PDA

View Full Version : predicted... the North will never stop fightint the war



Phillip Allen
06-25-2015, 07:39 AM
burn the flag is just a beginning
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/us-capitols-confederate-statues-prompt-renewed-debate/ar-AAc6JhD?ocid=HPCDHP

skuthorp
06-25-2015, 07:46 AM
As I have said Phillip, I am against 'sanitising' history. That's the territory of dictators and despots with dynastic ambitions.
That said, the State flying that flag is just another 'look at me' affair.

Phillip Allen
06-25-2015, 07:47 AM
As I have said Phillip, I am against 'sanitising' history. That's the territory of dictators and despots with dynastic ambitions.
That said, the State flying that flag is just another 'look at me' affair.

and that is a "yes-but" argument

Keith Wilson
06-25-2015, 07:48 AM
Should those who started a war to preserve slavery in which 600,000 died be honored? Or those like Ben Tillman, who used terror and brutality to disenfranchise and oppress the majority of his state's population, and reinstate minority white rule? I don't say they should be forgotten; quite the opposite, but honoring them with statues in the capitol is a bit much, don't you think?

S.V. Airlie
06-25-2015, 07:48 AM
Phillip, my great Aunt's father was in the Confederate Cabinet. I want to see this stuff gone too! They can put this guy's statue in some museum if they want but, not keep it in a Federal building. There is something about being right or wrong and not about North and South here.

Canoez
06-25-2015, 07:49 AM
Are you really proud to be flying the flag of folks who were traitors? Really? Seems to me that the South is still fighting the Civil war.

BTW - It is folks in South Carolina calling for the removal of the Confederate Battle flag...

Phillip Allen
06-25-2015, 07:50 AM
Should those who started a war to preserve slavery in which 600,000 died be honored? Or those like Ben Tillman, who used terror and brutality to disenfranchise and oppress the majority of his state's population, and reinstate minority white rule? I don't say they should be forgotten; quite the opposite, but honoring them with statues in the capitol is a bit much, don't you think?

the Egyptians used to chisel the names of previous Pharos off the monuments... come a long way, haven't you?

Phillip Allen
06-25-2015, 07:51 AM
I'll just turn this thread over to the South bashers... that's what they were gonna do anyway

Keith Wilson
06-25-2015, 07:53 AM
You didn't answer my question. Should we continue to honor the memory of Alexander Stevens? Of Ben Tillman? Of Nathan Bedford Forrest? Of John C. Calhoun? Why?

S.V. Airlie
06-25-2015, 07:54 AM
the Egyptians used to chisel the names of previous Pharos off the monuments... come a long way, haven't you? And the point is?

And the south has been fighting the war Phillip ever since April 9, 1865. And Canoez is right, it's SC who wants the statue down.

Canoez
06-25-2015, 07:54 AM
If you think you're gonna get an answer, I've got a bridge on offer. Cheap.

RonW
06-25-2015, 08:36 AM
Slavery and the confederacy is a product of the democratic party. It was democrats who sold these poor little black children into slavery and starved, beat and worked them as hard as they could for personal financial gains. It was the republican party that fought for these poor blacks to be free and to be treated equally as all men.

It was the republican party that fought to maintain the union and preserve the freedoms as set forth in the bill of rights.

Don't believe me, look it up...........



STEYN: CONFEDERATE FLAG ‘A DEMOCRAT FLAG’

Columnist and author of “The Undocumented,” Mark Steyn declared the Confederate flag “a Democrat flag” on Wednesday’s “Hannity” on the Fox News Channel.

Steyn said, “I know the GOP is called the stupid party, but the idea that Republicans can have the Confederate flag hung around their neck is ridiculous. It’s a Democrat flag. The flags — the states that seceded during the Civil War were all Democrat states, that’s their flag, the slave states were Democrat states, the racist states, until the 1960s, were Democrat states. The Democratic Party is the — was the largest and most powerful institution supporting slavery in the English-speaking world. And it’s the only one that has survived till the 21st century.”

