If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
In any event, the time has long since passed for me to resist the temptation to click the "View Post" links. I already figured you wouldn't engage substantively on the topic at hand when I first responded to your post. But I decided to give it a shot anyway. My mistake.
Keep on evading and scurry away, it's what you do best.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
An activist named Bree Newsome removed the Confederate flag from the South Carolina capitol grounds over the weekend. She and another activist were arrested. But thus far the flag has not been replaced. That hashtag #FreeBree has gone viral. Seems like she has a lot of support for her actions.
Regarding this fanciful notion that the Civil War wasn't primarily about slavery because most whites didn't earn slaves, we must not lose sight of the fact that even those whites who did not own slaves themselves still benefitted from the slave-based economy. From The Economics of the Civil War source I referenced earlier ....
A major finding of the research into the economic dynamics of the slave system was to demonstrate that the rise in the value of slaves was not based upon unfounded speculation. Slave labor was the foundation of a prosperous economic system in the South. To illustrate just how important slaves were to that prosperity, Gerald Gunderson (1974) estimated what fraction of the income of a white person living in the South of 1860 was derived from the earnings of slaves. Table 1 presents Gunderson’s estimates. In the seven states where most of the cotton was grown, almost one-half the population were slaves, and they accounted for 31 percent of white people’s income; for all 11 Confederate States, slaves represented 38 percent of the population and contributed 23 percent of whites’ income. Small wonder that Southerners — even those who did not own slaves — viewed any attempt by the federal government to limit the rights of slaveowners over their property as a potentially catastrophic threat to their entire economic system. By itself, the South’s economic investment in slavery could easily explain the willingness of Southerners to risk war when faced with what they viewed as a serious threat to their “peculiar institution” after the electoral victories of the Republican Party and President Abraham Lincoln the fall of 1860.
As I said earlier the Joe-regular soldier thought he was fighting against gov't tyranny and for his state's rights, and that is correct, from their perspective. The letters and other writings from the soldiers themselves makes that abundantly clear. They certainly weren't monsters, as many of progressive persuasion want to paint them as today.
...what they believed they were doing doesn't change what the flag stood for was actually doing.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
I'm saying that most of the common citizenry never had the chance to even read the thing.
...and I'm saying that doesn't matter. Those in charge of the secessionist states and their new confederate government had slavery as a prime concern on their mind. Someone's ancestor may have been honorable, but if the cause wasn't, then the symbol of the cause (or the fight for it) isn't.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
It certainly wasn't a case of Southern folks fighting to keep slaves, especially in light of the fact that the overwhelming majority never did.
This is an interesting perspective because it belies the possibility that they were fighting under "I do not agree with [slavery], but I'll defend to the death your right to [practice] it." Which would still be despicable.
A string of churches with predominantly black congregations – from Florida to Tennessee -- has reported fires in the past week, officials say.
The circumstances surrounding the six fires in five states differ in each case, but their occurring in the past eight days has prompted closer scrutiny.
So far only two of the six cases are being investigated as arson, and federal authorities have not launched any official hate crime investigations.
Arson was a notable problem for black churches in the mid-1990s and prompted then-President Bill Clinton to push for the creation of the Church Arson Prevention Act in 1996, though a related U.S. Department of Justice task force was suspended at the end of his second term.
This week's fires come amid a tense time in some Southern cities after a shooting by an alleged racist at a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina, left nine dead. The result has been a push for the removal of the Confederate flag from several state Capitols amid reignited debates over the region's racial history.
A senior official from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said they have special agents, certified fire investigators, looking into the different fires.
"At this time, ATF has not determined the fires are related. We are still determining origin and cause so we cannot say all are arson," the official told ABC News.
The ATF is also reportedly checking the fires against its Bomb Arson Tracking System to see whether there are any commonalities among the fires.
Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Alabama, a hate group-monitoring organization, said only three of the six fires appear to be true cases of arson. And while those three -- in Tennessee, Georgia and North Carolina -- may have been intentionally set, he said he believes it's unlikely they were done in an organized and unified fashion.
"I think it's very unlikely,in terms of a conspiracy," he told ABC News.
"It's entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that some of these churches were attacked because of all that's happened in the past three weeks," Potok said in reference to the debate over the continued use of the Confederate battle flag.
The United States has a long history of black churches being burned by people who are quite enamored with the Confederate Flag. Hence why this "state's rights" and "southern heritage" argument rings quite hollow.
The Missouri franchise owner of Dixie Outfitters, a store specialising in “Southern Heritage” clothing, was revealed to have family ties to the Ku Klux Klan.
