the Confederacy is a flag representing traitorous insurrection. An enemy flag.
- true story

The 14 Amendment:

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

South Carolina, the first state to join the insurrection debated what to say about why they were doing what they were doing. They didn't want to water down the causes. They put the rights of slavery at the top of the list. In their own words, the revolt was about slavery -- revisionism aside.

Comparing integration of the North and South is appalling: Jim Crow.

Really? Actually, they tried to peacefully secede from the union, and were denied that, and the government wasn't listening to them, so what was their other option?. Also, brutal? You mean like what the Northern troops did to Southern towns when they were taken? Or here's one, how about the fact that slavery wasn't even illegal in the North during the Civil War?

Oh, and let's talk about how the North ground them into the dirt even after they surrendered, when Lincoln had clearly wanted to bring them back into the union peacefully? Talk about revisionism

[COLOR="Red"]
The 14 Amendment:

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

South Carolina, the first state to join the insurrection debated what to say about why they were doing what they were doing. They didn't want to water down the causes. They put the rights of slavery at the top of the list. In their own words, the revolt was about slavery -- revisionism aside.

Comparing integration of the North and South is appalling: Jim Crow.

Ahem, I think you forgot to post something:

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on [I]July 9, 1868[/RI] as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Yeah, so... The amendment you just quoted was actually placed 3 years after the end of the war by the winners to make sure the losers could be kept down for as long as possible. Beautiful job, really, because clearly the North was the souls of honor and integrity

Dante

09-08-2010, 11:53 PM

Really? Actually, they tried to peacefully secede from the union, and were denied that, and the government wasn't listening to them, so what was their other option?. Also, brutal? You mean like what the Northern troops did to Southern towns when they were taken? Or here's one, how about the fact that slavery wasn't even illegal in the North during the Civil War?

Oh, and let's talk about how the North ground them into the dirt even after they surrendered, when Lincoln had clearly wanted to bring them back into the union peacefully? Talk about revisionismI see revisionist history is your specialty.

"Several...slave states rejected calls for secession..."

"Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces attacked a U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

Attacking the North/ The United States as a way of justifying insurrection is disgusting.

The Confederacy was no better than the Weather Underground.

Ahem, I think you forgot to post something:

Yeah, so... The amendment you just quoted was actually placed 3 years after the end of the war by the winners to make sure the losers could be kept down for as long as possible. Beautiful job, really, because clearly the North was the souls of honor and integrity

Amendments are not passed over night.

The Confederacy declared was on the United States.

Enemies declare war. In my not so humble opinion, there is little difference between the Confederate Insurrection and the attacks on Pearl Harbor and 911. All were enemies who declared war on the United States.

what is untrue about the above?

:poke:

Great defense of the Confederate Flag. :laugh2:

DragonStryk72

09-10-2010, 12:10 AM

I see revisionist history is your specialty.

"Several...slave states rejected calls for secession..."

"Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces attacked a U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

Attacking the North/ The United States as a way of justifying insurrection is disgusting.

The Confederacy was no better than the Weather Underground.

Amendments are not passed over night.

The Confederacy declared was on the United States.

Enemies declare war. In my not so humble opinion, there is little difference between the Confederate Insurrection and the attacks on Pearl Harbor and 911. All were enemies who declared war on the United States.

what is untrue about the above?

:poke:

Yeah, your right it does take time. The amendment started the process of being added just after Lincoln's assassination. Funny, huh?

Once there's war, that's it, it's war. If we had guns drawn on each other, and you knew that I was going to shoot you dead, I made it publicly clear that I would, would you expect people to call you brutal for trying to shoot me before I got a shot off? Keep in mind, I'm military trained, so I'm a pretty good shot. If I fire, I'll most likely hit what I'm aiming for.

Same thing in war, note that they assaulted a military target, and pretty much stuck to that. Those bastards, attacking troops that were being prepped to attack and kill them.

So, then, you clearly support England taking us over, right? I mean, we are all just brutal insurrectionists against the English Empire.

DragonStryk72

09-10-2010, 12:37 AM

Both the outgoing administration of President James Buchanan and Lincoln's incoming administration rejected the legality of secession ]

From your wiki. Here's the problem: It was legal, as per the Constitution of the United States. They were denied their legal rights, the very thing many of them had family fight for not much over a hundred years before.

Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces attacked a U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Lincoln responded by calling for a volunteer army from each state to recapture federal property. This led to declarations of secession by four more slave states. Both sides raised armies as the Union assumed control of the border states early in the war and established a naval blockade. In September 1862, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation made ending slavery in the South a war goal,[1] and dissuaded the British from intervening

Now, let's go over this real quick. the seat of the Confederacy was located in Richmond, VA, home of Robert E. Lee. South Carolina is south of this location, meaning that, had the war been fought without taking South Carolina before the North started moving, there would have been a two-pronged attack coming at the capitol of the confederacy very quickly. You can't use that as proof of anything save solid tactics.

It doesn't state anything about Fort Sumter being put to the torch, or any brutality, just that it was attacked and taken by the confederacy.