He continued, “it’s their flag, Hillary Clinton had it on campaign bumper stickers when she ran for president in 2008. You mentioned Robert C. Byrd, Sean. Bill Clinton was doing Klu Klux Klan Grand Kleagle jokes at Byrd’s funeral, saying, Robert C. Byrd, he used to — was the Grand Kleagle, he just did what he had to do. And “the Democratic Party has never come to terms with the evil of its past, the idea — it was a party committed to the proposition that one human being could own another human being. And they’ve never — they’ve never said a word about that.”

Steyn added that it was “insulting” to the dead that the post-Charleston shooting has “dwindled down” into a debate over the Confederate flag.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/06/24/steyn-confederate-flag-a-democrat-flag/

Canoez
06-25-2015, 08:40 AM
Slavery and the confederacy is a product of the democratic party. It was democrats who sold these poor little black children into slavery and starved, beat and worked them as hard as they could for personal financial gains. It was the republican party that fought for these poor blacks to be free and to be treated equally as all men.

It was the republican party that fought to maintain the union and preserve the freedoms as set forth in the bill of rights.

Don't believe me, look it up...........




http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/06/24/steyn-confederate-flag-a-democrat-flag/

The Flip. (http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/reversal2.pdf) It ain't your great-grandfather's Democratic or Republican party, Ron.

S.V. Airlie
06-25-2015, 08:40 AM
What an idiot! You know, you really don't have to open your yap just to prove it.

When do you think the dem party came into existance? It wasn't before 1800 was it? It certainly wasn't before slaves were broiught to the colonies by the Dutch in 1619 was it? So what was the party (dem) between 1619 and 1819? Don't know, Figured!

Keith Wilson
06-25-2015, 08:53 AM
Ron, that's all true, with the exception of the lie about the confederate flag on Clinton's bumper stickers.. But the Republican party of 2015 is not the Republican party of 1860, nor of 1920.

Here you go; 100 years apart, red for Republican, blue for Democrat:

1908:

http://www.270towin.com/historical_maps/1908.gif

2008:

http://www.270towin.com/historical_maps/2008.gif

Hey! Guess what? The colors have switched!

RonW
06-25-2015, 08:58 AM
Oh my...look at 1860 ..which show 10 of the 11 confederate states and it was in 1861 that virginia was added to make the 11 confederate states of the confederacy.


http://onthebrinkofdisunion-theelectionof1860.weebly.com/uploads/1/6/0/7/16073760/1362283686.png

S.V. Airlie
06-25-2015, 08:58 AM
I think RonW's great great grandfather was probably an immigrant didn't have a party per se he could vote with.

S.V. Airlie
06-25-2015, 09:00 AM
Proves my our point; 1860 is NOT 2015.

John of Phoenix
06-25-2015, 09:00 AM
the Egyptians used to chisel the names of previous Pharos off the monuments... come a long way, haven't you?For religious reasons.

Gerarddm
06-25-2015, 09:01 AM
The very conceit of this thread's title is absurd.

John of Phoenix
06-25-2015, 09:04 AM
the North ?? will never stop fighting the war

See if you can find a list like this for Northern or Western states.


Jan 16 Friday Lee Jackson Day State holiday Virginia
Jan 19 Monday Robert E Lee's Birthday State holiday AL, AR, MS
Jan 19 Monday Robert E Lee's Birthday State holiday Florida
Jan 19 Monday Confederate Memorial Day State holiday Texas
Apr 13 Monday Thomas Jefferson's Birthday Observance
Apr 27 Monday Confederate Memorial Day State holiday AL, FL, GA
Apr 27 Monday Confederate Memorial Day State holiday Mississippi
May 10 Sunday Confederate Memorial Day Local observance North Carolina
May 10 Sunday Confederate Memorial Day State holiday South Carolina
May 11 Monday Confederate Memorial Day observed State holiday South Carolina
May 25 Monday Jefferson Davis Birthday Local observance Mississippi
Jun 1 Monday Jefferson Davis Birthday State holiday Alabama
Jun 3 Wednesday Jefferson Davis Birthday Local observance Florida
Nov 27 Friday Robert E Lee's Birthday State holiday Georgia

Keith Wilson
06-25-2015, 09:04 AM
Oh my...look at 1860 ..Anyone who knows anything about US history knows that the Republican party was founded as the anti-slavery party. Many things change in 150 years.