“It has nothing to do with slavery, which the media always want to bring in,” Anna Robb said, defending the sales of Confederate flags during an interview with the Springfield Missouri News-Leader.
Just days following the News-Leader's initial interview with Ms Robb, readers alerted the news outlet and it was discovered that her husband Nathan, co-owner of Dixie Outfitters, was the "den-commander" of the KKK's Arkansas chapter.
Mr Robb once sought to participate in the state's Adopt-a-Highway litter control program on behalf of the Klan, the Associated Press reported in 1992. His father Thomas Robb also happens to be the national director of the KKK.
For the record, this is a private business so they can sell this stuff all they want for all I care. Displaying it in the public arena (not counting museums) is a completely different ball of wax. But the abject denial at play here is quite notable.
Someone made a good point that probably the best thing to say to the segment of society who stands behind the Confederate flag for non-racial reasons, is the things society has done to them which make them consider the flag a potent symbol of rebellion are exactly the same things society has done to the people who are finding the flag most offensive.
...what they believed they were doing doesn't change what the flag stood for was actually doing.
...and I'm saying that doesn't matter. Those in charge of the secessionist states and their new confederate government had slavery as a prime concern on their mind. Someone's ancestor may have been honorable, but if the cause wasn't, then the symbol of the cause (or the fight for it) isn't.
This is an interesting perspective because it belies the possibility that they were fighting under "I do not agree with [slavery], but I'll defend to the death your right to [practice] it." Which would still be despicable.
Bleh, we're coming full-circle now and I'm getting bored with the discussion.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Actually ... nevermind. You just can't fix willful stupidity. We clearly have those among us who are just as deep in denial as the Klan chick I posted above who is swearing on a stack of Bibles that the Confederate flag has nothing to do with racism.
OAW
PS: Yeah I know. Just don't click the link. It's a process. Don't judge me!
Actually ... nevermind. You just can't fix willful stupidity. We clearly have those among us who are just as deep in denial as the Klan chick I posted above who is swearing on a stack of Bibles that the Confederate flag has nothing to do with racism.
OAW
tightpants, shaddim, was more fun before.
Like a lot of folks, they just can't admit being on the wrong side, damn the evidence.
He isn't offended by the flag and because he is so arrogant, can't understand why others are.
Kind of like prosecutors who won't admit they made a mistake.
This was an interesting thread, guess I'll wait untill I'm interested again.
Actually ... nevermind. You just can't fix willful stupidity. We clearly have those among us who are just as deep in denial as the Klan chick I posted above who is swearing on a stack of Bibles that the Confederate flag has nothing to do with racism.
OAW
PS: Yeah I know. Just don't click the link. It's a process. Don't judge me!
Yes, she's representative of everyone in the South who respects that flag. Right. That ****ing strawman was so large you must have thrown your back out when you trotted it out here. This where I would normally ask someone WTF is wrong with them, but I already know that with you. You're as much of a bigot as they are. (Likely worse, given your misplaced superiority complex.) Not that it matters, you mean nothing to me and I'll treat you like I would any other racist.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Like a lot of folks, they just can't admit being on the wrong side, damn the evidence.
He isn't offended by the flag and because he is so arrogant, can't understand why others are.
Kind of like prosecutors who won't admit they made a mistake.
This was an interesting thread, guess I'll wait untill I'm interested again.
I'll just put you on ignore like I did your last account, because you never add anything to a discussion anyway. Caio.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Think of yourself as a farmer with a several hundred acre spread, and $1.8 million tied up in farm equipment (Tractors etc) and the Gov't said you no longer own your farm equipment you paid good money for. How would you feel?
Think of yourself as a farmer with a several hundred acre spread, and $1.8 million tied up in farm equipment (Tractors etc) and the Gov't said you no longer own your farm equipment you paid good money for. How would you feel?
Right, that's why you saw I returned.
You are an arrogant hoot.
Okay, interesting... now try that again in English.
Nevermind.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Think of yourself as a farmer with a several hundred acre spread, and $1.8 million tied up in farm equipment (Tractors etc) and the Gov't said you no longer own your farm equipment you paid good money for. How would you feel?
Bleh, we're coming full-circle now and I'm getting bored with the discussion.
That's curious, seeing as you've been pretty spare in replying to my posts in this thread. You seem to have plenty of time to get into a pointless pissing match with OAW, though.
I don't recall making these points before, so pointing me to the posts where we covered this before would be appreciated.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtains ....