You'll note, of course, that bold quote, so here we go: England managed to stamp out slavery without a single shot being fired over it, even though they had a worldwide, thriving slave trade. Why? Because they handled it the right way- They made it illegal first, but bought out the remaining slaves in the Empire from the traders and owners, allowing them to reestablish businesses. The same cannot be said for the North, who decided it was better to simply use the force of government.

Now, about this next part, the Reconstruction period,:

Republicans in Congress refused to accept Johnson's lenient terms, rejected the new members of Congress selected by the South, and in 1865-66 broke with the president. A sweeping Republican victory in the 1866 Congressional elections in the North gave the Radical Republicans enough control of Congress that they over-rode Johnson's vetoes and began what is called "Radical reconstruction" in 1867.

Congress removed the civilian governments in the South[3] in 1867 and put the former Confederacy under the rule of the U.S. Army. The army then conducted new elections in which the freed slaves could vote while those who held leading positions under the Confederacy were denied the vote and could not run for office.

So let's be clear, the South had already surrendered, with agreements which were put into motion by President Lincoln, only to have it all stripped away afterward.

The Confederate Flag was not a symbol of racism, but of people who refused to allow the federal government to strip them of their rights. When they attempted it peacefully, they were ignored, and when they attempted to seceded, their right, guaranteed them in the Constitution, was denied, and so battle was joined. Note that nowhere in your wiki who "declared" war first, only that the first attack was by the South, to secure their rear from a pincer attack.

Perhaps had the Radicals not sought to grind the South into the dirt, there would have been no KKK, no Jim Crow, but then that would have required the North to have actually listened, and not simply demand.

Dante

09-10-2010, 12:43 AM

Yeah, your right it does take time. The amendment started the process of being added just after Lincoln's assassination. Funny, huh?

Once there's war, that's it, it's war. If we had guns drawn on each other, and you knew that I was going to shoot you dead, I made it publicly clear that I would, would you expect people to call you brutal for trying to shoot me before I got a shot off? Keep in mind, I'm military trained, so I'm a pretty good shot. If I fire, I'll most likely hit what I'm aiming for.

Same thing in war, note that they assaulted a military target, and pretty much stuck to that. Those bastards, attacking troops that were being prepped to attack and kill them.

So, then, you clearly support England taking us over, right? I mean, we are all just brutal insurrectionists against the English Empire.
Faulty logic.
Of course I do not support what you infer, but probably not for any reason you may assume.

England viewed the Colonists (not us) as insurrectionists and the Colonists were. They admitted as much. :laugh:

But at the end of hostilities the Crown recognized the United States as an independent sovereign nation.

So I do say the Colonists were bloody traitors to the Crown, insurrectionists, but at some point the Crown legally recognized the colonies as separate from the Crown. A separate entity cannot be viewed as being in rebellion. Hostilities end and a new chapter gets written.

A Brit or Colonist of ages ago, flying the American Flag in Great Britain, could not be viewed as flying an enemy flag as the USA ceased being viewed as an enemy. The Crown recognized America as a friendly nation -- an equal. The United States of America share(d) Ambassadorial relations. The Confederacy never got that deal. They remained until the very end, an enemy of the United States.

Americans flying the Confederate flag are flying a flag of an enemy of the United States. The Confederacy was never declared a friendly nation or a friend.

]

From your wiki. Here's the problem: It was legal, as per the Constitution of the United States. They were denied their legal rights, the very thing many of them had family fight for not much over a hundred years before.

Now, let's go over this real quick. the seat of the Confederacy was located in Richmond, VA, home of Robert E. Lee. South Carolina is south of this location, meaning that, had the war been fought without taking South Carolina before the North started moving, there would have been a two-pronged attack coming at the capitol of the confederacy very quickly. You can't use that as proof of anything save solid tactics.

It doesn't state anything about Fort Sumter being put to the torch, or any brutality, just that it was attacked and taken by the confederacy.

You'll note, of course, that bold quote, so here we go: England managed to stamp out slavery without a single shot being fired over it, even though they had a worldwide, thriving slave trade. Why? Because they handled it the right way- They made it illegal first, but bought out the remaining slaves in the Empire from the traders and owners, allowing them to reestablish businesses. The same cannot be said for the North, who decided it was better to simply use the force of government.

Now, about this next part, the Reconstruction period,:

So let's be clear, the South had already surrendered, with agreements which were put into motion by President Lincoln, only to have it all stripped away afterward.

The Confederate Flag was not a symbol of racism, but of people who refused to allow the federal government to strip them of their rights. When they attempted it peacefully, they were ignored, and when they attempted to seceded, their right, guaranteed them in the Constitution, was denied, and so battle was joined. Note that nowhere in your wiki who "declared" war first, only that the first attack was by the South, to secure their rear from a pincer attack.

Perhaps had the Radicals not sought to grind the South into the dirt, there would have been no KKK, no Jim Crow, but then that would have required the North to have actually listened, and not simply demand.

There never was a legal right to secession.

The state right in question was one concerned with slavery. There is no getting around this. there are many disingenuous arguments then and now, but reality bites. The Confederacy had other legitimate arguments they did not want to work out peacefully. They started an insurrection. Over slavery.