John of Phoenix
06-25-2015, 09:08 AM
The reds "War on History".

RonW
06-25-2015, 09:09 AM
Anyone who knows anything about US history knows that the Republican party was founded as the anti-slavery party. Many things change in 150 years.

Well if we are going to discuss history, then we need to at least be fair and historically accurate.....

John of Phoenix
06-25-2015, 09:11 AM
Well if we are going to discuss history, then we need to at least be fair and historically accurate..... Please continue! :D :D

S.V. Airlie
06-25-2015, 09:12 AM
Well if we are going to discuss history, then we need to at least be fair and historically accurate.....AND you and Palin have trouble with accuracy! Figures!

Canoez
06-25-2015, 09:16 AM
Please continue! :D :D

*SNORT!* :d

Keith Wilson
06-25-2015, 09:17 AM
Well if we are going to discuss history, then we need to at least be fair and historically accurate.....I agree 100%. We certainly do, about recent history as well as history 150 years ago. You will therefore also be fair and accurate about Lee Atwater, Richard Nixon and the 'southern strategy' of the Republicans, designed to get conservative southern whites to switch parties in reaction against the civil rights laws on the 1960s, passed by the Democrats during the Johnson administration. It worked. The Republican party is now southern and rural.

Here's a 2012 electoral map, size proportional to population:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nAVgwlOVDL0/UKZZiO3i6VI/AAAAAAAABj4/viUNRFmAl2g/s1600/electoral.college.map.2012_results.gif

RonW
06-25-2015, 09:31 AM
Keith -
You will therefore also be fair and accurate about Lee Atwater, Richard Nixon and the 'southern strategy' of the Republicans, designed to get conservative southern whites to switch parties in reaction against the civil rights laws on the 1960s, passed by the Democrats during the Johnson administration. It worked. The Republican party is now southern and rural.

Oh really, then maybe we need to revisit the fact of who actually pushed through the civil rights and it wasn't the democrats..........


Who’s Really Responsible for the Civil Rights Act?

n 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat with a mixed record on race, signed the Civil Rights Act into law — something his Republican challenger in that year’s election, Sen. Barry Goldwater, had voted against, despite having a solid civil rights record up to that point.

Is this simple divide what shaped the modern perception of each political party’s record on civil rights?

Michael Zak, author of “Back to Basics for the Republican Party,” which chronicles the party’s civil rights heritage, believes Goldwater was a significant factor, by forgetting that the 1964 bill virtually mirrored Republican-backed legislation from 1875.

“Democrat pundits pretend that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the creation of the Kennedy or Johnson administrations, but in fact it was an extension of the Republican Party’s 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts,” Zak told TheBlaze. “Barry Goldwater, the GOP’s presidential nominee that year, did not appreciate the fact that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was thoroughly Republican policy.”

And with President Barack Obama, the first black president, set to speak at the LBJ Presidential Library Thursday, that’s the notion that’s still widely promoted. This week, White House press secretary Jay Carney likened Republican opposition to the Paycheck Fairness Act in Congress to opposing civil rights legislation.

“Republicans object to this strenuously, using the same arguments that conservatives used when they objected to every bit of progress made on civil rights for women and minorities over the past many decades, and they were wrong then and they’re wrong now,” Carney told reporters Tuesday.

Goldwater was one of just six Senate Republicans to vote against the bill in 1964, while 21 Senate Democrats opposed it. It passed by an overall vote of 73-27. In the House, 96 Democrats and 34 Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act, passing with an overall 290-130 vote. While most Democrats in both chambers voted for it, the bulk of the opposition still was from Democrats.