The Ku Klux Klan is holding a rally next month on the grounds of the South Carolina Statehouse in support of the Confederate flag, amid calls to remove the controversial symbol following a mass shooting at a black church.
A local chapter, the Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan from Pelham, N.C., will hold the rally on July 18, according to local media reports.
That date is just one month and a day after nine were killed in a shooting at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C.
Dylann Roof, the alleged shooter, reportedly confessed to killing the congregants after a Bible study, telling police he wanted to start a race war. In the wake of the tragedy, pictures have emerged of him posing with the Confederate flag and a gun.
Roof’s association with the flag sparked a movement to remove it from the Statehouse grounds.
Gov. Nikki Haley (R), Sens. Lindsey Graham (R) and Tim Scott (R), and other South Carolina politicians have called for the flag’s removal, and the Legislature will take up the issue next week.
If the bill moves through the Legislature quickly, the flag could be gone by the time of the rally.
The Confederate battle flag used to fly over the Capitol dome but now flies at a Confederate memorial on the grounds as part of a compromise that also created an African-American history monument.
The Loyal White Knights’ website has a home page devoted to the Confederate flags, where it argues that efforts to remove it are “cultural genocide.”
“If you can't tell they are trying to wipe us out of the history books. ... Tell this cultural Marxist government they better not dare to dishonor our ancestors [sic] graves,” the website says.
Another section describing its activities says Klan rallies are “family events” and that all events are restricted to “whites only.”
The First Amendment’s free assembly provision typically protects the right of groups to protest, and governments can only place simple, content-neutral restrictions on rallies.
The historical record clearly shows that the Confederate states seceded primarily over slavery. Only the most deliberately obtuse who are willing to ignore the plain English written in the secession documents of every single state involved claim otherwise. What we know as the Confederate Flag was the battle flag under which the Confederacy fought the Civil War. After the Confederacy lost the Civil War the KKK, founded by Confederate Army veterans, rose to power in the South during the Reconstruction Era. In its first incarnation it waged a campaign of violence, intimidation, and even assassination against black Republican political leaders and even some of their white counterparts. In 1870-1871 the federal government passed the Enforcement Acts which "were criminal codes which protected African-Americans’ right to vote, to hold office, to serve on juries, and receive equal protection of laws. The laws also allowed the federal government to intervene when states did not act." This legislation resulted in prosecution of KKK criminal acts and had the effect of suppressing Klan activity. However, in 1915 the second incarnation of the KKK was founded in 1915 Atlanta, GA with a fiery ritual atop Stone Mountain. A year later the KKK proclaimed it's resurgence by unveiling a massive 30 x 50 foot Confederate Flag across the granite face of the mountain as a memorial to Confederate glory. Did I mention that southern "royalty" like Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee, and Jefferson Davis are carved into Stone Mountain as well? Well that was followed by decades of violence and intimidation of African-Americans including lynchings by the KKK waving that flag. And as I stated earlier in the thread, the Confederate Flag became increasingly popular during the Civil Rights movement. As evidenced by South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond's use of it in 1948 as the emblem of his "States Rights Democratic Party" ... aka "Dixiecrats". What were the Dixiecrats all about? Well they were pretty clear about it since Article 4 of the party platform explicitly stated "We stand for the segregation of the races." So from that point on and throughout the Civil Rights Era the Confederate Flag was flown by those who opposed desegregation of the military, schools, public accommodations, etc and supported the preservation of Jim Crow. So given that history the million dollar question is ....
When has the Confederate Flag ever NOT been a symbol of WHITE SUPREMACY?
Do you really think two rappers briefly rocking some Confederate flag gear as a publicity stunt outweighs a 150 year history of white supremacy associated with that flag? Like .... seriously?
Do you really think two rappers briefly rocking some Confederate flag gear as a publicity stunt outweighs a 150 year history of white supremacy associated with that flag? Like .... seriously?
OAW
I did not say that. You asked:
Originally Posted by OAW
So given that history the million dollar question is ....
When has the Confederate Flag ever NOT been a symbol of WHITE SUPREMACY?
The answer? NEVER.
OAW
I gave just two examples. Outkast has been known to use the flag. Kanye sold merch with the flag on them.
Love that skeleton in the war headdress
The there is this Lil John & The East Side Boyz video featuring Ludacris
I doubt Kanye has any plans to donate the money he made from any flag merch.
I gave just two examples. Outkast has been known to use the flag. Kanye sold merch with the flag on them.