I knew a Scholar from South Carolina who schooled me in this. He worked on the state symbols, the mace and other stuff. He wrote a history of Bishop Lynch. He is no hater of the South. His roots run deep, but he was an honest and extremely intelligent and fair minded man who called it as he saw it.

So although I may come across as hostile to the South, it is because I am forceful in pursuit of honesty and truth. I would never consider the Confederacy anything other than what they were -- a group that declared war against the United States.

There was no legal right to secession.

]

From your wiki. Here's the problem: It was legal, as per the Constitution of the United States. They were denied their legal rights, the very thing many of them had family fight for not much over a hundred years before.

Now, let's go over this real quick. the seat of the Confederacy was located in Richmond, VA, home of Robert E. Lee. South Carolina is south of this location, meaning that, had the war been fought without taking South Carolina before the North started moving, there would have been a two-pronged attack coming at the capitol of the confederacy very quickly. You can't use that as proof of anything save solid tactics.

It doesn't state anything about Fort Sumter being put to the torch, or any brutality, just that it was attacked and taken by the confederacy.

You'll note, of course, that bold quote, so here we go: England managed to stamp out slavery without a single shot being fired over it, even though they had a worldwide, thriving slave trade. Why? Because they handled it the right way- They made it illegal first, but bought out the remaining slaves in the Empire from the traders and owners, allowing them to reestablish businesses. The same cannot be said for the North, who decided it was better to simply use the force of government.

Now, about this next part, the Reconstruction period,:

So let's be clear, the South had already surrendered, with agreements which were put into motion by President Lincoln, only to have it all stripped away afterward.

The Confederate Flag was not a symbol of racism, but of people who refused to allow the federal government to strip them of their rights. When they attempted it peacefully, they were ignored, and when they attempted to seceded, their right, guaranteed them in the Constitution, was denied, and so battle was joined. Note that nowhere in your wiki who "declared" war first, only that the first attack was by the South, to secure their rear from a pincer attack.

Perhaps had the Radicals not sought to grind the South into the dirt, there would have been no KKK, no Jim Crow, but then that would have required the North to have actually listened, and not simply demand.

Your history lesson starts at the beginning of the insurrection. There was a long history since day one of the rebellion against Britain, that split many of the Colonists, but that was all finally settled with the Civil War. That is why we got Jim Crow. Vengeance by white southerners. Mocking the power of the national government -- the government of the United States.

DragonStryk72

09-10-2010, 01:04 AM

Faulty logic.
Of course I do not support what you infer, but probably not for any reason you may assume.

England viewed the Colonists (not us) as insurrectionists and the Colonists were. They admitted as much. :laugh:

But at the end of hostilities the Crown recognized the United States as an independent sovereign nation.

So I do say the Colonists were bloody traitors to the Crown, insurrectionists, but at some point the Crown legally recognized the colonies as separate from the Crown. A separate entity cannot be viewed as being in rebellion. Hostilities end and a new chapter gets written.

A Brit or Colonist of ages ago, flying the American Flag in Great Britain, could not be viewed as flying an enemy flag as the USA ceased being viewed as an enemy. The Crown recognized America as a friendly nation -- an equal. The United States of America share(d) Ambassadorial relations. The Confederacy never got that deal. They remained until the very end, an enemy of the United States.

Americans flying the Confederate flag are flying a flag of an enemy of the United States. The Confederacy was never declared a friendly nation or a friend.

Actually, we were really were rat bastards in the Revolutionary War. Don't get me wrong, we had to be, but we pretty much shit on the rules of war. We clipped officers, left traps, every devious thing we could come up with to slow or harm them.

Disagreeing with the United States, or flying a flag of an enemy of the US, is not illegal. In fact, it's covered under First Amendment rights, that's what made the McCarthy Era so horrible. It did not matter whether the people were communists or not, because it was their right to be so. I believe communists have their head up their ass, but still, it's their right.

Now, this is where we have an issue as well, because I believe in flag burning. We not only burned British flags, but made effigies of King George, put them in a hangman's noose, and lit them on fire. To make flag burning illegal, is to put the flag ahead of the principles it was made to symbolize, and so, such action should be allowed.

Your history lesson starts at the beginning of the insurrection. There was a long history since day one of the rebellion against Britain, that split many of the Colonists, but that was all finally settled with the Civil War. That is why we got Jim Crow. Vengeance by white southerners. Mocking the power of the national government -- the government of the United States.

It could have nothing to do with the North's giving away southern land, even occupied lands, to freed blacks, meanwhile stripping away even the most basic right to vote from the southerners? Or how about the entire south, after peacefully standing down, to terms that had already been agreed upon, getting suddenly put under the direct control of the US Army.

Then there was the Eminent Domain run with the railroads. That had nothing to do with the Revolutionary War, and everything to do with how they were being treated there and then.

Dante

09-10-2010, 01:30 AM

Actually, we were really were rat bastards in the Revolutionary War. Don't get me wrong, we had to be, but we pretty much shit on the rules of war. We clipped officers, left traps, every devious thing we could come up with to slow or harm them.