Time magazine even largely credited Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-Ill.) for pushing the sweeping legislation through, putting him on the cover after final passage.

Johnson told Dirksen: “The attorney general said that you were very helpful and did an excellent job and that I ought to tell you that I admire you … and I told him that I had already done that for some time … . You’re worthy of the Land of Lincoln. And a man from Illinois is going to pass the bill, and I’ll see that you get proper attention and credit.”

Horace Cooper, co-chairman of Project 21, a black conservative organization, told TheBlaze that at the time the 1964 bill was debated “it was clear [that] distinguished leaders of the Democratic Party were the opponents … we didn’t have 24-hour news then, but people who were paying attention knew who opposed it.”

“There is a myth, and it has been a particularly effective one, that the Democratic Party has created opportunities for minorities,” added Cooper, a former law professor at George Mason University and former counsel for House Republicans. “The record for 100 years from the 1860s through the 1960s has been that the Democrats have stymied the abilities of black Americans to have the same constitutional rights as all Americans.”

The basis of most Republican opposition to the 1964 law, even from GOP members of Congress who backed the 1957 and 1960 bills signed by President Dwight Eisenhower, was discomfort about forcing private business to comply with public accommodation laws. Cooper said few Republicans expressed any qualms about requiring public busses, and government buildings to integrate.

“Because Republicans had been the party of civil rights and liked more in it than they didn’t, they voted for it,” Cooper said. “Democrats were split. It was Democrats that used a herculean effort to block it through filibusters.”

Moreover, Cooper pointed out, some local governments in the South had laws prohibiting private business owners from serving black customers. Goldwater, Cooper said, wanted to end these laws first.

“Barry Goldwater wanted to address those laws and give people free choices,” he said. “Barry Goldwater was never of the mind that government had no role in stopping discrimination.”

The GOP’s civil rights case was not helped when rabid segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina left the Democratic Party for the Republicans after Johnson signed the law. But conservatives argue that doesn’t erase the historical divide.

The 1957 Civil Rights Act established the civil rights division in the Justice Department and allowed federal prosecutors to obtain court injunctions against local governments that tried to interfere with the right to vote and established a federal Civil Rights Commission for two years. But the legislation, the first civil rights bill since Reconstruction, was considered watered down in order to overcome a Democratic filibuster.

Eisenhower in his last year in office signed the 1960 Civil Right Act to strengthen enforcement of the 1957 law, extending the life of the Civil Rights Commission and produced penalties for anyone who obstructed voter registration. Like the previous bill, this legislation had also been watered down.

The earliest bill to be called the Civil Rights Act came in 1866, guaranteeing all Americans equal protection under the law.

It was the 1875 Civil Rights Act that allowed Americans to have access to public accommodations such as restaurants and public transportation. But the law wasn’t enforced and the Supreme Court struck it down in 1883.

“The 1964 Civil Rights Act was based on the GOP’s 1875 Civil Rights Act,” said Zak, the historian. “That landmark legislation had been written by Senator Charles Summer, a Republican from Massachusetts.”

Zak’s 2000 book, which he says was to clear up misperceptions about history, was followed by other books by conservative authors such as economist Bruce Bartlett’s “Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past” in 2008 and well-known conservative commentator Ann Coulter’s 2013 book, “Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama,” which both talked about the Democratic Party’s strong affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan and progressive President Woodrow Wilson’s advocacy for southern segregation policies.

But even non-conservative authors are now pointing out the party divide. Just last week, an excerpt from Todd Purdum’s new book, “An Idea Whose Time has Come: Two Presidents, Two Parties and the Battle for the Civil Rights Act of 1864,” heralded little-known former Rep. Bill McCulloch (R-Ohio) as the Republican who saved civil rights.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965, passed along similar partisan margins, with 61 Democratic “no” votes in the House and 24 Republicans voting against the bill, which passed 333-85. In the Senate, the measure passed with the support of 94 percent of the Republican caucus and 73 percent of the Democratic caucus.