Love that skeleton in the war headdress
Fair enough. I submit that their attempt to "co-opt" the Confederate Flag for their own purposes fell flat. Clearly it never really caught on with hip hop fans on any significant basis.
That's curious, seeing as you've been pretty spare in replying to my posts in this thread. You seem to have plenty of time to get into a pointless pissing match with OAW, though.
I don't recall making these points before, so pointing me to the posts where we covered this before would be appreciated.
I'm saying it's about the soldiers (and cited their letters and writings at the time), you're saying it's about the gov't, that's just going to keep swirling. For me that's reason enough to not abandon the flag in question; no symbol is entirely good or bad, in the end it's just a symbol. In the video I linked, the author talks about community and street names, just down from where I live there's a road named Forrest Lane (not because there's a forest adjacent to it) and I can point out many other such examples all within driving distance of me. For good or bad these are part of history, American history, and so is the memorial for Confederate soldiers in S Carolina and the flag that was flying over it (not the capital building itself, as the news so shamefully distorted).
Sanitizing our history doesn't change it, altering maps and our symbols doesn't make this a different country, if anything it makes us less mindful of the past and more likely to repeat it. How many Native Americans hate our nation's flag and what it represents to them? Should we change it due to the genocide that this country committed against so many tribes since it was founded, many of whom had been around for >1,000 years before white people even knew about North America? Some folks seem to have a very selective focus for their outrage, or maybe it's just that other groups have more powerful lobbies?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Hindsight is 20-20. The leftist media is churning this up, but ignoring the offensive blather from the black racists like Sharpton, Jackson, Van Johnson etc. When MSNBC and their ilk remove them from the air, perhaps I'll give a rodent rectum. Until then, its a one sided hypocritical pile of BS. Painting "Black Lives Matter" on Civil War statues illustrates their own immaturity. Offense is in the mind of the emotion driven.
That's our outrage culture. Personally, I believe they're just bored and have found they can cause panic if they cry loud enough, because politicians have developed a Pavlovian response to hearing it. Makes them feel important and it's much easier than paying attention to the issues that are much more important (imminent global economic depression, shocking degrees of climate change, and the worst outbreak of international terrorism in recorded history). Anything they can change right now makes them feel less powerless, no matter how trivial it may be on a substantive level.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Sad knee jerk reaction from immature racist media types. More liberal (stooge) guilt. All one sided BS. I have no respect for those who ignore the history IN CONTEXT, not the PC propaganda passing as facts. Of course asking most to READ *IN CONTEXT* news and such from the times from 1835 or so through the 1890's falls on deaf ears. You really DON'T KNOW your history.
This article nicely sums up the distorted history perpetrated by Neo-Confederates ....
Originally Posted by James W. Loewen, Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University of Vermont
History is the polemics of the victor, William F. Buckley allegedly said. Not so in the United States, at least not regarding the Civil War. As soon as Confederates laid down their arms, some picked up their pens and began to distort what they had done, and why. Their resulting mythology went national a generation later and persists — which is why a presidential candidate can suggest that slavery was somehow pro-family, and the public believes that the war was mainly fought over states’ rights.
The Confederates won with the pen (and the noose) what they could not win on the battlefield: the cause of white supremacy and the dominant understanding of what the war was all about. We are still digging ourselves out from under the misinformation that they spread, which has manifested in both our history books and our public monuments.
Take Kentucky. Kentucky’s legislature voted not to secede, and early in the war, Confederate Gen. Albert Sidney Johnston ventured through the western part of the state and found “no enthusiasm as we imagined and hoped but hostility … in Kentucky.” Eventually, 90,000 Kentuckians would fight for the United States, while 35,000 fought for the Confederate States. Nevertheless, according to historian Thomas Clark, the state now has 72 Confederate monuments and only two Union ones.
Neo-Confederates also won western Maryland. In 1913, the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) put a soldier on a pedestal at the Rockville courthouse. Montgomery County never seceded, of course. While Maryland did send 24,000 men to the Confederate armed forces, it sent 63,000 to the U.S. Army and Navy. Nevertheless, the UDC’s monument tells visitors to take the other side: “To our heroes of Montgomery Co. Maryland / That we through life may not forget to love the Thin Gray Line.”