Disagreeing with the United States, or flying a flag of an enemy of the US, is not illegal. In fact, it's covered under First Amendment rights, that's what made the McCarthy Era so horrible. It did not matter whether the people were communists or not, because it was their right to be so. I believe communists have their head up their ass, but still, it's their right.

Now, this is where we have an issue as well, because I believe in flag burning. We not only burned British flags, but made effigies of King George, put them in a hangman's noose, and lit them on fire. To make flag burning illegal, is to put the flag ahead of the principles it was made to symbolize, and so, such action should be allowed.

:laugh: True. All of it. We are in agreement. Let freedom ring! :salute:

It could have nothing to do with the North's giving away southern land, even occupied lands, to freed blacks, meanwhile stripping away even the most basic right to vote from the southerners? Or how about the entire south, after peacefully standing down, to terms that had already been agreed upon, getting suddenly put under the direct control of the US Army.

Then there was the Eminent Domain run with the railroads. That had nothing to do with the Revolutionary War, and everything to do with how they were being treated there and then.

If you are looking for fairness after a revolt, you will have to look far and wide. Actions have consequences.

H. L. Mencken wrote a piece called, The Sahara of the Bozart in which he challenged the then South on it's claim to possessing a culture. It was simply wonderful to read, then and now. Of course his piece set in motion a revival, a reaction on the part of some southerners to prove him wrong.

Hope the link works: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:85TID-e_42AJ:writing2.richmond.edu/jessid/eng423/restricted/mencken.pdf+sahara+of+the+bozart&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgwe-BBXLrckJCnScSK2oz_qmvlaAaCLaOPyoyTGSd6xs46zJptoB09 tpNYXFyJtpsvtoLnUHR6Ydj4tOhMhUu6aF0enioff5nt-VfyvjlC0eZe2hQzPCLpQLm3PdFQZ6kesYJN&sig=AHIEtbTM3X3MrbJMZScb0nYIlYTOgKGj-Q

"And yet, for all it's size and all it's wealth and all the "progress" it babbles of, it is almost as sterile, artistically, intellectually, culturally, as the Sahara Desert. There are single acres in Europe that house more first-rate men than all the states south of the Potomac..." :laugh2:

Dante

09-10-2010, 09:07 PM

The Flag of the Confederate Insurrectionists is...

(yeah it's the browser acting -- up with the site software).

...is a symbol of all that was and is wrong with certain arguments in American politics.

revelarts

09-11-2010, 08:26 PM

I don't want to get in the middle of this conversation but I did want to comment on 1 point that, I've heard brought up , even by people like Ron Paul, and echoed here by DragonStrike.

...You'll note, of course, that bold quote, so here we go: England managed to stamp out slavery without a single shot being fired over it, even though they had a worldwide, thriving slave trade. Why? Because they handled it the right way- They made it illegal first, but bought out the remaining slaves in the Empire from the traders and owners, allowing them to reestablish businesses. The same cannot be said for the North, who decided it was better to simply use the force of government....

It's very true that England and other countries gave up the slave trade peacefully. However it seems to me that the situation here in the U.S. was somewhat different to say the least. there was no real interest in the southern states to ever give up slavery. Again if you look at the Confederate Constitution you find ZERO tolerance for an Anti-Slavery state even joining the Confederacy. I've heard and read those that have said that some where willing to turn that corner. But in state legislators and confederate congress there was no talk of it. Even for the war effort many were reluctant to give up their slaves.
And My thought always is About that. OK what if the Confederates won. the logic from the people who point to England says that they would have ...eventually ... outlawed slavery. (1st of all they would have had to amend there constitution) But if the confederate states where going to outlaw slavery in the English way wouldn't the rich slaveholders just be taxing themselves to by themselves out? I suppose that could work kind of the the bail outs of today. But for some reason I don't think so. But let say it did. How long would it take the confederate gov't to get it done. Wiped out financially in the war. then to decide to get to together and end the slavery they fought to keep. Vote on an amendment. Pass the amendment then pass the Slave owner reinbrustment acts. And finally free the slaves. the war ended in 1865. So there would be slaves in the south what, 10 more years? 20 more years? 30? 40? I'd guess at least 50 years. (if ever freed.) (50years is about how long it took in england before they worked it all out) That would put the end of Slavery in North America around 1915, 1 year after the start of WWI. and then do you think the civil right movement would have gotten much traction with the Norths influence?

P3dotme

09-12-2010, 12:51 AM

The Confederate Flag is mostly white, what most people hang up is the battle flag meaning they support the war not the confederacy itself.

P3dotme

09-12-2010, 12:52 AM

Plus can't they think of a new country, club or organization supporting state individuality and whatever else they want.

Dante

09-13-2010, 08:02 PM

The Confederate Flag is mostly white, what most people hang up is the battle flag meaning they support the war not the confederacy itself.

Support the war but not the Confederacy itself? :laugh2:

The war was fought in the name of the Confederacy. :cuckoo:

You may try behind people saying they support the troops but not the war, but that would sound so -- uhm -- errr -- argh -- you know, leftist?