“The degree of Republican support for the two bills actually exceeded the degree of Democratic support, and it’s also fair to say that Republicans took leading roles in both measures, even though they had far fewer seats, and thus less power, at the time,” PolitiFact said in a 2010 analysis of the GOP role in civil rights.

Cooper contends that Democrats have continued to exploit race, just in a more sophisticated at it.

“They exploited racial tensions in the ’30s, ’40s and ’50s by turning it into, ‘This group, Republicans, [are] going to turn over your hard earnings to blacks.’ It took a black leader to explain we are not asking for special rights,” Cooper said. “Today they say the other party is trying to take away your right to vote, trying to take away your education, trying to take away your health care. They haven’t quit doing what they’ve always done. They are just more sophisticated at dividing people along racial lines.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/10/whos-really-responsible-for-the-civil-rights-act/

S.V. Airlie
06-25-2015, 09:36 AM
n 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat with a mixed record on race, signed the Civil Rights Act into law — something his Republican challenger in that year’s election, Sen. Barry Goldwater, had voted against, despite having a solid civil rights record up to that point.

Don't even read what you posted in your C&P do you? This was the 1st paragraph!

S.V. Airlie
06-25-2015, 10:12 AM
When I worked in NC and referred to the White House, people asked me whether I was talking about the white house at the end of the street!

Keith Wilson
06-25-2015, 10:41 AM
Ron, you missed my point. (Well, not actually 'missed' but let's leave that aside. :d) Southern Democrats in the 1960s were generally very conservative and most of them opposed civil rights legislation. That was the basis of the Republican 'southern strategy', which was very effectively in getting them to switch parties. That's the reason the same states that voted for Wallace and Goldwater are now dead-solid Republican.

RonW
06-25-2015, 10:44 AM
Ron, you missed my point. (Well, not actually 'missed' but let's leave that aside. :d) Southern Democrats in the 1960s were generally very conservative and most of them opposed civil rights legislation. That was the basis of the Republican 'southern strategy', which was very effectively in getting them to switch parties. That's the reason the same states that voted for Wallace and Goldwater are now dead-solid Republican.

Nope, I didn't miss anything........I got it...

S.V. Airlie
06-25-2015, 10:47 AM
Nope, I didn't miss anything........I got it...Someone hit you with a sledge hammer RonW?

John of Phoenix
06-25-2015, 10:51 AM
Keith -

Oh really, then maybe we need to revisit the fact of who actually pushed through the civil rights and it wasn't the democrats..........

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/10/whos-really-responsible-for-the-civil-rights-act/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/10/whos-really-responsible-for-the-civil-rights-act/)


n 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat with a mixed record on race, signed the Civil Rights Act into law — something his Republican challenger in that year’s election, Sen. Barry Goldwater, had voted against, despite having a solid civil rights record up to that point.

Don't even read what you posted in your C&P do you? This was the 1st paragraph!


Nope, I didn't miss anything........I got it...The guy never disappoints. :D :D

Keith Wilson
06-25-2015, 12:00 PM
Well, at least he quoted the whole thing, including the part about the conservative southern Democrats switching parties.

S.V. Airlie
06-25-2015, 12:12 PM
Look at the source, probably didn't read the whole thing just expected what he though it Should say and left it at that!

Paul Pless
06-25-2015, 12:13 PM
dumbest thread of the week

Keith Wilson
06-25-2015, 12:15 PM
Dumbest thread of the week.Hey, I'm doing my bit for the cause! :d

oznabrag
06-25-2015, 12:15 PM
You didn't answer my question. Should we continue to honor the memory of Alexander Stevens? Of Ben Tillman? Of Nathan Bedford Forrest? Of John C. Calhoun? Why?

I believe we should honor NB Forrest.

This beautifully-crafted and heartfelt post from Tom F (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?193666-9-die-in-shooting-at-black-church-in-Charleston&p=4578184#post4578184) describes why. It ain't fer nuthin' that I appointed him "Minister of Incorrigible Love and Fury In the Name of God."