In fact, the Thin Grey Line came through Montgomery and adjoining Frederick counties at least three times, en route to Antietam, Gettysburg and Washington. Lee’s army expected to find recruits and help with food, clothing and information. They didn’t. Maryland residents greeted Union soldiers as liberators when they came through on the way to Antietam. Recognizing the residents of Frederick as hostile, Confederate cavalry leader Jubal Early demanded and got $300,000 from them lest he burn their town, a sum equal to at least $5,000,000 today. Today, however, Frederick boasts what it calls the “Maryland Confederate Memorial,” and the manager of the Frederick cemetery — filled with Union and Confederate dead — told me in an interview, “Very little is done on the Union side” around Memorial Day. “It’s mostly Confederate.”
In addition to winning the battle for public monuments, neo-Confederates also managed to rename the war, calling it “the War Between the States.” Nevermind that while it was going on, no one called it that. Even “Jeopardy!” accepts it.
Perhaps most perniciously, neo-Confederates now claim that the South seceded for states’ rights. When each state left the Union, its leaders made clear that they were seceding because they were for slavery and against states’ rights. In its “Declaration Of The Causes Which Impel The State Of Texas To Secede From The Federal Union,” for example, the secession convention of Texas listed the states that had offended them: Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa. These states had in fact exercised states’ rights by passing laws that interfered with the federal government’s attempts to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. Some also no longer let slaveowners “transit” through their states with their slaves. “States’ rights” were what Texas was seceding against. Texas also made clear what it was seceding for: white supremacy.
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
Despite such statements, during and after the Nadir, neo-Confederates put up monuments that flatly lied about the Confederate cause. For example, South Carolina’s monument at Gettysburg, dedicated in 1965, claims to explain why the state seceded: “Abiding faith in the sacredness of states rights provided their creed here.” This tells us nothing about 1863, when abiding opposition to states’ rights as claimed by free states provided South Carolinians’ creed. In 1965, however, its leaders did support states’ rights. Indeed, they were desperately trying to keep the federal government from enforcing school desegregation and civil rights. The one constant was that the leaders of South Carolina in 1860 and 1965 were acting on behalf of white supremacy.
So thoroughly did this mythology take hold that our textbooks still stand history on its head and say secession was for, rather than against, states’ rights. Publishers mystify secession because they don’t want to offend Southern school districts and thereby lose sales. Consider this passage from “The American Journey,” the largest textbook ever foisted on middle-school students and perhaps the best-selling U.S. history textbook:
The South Secedes
Lincoln and the Republicans had promised not to disturb slavery where it already existed. Nevertheless, many people in the South mistrusted the party, fearing that the Republican government would not protect Southern rights and liberties. On December 20, 1860, the South’s long-standing threat to leave the Union became a reality when South Carolina held a special convention and voted to secede.
Teachers and students infer from that passage that slavery was not the reason for secession. Instead, the reason is completely vague: [white] Southerners feared for their “rights and liberties.” On the next page, however, “Journey” becomes more precise: [White] Southerners claimed that since “the national government” had been derelict “by refusing to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and by denying the Southern states equal rights in the territories — the states were justified in leaving the Union.”
“Journey” offers no evidence to support this claim. It cannot. No Southern state made any such charge against the federal government in any secession document I have ever seen. Presidents Buchanan and before him, Pierce, were part of the pro-Southern wing of the Democratic Party. For 10 years, the federal government had vigorously enforced the Fugitive Slave Act. Buchanan had supported pro-slavery forces in Kansas even after his own minion, the Mississippi slave owner Robert Walker, ruled that they had won only by fraud. The seven states that seceded before February 1861 had no quarrel with “the national government.”
Teaching or implying that the Confederate states seceded for states’ rights is not accurate history. It is white, Confederate-apologist history. It bends — even breaks — the facts of what happened. Like other U.S. history textbooks, “Journey” needs to be de-Confederatized. So does the history test we give to immigrants who want to become U.S. citizens. Item 74 asks, “Name one problem that led to the Civil War.” It then gives three acceptable answers: “slavery, economic reasons, and states’ rights.” If by “economic reasons” it means issues about tariffs and taxes, which most people infer, then two of its three “correct answers” are wrong! No other question on this 100-item test has more than one “right” answer. The reason is not because the history is unclear, but because neo-Confederates still wielded considerable influence in our culture and our Congress until quite recently, when a mass of politicians rushed to declare the Confederate flag unsuitable for display on government grounds.
I'm saying it's about the soldiers (and cited their letters and writings at the time), you're saying it's about the gov't, that's just going to keep swirling.
Word.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
For me that's reason enough to not abandon the flag in question; no symbol is entirely good or bad, in the end it's just a symbol.
I don't believe in absolutes, but I do think the negatives far outweigh the positives. Particularly in light of how it came back to prominence.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
so is the memorial for Confederate soldiers in S Carolina and the flag that was flying over it (not the capital building itself, as the news so shamefully distorted).