Dante

10-09-2010, 05:15 PM

I don't want to get in the middle of this conversation but I did want to comment on 1 point that, I've heard brought up , even by people like Ron Paul, and echoed here by DragonStrike.

It's very true that England and other countries gave up the slave trade peacefully. However it seems to me that the situation here in the U.S. was somewhat different to say the least. there was no real interest in the southern states to ever give up slavery. Again if you look at the Confederate Constitution you find ZERO tolerance for an Anti-Slavery state even joining the Confederacy. I've heard and read those that have said that some where willing to turn that corner. But in state legislators and confederate congress there was no talk of it. Even for the war effort many were reluctant to give up their slaves.
And My thought always is About that. OK what if the Confederates won. the logic from the people who point to England says that they would have ...eventually ... outlawed slavery. (1st of all they would have had to amend there constitution) But if the confederate states where going to outlaw slavery in the English way wouldn't the rich slaveholders just be taxing themselves to by themselves out? I suppose that could work kind of the the bail outs of today. But for some reason I don't think so. But let say it did. How long would it take the confederate gov't to get it done. Wiped out financially in the war. then to decide to get to together and end the slavery they fought to keep. Vote on an amendment. Pass the amendment then pass the Slave owner reinbrustment acts. And finally free the slaves. the war ended in 1865. So there would be slaves in the south what, 10 more years? 20 more years? 30? 40? I'd guess at least 50 years. (if ever freed.) (50years is about how long it took in england before they worked it all out) That would put the end of Slavery in North America around 1915, 1 year after the start of WWI. and then do you think the civil right movement would have gotten much traction with the Norths influence?

Have you heard the latest right wing logic? Big government was teh cause for slavery in the Americas. It seems white southerners had an innocent form of slavery until big government got involved and regulated the slave trade into what it became.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201010010026

Glenn Beck: Slavery "started with seemingly innocent ideas" and then "the government began to regulate things"

Dante

10-09-2010, 09:13 PM

revelarts: I don't want to get in the middle of this conversation but I did want to comment on 1 point that, I've heard brought up , even by people like Ron Paul, and echoed here by DragonStrike.

Originally Posted by DragonStryk72:
...You'll note, of course, that bold quote, so here we go: England managed to stamp out slavery without a single shot being fired over it, even though they had a worldwide, thriving slave trade. Why? Because they handled it the right way- They made it illegal first, but bought out the remaining slaves in the Empire from the traders and owners, allowing them to reestablish businesses. The same cannot be said for the North, who decided it was better to simply use the force of government....

revelarts:
It's very true that England and other countries gave up the slave trade peacefully. However it seems to me that the situation here in the U.S. was somewhat different to say the least. there was no real interest in the southern states to ever give up slavery. Again if you look at the Confederate Constitution you find ZERO tolerance for an Anti-Slavery state even joining the Confederacy. I've heard and read those that have said that some where willing to turn that corner. But in state legislators and confederate congress there was no talk of it. Even for the war effort many were reluctant to give up their slaves.

And My thought always is About that. OK what if the Confederates won. the logic from the people who point to England says that they would have ...eventually ... outlawed slavery. (1st of all they would have had to amend there constitution) But if the confederate states where going to outlaw slavery in the English way wouldn't the rich slaveholders just be taxing themselves to by themselves out? I suppose that could work kind of the the bail outs of today. But for some reason I don't think so. But let say it did.

How long would it take the confederate gov't to get it done. Wiped out financially in the war. then to decide to get to together and end the slavery they fought to keep. Vote on an amendment. Pass the amendment then pass the Slave owner reinbrustment acts. And finally free the slaves. the war ended in 1865. So there would be slaves in the south what, 10 more years? 20 more years? 30? 40? I'd guess at least 50 years. (if ever freed.) (50years is about how long it took in england before they worked it all out) That would put the end of Slavery in North America around 1915, 1 year after the start of WWI. and then do you think the civil right movement would have gotten much traction with the Norths influence?

very well thought out and put.

thank you both

:salute:

Noir

10-10-2010, 05:42 AM

You guys getting worked up about bloomin flags again :laugh:

Agnapostate

10-10-2010, 06:09 PM

I find it fascinating that those who defend the Confederate battle flag so adamantly are often the same people quick to vilify the Mexican flag as a sign of regional insurrection, a growing fifth column in the U.S. Southwest. Why the double standard? Does it have something to do with most adherents of the neo-Confederate movement being rightist whites?

As for the Marine Corps, I visited Quantico, Virginia ("crossroads of the Marine Corps") in August, and went to the Marine Corps Museum. It's off Jefferson Davis Highway. Imagine if it was located in San Antonio, off Santa Anna Highway!

DragonStryk72

10-10-2010, 06:28 PM

I don't want to get in the middle of this conversation but I did want to comment on 1 point that, I've heard brought up , even by people like Ron Paul, and echoed here by DragonStrike.