It is startling. Some theologians describe such an event as "an inbreaking of the kingdom of God." That is ... this is an example of what it actually looks like to pray "Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." Or "Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us." Or in the language of our thread a couple of weeks back, of saying along with the 1st commandment "Only God is god - I'll not let something else set my priorities."

There's power in inviting the kingdom in. There's a very different conversation about race going on as a result of the prayerful response of these people in Charleston - and not just in your country. And they've demonstrated a crucial (and to many, startling) element of the horrible, divisive old religious word "salvation" too. Because IMO, it's a huge mistake to think that "salvation" is about not ending up in an eternal stir-fry. Despite centuries of folks preaching otherwise, scripture doesn't actually say that "salvation" is about being "saved from hell." It's about being "saved from our sins."

These Charleston forgivers .. were saved from their sins ... sins they would have committed in thought or action against Roof had they acted (frankly) the way we'd kinda expect people to do. Now, miraculously, they don't have to carry that weight, along with their weight of grief. We've seen it happen - that's exactly what's stunning to us. We can imagine in our own hearts some of the dark things these folks have been "saved from," and can imagine the relief of avoiding that co-existing in the midst of the ongoing pain and grief. A lot of us would give anything to be saved in the same sense, if our own loved ones had been killed...

Faith isn't what a lot of people think it is.

Forrest was even more of a monster than Tillman, in some ways.

I do not believe he was what we would call a racist, today. He certainly exploited the legality of slavery, which was built on racism, and became a multi-millionaire in his twenties through trading in slaves.

I do not believe that he hated black people any more or less than he hated anyone else, it was just that the slave trade made it easy for a psychopath such as himself to become a millionaire.

That really was serious money, in 1859.

The reason I believe we should honor him is for what he did after reconstruction.

He became a staunch supporter of the Black business community in Memphis, though he was ostracized for it, and continued in that support until his death.

In my opinion, if all the former officers of the Confederate Army were to have behaved as he did, we would be looking at an entirely different South, today.

Canoez
06-25-2015, 12:17 PM
dumbest thread of the week

Consider the source...

Keith Wilson
06-25-2015, 12:39 PM
It ain't fer nuthin' that I appointed him "Minister of Incorrigible Love and Fury In the Name of God." Oooh, I like that! Y>

Forrest was a complicated character, with both more good and more bad than most of us. Some of the things he did after the war were genuinely admirable.

Paul Pless
06-25-2015, 12:41 PM
Hey, I'm doing my bit for the cause! :dlink (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?65342-Who-s-more-stupider/page2)

Waddie
06-25-2015, 12:54 PM
Just about every national flag is offensive to somebody. Indians have long been resentful of having Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. They also resent having the Stars and Stripes flying over their reservations.

Maybe the whole concept of celebrating heroes and politicians is outdated. Maybe in the 21st century the idea of flags is outdated.

Louis Farrakan is certainly outraged by the US flag;
“I don’t know what the hell the fight is about over the Confederate flag. We need to put the American flag down. Because we’ve caught as much hell under that as the Confederate flag,” comments that were meant with cheers and applause. He added, “Who are we fighting today? It’s the people that carry the American flag.”

Does he have a point?

regards,
Waddie

Steve McMahon
06-25-2015, 01:01 PM
Is the war over?

Phillip Allen
06-25-2015, 01:03 PM
Is the war over?

not really... 'nother invasion happening right now

Keith Wilson
06-25-2015, 01:04 PM
I'm not much interested in what Louis Farrakhan says. What has been done under the US flag is mixed; much good, some bad. What the Confederate flag stands for, and pretty much all it stands for, is a rebellion against the US for the specific purpose of keeping 40% of the people of the south enslaved. That is not worth celebrating.