It was not distorted. It was flying on state grounds (which everything I saw cited), and I would add that it was flying over the capital until the year 2000 so its not like this was along resolved issue, too.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Sanitizing our history doesn't change it
I don't see how this is sanitizing history. No one is pretending it didn't exist and no is barring it from being displayed in historical or personal settings. Removing it from state grounds harm no one. Limits no ones speech. Changes no history.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
How many Native Americans hate our nation's flag and what it represents to them? Should we change it due to the genocide that this country committed against so many tribes since it was founded, many of whom had been around for >1,000 years before white people even knew about North America?
I think we need to be able to change the name of a ****ing NFL team before we can even consider that question.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Some folks seem to have a very selective focus for their outrage, or maybe it's just that other groups have more powerful lobbies?
Let's not play that card because both sides have lobbies. This isn't vindictive. People have been consistently against this for years. Its just that it finally happened.
I'm still staggered that the flag has become an issue that's largely split along party lines. I'm conservative on so many grounds, so I find myself at odds with people with whom I usually agree.
Lincoln and the Republicans had promised not to disturb slavery where it already existed. Nevertheless, many people in the South mistrusted the party, fearing that the Republican government would not protect Southern rights and liberties. On December 20, 1860, the South’s long-standing threat to leave the Union became a reality when South Carolina held a special convention and voted to secede.
This is why I criticize the South. There was no reason to secede. They may have lost the presidential battle, but on the issues, legislatively and judicially, they were winning.
Actually, it's kind of reminiscent of how some Christians now think we're just years away from outlawing their first amendment rights, just because the state did not inflict their religious views over the entire populace.
I'm still staggered that the flag has become an issue that's largely split along party lines. I'm conservative on so many grounds, so I find myself at odds with people with whom I usually agree.
I wouldn't be surprised if its more on regional lines. I expect Rs outside the Southeast don't give as much of a shit.
An example of this is Obama's approval among whites is reasonable everywhere but the south (Trying to find a link).
Edit: Also, persecution complex, realization of shift in demographics and perception (white privilege)
Edit 2: Here we go. Would love to see a confederate flag breakdown by region.
(
Last edited by The Final Dakar; Jul 2, 2015 at 12:07 PM.
)
This is why I criticize the South. There was no reason to secede. They may have lost the presidential battle, but on the issues, legislatively and judicially, they were winning.
Actually, it's kind of reminiscent of how some Christians now think we're just years away from outlawing their first amendment rights, just because the state did not inflict their religious views over the entire populace.
What am I missing?
To maintain slavery, the slave states needed parity in the Senate. Between 1850 and 1860 they went from parity to four states/territories behind.
Actually, it's kind of reminiscent of how some Christians now think we're just years away from outlawing their first amendment rights, just because the state did not inflict their religious views over the entire populace.
Coeur d‘Alene, Idaho, city officials have laid down the law to Christian pastors within their community, telling them bluntly via an ordinance that if they refuse to marry homosexuals, they will face jail time and fines.
The dictate comes on the heels of a legal battle with Donald and Evelyn Knapp, ordained ministers who own the Hitching Post wedding chapel in the city, but who oppose gay marriage, The Daily Caller reported.
This situation is slightly different, as it's a chapel instead of a church, but it's not going to stop at the doors of churches. Even if a church holds to a traditional view on marriage, they'll eventually be forced to wed same-sex couples. This probably won't happen in 2015 or even 2016, but 2020? 2025? No doubt.
So yes, the logic of gay-marriage rights could lead to a reexamination of conservative churches’ tax exemptions (although, as long as the IRS is afraid of challenging Scientology’s exemption, everyone else is probably safe). But when that day comes, it will be long overdue.
This situation is slightly different, as it's a chapel instead of a church, but it's not going to stop at the doors of churches. Even if a church holds to a traditional view on marriage, they'll eventually be forced to wed same-sex couples. This probably won't happen in 2015 or even 2016, but 2020? 2025? No doubt.
Whites holding college degrees more apt than those without degrees to support removing confederate flags from government property (68% among those whites with degrees, 42% among those without)
That ****ing strawman was so large you must have thrown your back out when you trotted it out here. This where I would normally ask someone WTF is wrong with them, but I already know that with you. You're as much of a bigot as they are. (Likely worse, given your misplaced superiority complex.) Not that it matters, you mean nothing to me and I'll treat you like I would any other racist.
Top