It's very true that England and other countries gave up the slave trade peacefully. However it seems to me that the situation here in the U.S. was somewhat different to say the least. there was no real interest in the southern states to ever give up slavery. Again if you look at the Confederate Constitution you find ZERO tolerance for an Anti-Slavery state even joining the Confederacy. I've heard and read those that have said that some where willing to turn that corner. But in state legislators and confederate congress there was no talk of it. Even for the war effort many were reluctant to give up their slaves.
And My thought always is About that. OK what if the Confederates won. the logic from the people who point to England says that they would have ...eventually ... outlawed slavery. (1st of all they would have had to amend there constitution) But if the confederate states where going to outlaw slavery in the English way wouldn't the rich slaveholders just be taxing themselves to by themselves out? I suppose that could work kind of the the bail outs of today. But for some reason I don't think so. But let say it did. How long would it take the confederate gov't to get it done. Wiped out financially in the war. then to decide to get to together and end the slavery they fought to keep. Vote on an amendment. Pass the amendment then pass the Slave owner reinbrustment acts. And finally free the slaves. the war ended in 1865. So there would be slaves in the south what, 10 more years? 20 more years? 30? 40? I'd guess at least 50 years. (if ever freed.) (50years is about how long it took in england before they worked it all out) That would put the end of Slavery in North America around 1915, 1 year after the start of WWI. and then do you think the civil right movement would have gotten much traction with the Norths influence?

Actually, the point is more that it was never tried or worked through to see if there was a way to do so without the use of clear force. By making the assumption that the south would under no circumstances go along with ending slavery presupposes the war itself. It is a point where intelligent debate stops, and this is the problem of the time, is that the North tried to force the South instead of making the attempts necessary to wean the South off it, or provide a way not to bankrupt the whole southern half of the US. You can't simply expect people to willing vote away their livelihood.

revelarts

10-10-2010, 09:45 PM

Like you said DS, the south felt it was nearly impossible to give up for financial reason. It had been discussed since the founding of the country. Congressmen got in fist fights in congress over the question. Like the abortion issue there's not much middle ground. Some people don't want to be weaned off of Abortion. Others, like myself, understand that it's killing and unborn child. I can talk civilly about it but the abortionist isn't really listening to any compromise on their position. Even parental notification of a surgical procedure on a minor girl is a threat to them. Similarly with slavery, it wasn't enough that the north just leave them alone. But they needed to return any of the "happy contended slaves" that escape to free states.
For 80 years the problem festered with no examples , that i know of, of any legal progress in the south toward freeing slaves. So I just don't see the point of saying they could have been done without a war.
I mean sure, it COULD have but... there's no real Legislative evidence of it going in that direction at all, to the contrary more restrictive laws were being passed in many areas to keep slavery viable.

And again the timing thing for me is significant. how many more years do you think it would have taken before the south decided to abolish slavery and then move on to civil rights? The thought of slavery going into the 20th century blows my mind but I don't think it's far fetched at all.

Love Monkey

11-01-2011, 08:31 PM

If it wasn't for the Confederate Battle Flag, the great band, Alabama, would have no recognition.

Gunny

11-01-2011, 08:37 PM

If it wasn't for the Confederate Battle Flag, the great band, Alabama, would have no recognition.

Alabama? How about Lynyrd Skynyrd?

ConHog

11-01-2011, 10:34 PM

Political correctness run amok. MAYBE 2% of those who fly the Confederate flag support slavery, and I doubt it's that high.

For God's sakes, The University of Mississippi had to change their mascot from the Rebels to the Black Bears. Had to retire Colonel Reb. I would be willing to bet that the University of Mississippi Rebels (as in their athletic program) has helped more young blacks out of poverty than all of the political correctness in the history of the United States combined, but OMG their mascot is so racist.

People are fucking stupid.

Gunny

11-04-2011, 07:51 PM

LuvRPgrl

03-25-2012, 12:22 PM

It was about 2-3%. No one else could afford them.

The rest were doing what we're trying to do now ... get the fucking federal government out of our yards and our wallets.

maybe so, but a lot of men were willing to fight to the death to support those 2-3%

ConHog

03-25-2012, 07:26 PM

maybe so, but a lot of men were willing to fight to the death to support those 2-3%

The average Confederate conscript was illiterate and had no idea of the real reasons for the War. All they knew was that their homeland was being invaded.

gabosaurus

03-25-2012, 10:23 PM

The average Confederate conscript was illiterate and had no idea of the real reasons for the War. All they knew was that their homeland was being invaded.

The average Confederate conscript had no choice. From what I have read, if you were a male between 18 and about 40, you either went to war or you went to jail. Or worse.

Wind Song

03-28-2012, 11:21 AM

Some people who fly the Confederate flag make me wonder if they just don't accept that the South lost the war.

jimnyc

03-28-2012, 11:37 AM

Some people who fly the Confederate flag make me wonder if they just don't accept that the South lost the war.

So as a result you can no longer have pride and fly a flag? I fly it just to annoy stupid people.

Wind Song

03-28-2012, 11:39 AM

Thanks for admitting you fly the Confederate flag as an act of provocation and rage. WTF is a NYer doing flying the Confederate flag?

jimnyc

03-28-2012, 11:43 AM

Thanks for admitting you fly the Confederate flag as an act of provocation and rage. WTF is a NYer doing flying the Confederate flag?