Phillip Allen
06-25-2015, 01:06 PM
I'm not much interested in what Louis Farrakhan says. What has been done under the US flag is mixed; much good, some bad. What the Confederate flag stands for, and pretty much all it stands for, is a rebellion against the US for the specific purpose of keeping 40% of the people of the south enslaved. That is not worth celebrating.

challenged without contest

John of Phoenix
06-25-2015, 01:10 PM
challenged without contestUnintelligible. As usual.

Have you made any progress on that list?

John of Phoenix
06-25-2015, 01:13 PM
The Confederate cause was white supremacy. This claim is not the result of revisionism. It does not require reading between the lines. It is the plain meaning of the words of those who bore the Confederate flag across history. These words must never be forgotten. Over the next few months the word “heritage” will be repeatedly invoked. It would be derelict to not examine the exact contents of that heritage.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/

Keith Wilson
06-25-2015, 02:21 PM
That's a very good article from The Atlantic, with some of the original documents that I've been C&Ping here over the years, plus a whole lot more. One sometimes forgets that many people in previous times did not think at all like we do.

John of Phoenix
06-25-2015, 02:26 PM
One sometimes forgets that many people in previous times did not think at all like we do.One sometimes forgets that many people in current times think like they're still in the 19th century. Then they start Rockin' the Celebration of Being Stupid.

Paul Pless
06-25-2015, 02:51 PM
challenged without contest

Not being a smart ass here, really. Wtf is this supposed to mean? Please phillip, help me out here.

S.V. Airlie
06-25-2015, 02:55 PM
Good luck with that!

Waddie
06-25-2015, 03:24 PM
I'm not much interested in what Louis Farrakhan says. What has been done under the US flag is mixed; much good, some bad. What the Confederate flag stands for, and pretty much all it stands for, is a rebellion against the US for the specific purpose of keeping 40% of the people of the south enslaved. That is not worth celebrating.

Maybe we should ask an indian about that....... and about Andrew Jackson..... should his likeness be removed from the currency and Capital? All of these are judgement calls; is your judgement more valid than theirs?

regards,
Waddie

S.V. Airlie
06-25-2015, 03:28 PM
I think the face of Jackson SHOULD BE REMOVED. biased and personal dislike of the guy. I can think of a lot of others who should be honored but, not him.a

Keith Wilson
06-25-2015, 03:29 PM
All of these are judgement calls . . . .Yes? And your point is?

Waddie
06-25-2015, 03:37 PM
Yes? And your point is?

And you're humble as well.

I made my point effectively, thanks. (of course I recognize that's a judgement call as well... )

regards,
Waddie

Keith Wilson
06-25-2015, 03:40 PM
You obviously didn't make your point all that effectively, if I couldn't figure out what it is.

So how do you think we should decide what parts of US history are worth celebrating, and which not? Is the Confederacy a part worth celebrating?

Waddie
06-25-2015, 03:58 PM
You obviously didn't make your point all that effectively, if I couldn't figure out what it is.

So how do you think we should decide what parts of US history are worth celebrating, and which not? Is the Confederacy a part worth celebrating?

First of all, any decision is a judgement call. Almost every symbol has a combination of good and bad history. I believe that to many people the confederate flag does simply represent Southern pride and heritage. The difficult problem is deciding how to accommodate everyone who has an opinion on it. Much of it comes down to good taste. In this particular case, since the state capital represents everyone in the state, decent manners would indicate not to fly it there; but at a cemetery, even one owned by the state, holding many confederate war dead, probably reason enough to fly it there.

I would not fly the US flag over reservation land if there were serious resistance to it from native peoples. Once again, good taste and good manners, and good judgement. Why rub their noses in it every time they look up?