I fly it to annoy the black folks. Also have family from the South who have pride, and I therefore share it with them. And to annoy liberals.

LuvRPgrl

03-28-2012, 12:00 PM

Thanks for admitting you fly the Confederate flag as an act of provocation and rage. WTF is a NYer doing flying the Confederate flag?

TO ANNOY PEOPLE.

He just said that,

Dont you read the posts before responding?

Wind Song

03-28-2012, 12:15 PM

I fly it to annoy the black folks. Also have family from the South who have pride, and I therefore share it with them. And to annoy liberals.

Why do you want to harm black folks and liberals?

jimnyc

03-28-2012, 12:18 PM

Why do you want to harm black folks and liberals?

How does one flying a flag become "rage"?

How is a black person or idiotic liberal become harmed by a flying flag?

Why do you hate facts so much?

Wind Song

03-28-2012, 12:28 PM

How does one flying a flag become "rage"?

How is a black person or idiotic liberal become harmed by a flying flag?

Why do you hate facts so much?

When you act out of the motivation to hurt someone, you are acting out of aversion. It's in the hate family. Do you hang nooses too? I'm sure that would get a rise out of some blacks and liberals.

You admit that you are flying the flag as a form of aggression toward blacks and liberals. You are trying to pick a fight.

jimnyc

03-28-2012, 12:32 PM

When you act out of the motivation to hurt someone, you are acting out of aversion. It's in the hate family. Do you hang nooses too? I'm sure that would get a rise out of some blacks and liberals.

You admit that you are flying the flag as a form of aggression toward blacks and liberals. You are trying to pick a fight.

I did nothing "aggressive". I most certainly didn't intend to get violent or "pick a fight". It's called freedom of speech.

And now you're going to compare hanging a Confederate Flag to hanging a noose? WOW. Just wow.

Why are you implying that you would shoot me if I flew this flag in your neck of the woods? Do you always get violent with those who fly flags you don't like?

Wind Song

03-28-2012, 12:39 PM

I did nothing "aggressive". I most certainly didn't intend to get violent or "pick a fight". It's called freedom of speech.

And now you're going to compare hanging a Confederate Flag to hanging a noose? WOW. Just wow.

Why are you implying that you would shoot me if I flew this flag in your neck of the woods? Do you always get violent with those who fly flags you don't like?

Flying a Confederate flag is a protected form of Freedom of Speech. You admit you do it to make others angry. That is definitely aggressive.

I don't own a gun. Which is a good thing. I have a hot temper. I don't use violence, but I can get mouthy.

jimnyc

03-28-2012, 12:41 PM

Flying a Confederate flag is a protected form of Freedom of Speech. You admit you do it to make others angry. That is definitely aggressive.

I don't own a gun. Which is a good thing. I have a hot temper. I don't use violence, but I can get mouthy.

I don't own a gun either. I'm irresponsible and admit it. There are a lot of fuckers out there I would like to shoot! Slow drivers in left lane, people paying at the drive-thru with nothing but change, the idiots wearing their pants only covering half their ass, obese women wearing bikini's.

LuvRPgrl

03-28-2012, 12:54 PM

I don't own a gun either. I'm irresponsible and admit it. There are a lot of fuckers out there I would like to shoot! Slow drivers in left lane, people paying at the drive-thru with nothing but change, the idiots wearing their pants only covering half their ass, obese women wearing bikini's.

sounds like a good arguement against ZIMMERMANS claim of "he did nothing wrong"

jimnyc

03-28-2012, 01:10 PM

sounds like a good arguement against ZIMMERMANS claim of "he did nothing wrong"

Now what 'n the hell did my post have to do with Zimmerman? :poke:

LuvRPgrl

03-29-2012, 11:45 AM

Now what 'n the hell did my post have to do with Zimmerman? :poke:?
oh hell, now you are asking me to remember what my thinking process from last night was?:laugh:

jimnyc

03-29-2012, 11:52 AM

?
oh hell, now you are asking me to remember what my thinking process from last night was?:laugh:

I know that feeling all too well! :beer:

LuvRPgrl

03-29-2012, 12:09 PM

I know that feeling all too well! :beer:

Its a tossup, which I say more
what the hell were they thinking
and
what the hell was I thinking?

revelarts

04-16-2012, 07:41 AM

:confused:

Flying a flag to annoy "people"? LOL? black and liberals. lol. and support some southern kin on the side.
c'mon Jim, I thought you were about peace and reconciliation. why annoy people on purpose? lol lol.

where's the love?

any wonder why we can't get along politically in the country when we pick at each others wounds for fun and then get upset or wonder when people are "annoyed"? lol

hey here's are a few questions, would anyone here be annoyed if black people or liberal whites start flying black panther flags and posting them on there cars? would it make you feel more or less comfortable? would you wonder if there might be some malice against whites or do you assume that all Black Panthers are racist and agree with everything some Black Panthers do?
and BTW have the Black Panthers actually hurt anyone? there's a lot of talk but and accusations and threats on both side but have any committed any real violence?

just a few questions that come to mind here. it's free speech right? only Stupid people assume the worse right, Stupid people that don't understand the Black Panthers or the real history.