Since our currency also represents everyone, we should remove dead presidents, as many of them were slave owners. Find something else to plaster across our currency. Maybe abandon using people altogether. The post office does a good job of bringing diversity to our postage. Why not our currency? Ducks are nice, and environmental as well.

regards,
Waddie

S.V. Airlie
06-25-2015, 04:12 PM
So, what is the good in flying a Nazi flag going by your post, you must admit there is some good.

leikec
06-25-2015, 06:01 PM
Maybe we should ask an indian about that....... and about Andrew Jackson..... should his likeness be removed from the currency and Capital? All of these are judgement calls; is your judgement more valid than theirs?

regards,
Waddie

We can also talk about how you came to be the spokesperson for the Native American community... :D

Jeff C

Captain Intrepid
06-25-2015, 06:16 PM
http://i62.tinypic.com/20iicet.jpg

George Jung
06-25-2015, 08:46 PM
My, my.... 'someone's' working overtime attempting to be controversial. Must be a variation of 'God of the Gaps'? Maybe 'Phillip's fallen and can't get up'?

Chris Coose
06-25-2015, 08:56 PM
I'll just turn this thread over to the South bashers... that's what they were gonna do anyway

You, pal are solely responsible for turning the thread over to south bashers before you even typed it.

Osborne Russell
06-26-2015, 11:03 AM
First of all, any decision is a judgement call. Almost every symbol has a combination of good and bad history. I believe that to many people the confederate flag does simply represent Southern pride and heritage. The difficult problem is deciding how to accommodate everyone who has an opinion on it.

Different accommodations for different contexts. Basic difference: government/not government.


Much of it comes down to good taste. In this particular case, since the state capital represents everyone in the state, decent manners would indicate not to fly it there; but at a cemetery, even one owned by the state, holding many confederate war dead, probably reason enough to fly it there.

The government is not involved. Who's accommodating whom? How? How much do I care?


I would not fly the US flag over reservation land if there were serious resistance to it from native peoples. Once again, good taste and good manners, and good judgement. Why rub their noses in it every time they look up?

I guess.


Since our currency also represents everyone, we should remove dead presidents, as many of them were slave owners. Find something else to plaster across our currency. Maybe abandon using people altogether. The post office does a good job of bringing diversity to our postage. Why not our currency? Ducks are nice, and environmental as well.

Argumentum ad absurdum. The Confederate Flag is coming down over the statehouse.

Phillip Allen
07-12-2015, 07:08 AM
just a reminder



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnS9M03F-fA

Captain Intrepid
07-12-2015, 09:07 AM
Another reminder.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Birth_of_a_Nation_theatrical_poster.jpg/389px-Birth_of_a_Nation_theatrical_poster.jpg

Jim Bow
07-12-2015, 10:00 AM
I haven't read all the above posts, but has anyone pointed out that the flag in question was removed by Southerners because it was offensive to other Southerners?

John Smith
07-12-2015, 10:01 AM
Should those who started a war to preserve slavery in which 600,000 died be honored? Or those like Ben Tillman, who used terror and brutality to disenfranchise and oppress the majority of his state's population, and reinstate minority white rule? I don't say they should be forgotten; quite the opposite, but honoring them with statues in the capitol is a bit much, don't you think?

I think it comes under freedom of speech. We've had many discussions on that topic. I've voiced my opinion that we either believe it it as a principle or we don't. Most don't.

Nothing I can think of is more offensive to me than "GOD" in our pledge. Pretty much anything one man says is apt to offend another.

John Smith
07-12-2015, 10:02 AM
Phillip, my great Aunt's father was in the Confederate Cabinet. I want to see this stuff gone too! They can put this guy's statue in some museum if they want but, not keep it in a Federal building. There is something about being right or wrong and not about North and South here.

Why cant we construe a federal building as a museum?

John Smith
07-12-2015, 10:03 AM
Seems to me if we put as much effort into creating jobs or taking care of wounded vets as we are giving to flags and statues, we might make some good progress. All the emotional issues divert from the real issues.

S.V. Airlie
07-12-2015, 03:11 PM
Why cant we construe a federal building as a museum?John, SC is building a multi-million wing on the museum to house the flag taken off the state building. It's being called a "shrine"! The flag maybe down but, the mindset of many will not change! So, it's a shrine to slavery, suppression, murder, rape and you name it!