ConHog

04-16-2012, 10:13 AM

Flying a Confederate flag is a protected form of Freedom of Speech. You admit you do it to make others angry. That is definitely aggressive.

I don't own a gun. Which is a good thing. I have a hot temper. I don't use violence, but I can get mouthy.

What does owning a gun have to do with using violence? I own probably a hundred guns, but I only shoot people who REALLY deserve it.:coffee:

Seriously , are you implying that every gun owner is a nut who would shoot anyone who annoys them?

LuvRPgrl

04-16-2012, 10:35 AM

revelarts

04-16-2012, 11:15 AM

even better would be the nazi swastika

YOW! whoah
you mean like:

The NAZI swastika
its not about hate it's about heritage.

WW2 really wasn't about the extermination of Jews, the lesser races, the feeble etc..
It was about the Treaty of Versailles where Europe unfairly treated Germany.... and living space, and Araian pride... If you really knew your history most would get that, and wouldn't be upset by the show of a little proud NAZI heritage Brave souls defending/expanding the homeland... i mean fatherland.

----

yeah that not bad either a bit over the top but yeah.

Robert A Whit

09-20-2012, 02:23 AM

It's not just the flag. It's the attitude. The attitude of white supremicist bigotry. To many, the confederate flag stands for slavery and oppression. It represents those who continue to feel that whites are superior to other ethnic groups.
In other words, it is the flag of the mainstream Republican party.

I already knew that history and it's quite accurate. Being from CA, and not trusting mail order in such matters, I found my battle flag of the confederacy during a visit to VA. There I correctly learned the history. Not the history so often misrepresented in CA, my state, but the actual history. Matter of fact, seeing so many battle sites, even Gettysburgh gave me an appreciation for how so few Americans feel the pain, the agony of that war, and prefer to scream bigot or racist at those who do understand the nature of that conflict. PBS aired a couple hours of the death and suffering. Was it actually worth taking the lives of 630,000 men (got this off the war board plaque at Manassas, posted by the US park bureau) just so Lincoln could recover land? My god. Everytime I think that over, I can just see this scene. Some state is tired of Obama running us all around like puppets. They want to leave the union. Obama invades the state using troops. Who would support this?

The support for a super quick was was there. But had the people realized how excellent the troops and officers of the South were, I doubt that the war would commence.

I did learn one new thing in the OP and that being that Sumter was on S. Carolina land. I thought it was on what was called Federal land. I plan to try to get this sourced in one of my books on this topic.

I enjoy true history.

Thanks for the OP.

My battle flag is with my USA flag that few for a short time on the AZ battleship sunk in Pearl harbor but still with a flagpole.

I had lots of family living in the South during that war and my family has no history of owning slaves that I know of.

Robert A Whit

09-20-2012, 02:28 AM

even better would be the nazi swastika

What I find remarkable is that the USA flag flew over slavery far longer than the Confederate flag yet the short lived flag gets the hate but the flag that represented slavery for close to 70 years is loved.

Amazing.

Robert A Whit

09-20-2012, 02:44 AM

So few try to link the Confederate flag to the Swastica of Germany under Hitler. Actually as I pointed out already, the USA flag we pledge allegiace to represented slavery for something like around 70 years yet we don't hate that flag. We get angry over the flag that represented the South which lasted 4 years roughly, yet the one flag that represented slavery and indeed this nation endorsed slavery in the constitution yet the lips don't commence to flap about that fact.

The Swastica was an old icon. Long before Hitler used it, it had been used earlier on. Somebody can look up the history or else I will. I studied this a long time ago.

I have been to Germany and lived there for about 1-1/3 year. I did my best to get to know them. I heard first hand how terrible life was for the Germans and Austrians following WWI.

What democrat knows his history about Keynes (English economist) to realize he was part of the traty of Versaille? That he had remorse over that treaty that dumped the Germans into the economy that made the great depression seem to be fun.

I would spend time at the home of a family who lost everything to the Soviets after the end of WW2. They told me of people eating trash trying to remain living.

I saw war damage done during WW2.

I can't give you the feeling I got when I was at the Berlin Wall prior to it falling and seeing many photos on the wall with the deceased story told on small plaques. Each person only wanted freedom. When Obama slammed us with Obama care, darned if it did not bring back to me memories of being in East Berlin living live where they got told what to do and when.

With Obama, perhaps we can also experience such a life.

Imagine it's a very busy warm Sunday and upon leaving the massive crowds in West Berlin by simply crossing the wall into East Berlin, it looked like it was abandoned. I could have fired a rifle down those large avenues and had a hard time hitting anybody.

Imagine Looking down the streets of Ny City and seeing maybe 1 of those old Checker taxi cabs.

East Berlin had some troops wandering around that I think came from perhaps Poland but did not have many people walking about. When I got back into West Berlin, suddenly the crowds were there. Amazing.