AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 28, 2015 18:41:26 GMT -5
Christ. You too? I thought you were smarter than that. It's not current public opinion. That flag has stood for racism and hatred ever since a bunch of southerners said, "how dare you yankees tell us to free our n_____s" and went to war trying to keep the institution of slavery alive under it. People don't like the confederate flag specifically because of its historical legacy, which has been consistently on the side of oppressing non-white people ever since some southern gentlemen designed the damn thing. Semiotics of the Confederate FlagThis is the first resource I turned to, and it succeeded in convincing me that one simply cannot claim the issue is as simple as (literally) black and white. The flag was taken down because 35% (or whatever it was) of southerners polled in 2015 believed it was a racist symbol, not because it holds this intrinsic meaning, as Dr. Sarratt points out. If public opinion is the standard by which we judge the suitability of public symbols, rainbow flags aren't exempt either. Give the gay pride flag a century and a half. If the gay culture grows and matures, they are happy and content to live their lives as they please, unmolested, and they tone down the "in your face" fascism that currently poses a clear and present danger to the lives and property of those who would rather not participate in their versions of traditional institutions-- I predict the gay pride flag will survive and will not offend many. If, however, the gay culture continues to permit their more militant members to define them, and they persist in forcing others to accept, and participate in their lifestyle choices-- I predict the flag will have quite a different history- and it will be history by then.
|
|
cranberry49
Familiar Member
'Sometimes the simple things are the prettiest'
Joined: Jul 15, 2011 21:09:58 GMT -5
Posts: 734
|
Post by cranberry49 on Aug 28, 2015 19:15:40 GMT -5
The Daily Telegraph has learned that “police reportedly confiscated a gay pride flag” from the apartment of Vester Lee Flanagan Wednesday. In an apparent hate crime, Flanagan is the 41 year-old black journalist who murdered two white Virginia reporters on live television Wednesday morning before turning his gun on himself. In a manifesto faxed to ABC News, Flanagan, an Obama-supporter, claimed that his motive involved a “race war.” Flanagan was black and gay and apparently angered by the fact that he had been a victim of racism and homophobia at the hands of “black men and white women.” Both of Flanagan’s intended victims were straight. The gay pride rainbow flag reportedly found in Flanagan’s apartment is seen by many as a symbol of anti-Christian hate. After a white racist terrorist in South Carolina murdered nine innocent black churchgoers, photos of the racist with the Confederate Flag resulted in a media frenzy to ban the flag. Like the Confederate flag, the provocative gay pride flag, a symbol of religious oppression, has flown on government property. The Confederate Flag has since been taken down in South Carolina. Thus far, other than a mention in the Telegraph, the media has not reported on the fact that Flanagan might have owned the LGBT rainbow hate-flag. Follow John Nolte on Twitter @noltenc www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/27/report-lgbt-rainbow-hate-flag-found-in-wdbj-killers-apartment/ROTFLMAO! Flanagan was a Jehovah's Witness. I say we ban all Jehovah's Witnesses. Better yet, ban all religion. Happy, now?
Just because flanagan used the name Jehovah does NOT make him a Jehovah witness. The bible plainly states that Gods name is indeed Jehovah. Besides, even if he claimed to be a witness? He obviously Was NOT. Jehovah witnesses *a true practicing one*are law abiding folks that would not harm a soul.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 28, 2015 20:16:30 GMT -5
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,730
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Aug 28, 2015 20:36:55 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 8, 2024 8:44:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2015 21:31:00 GMT -5
That would be a great post... if it wasn't for the fact that the bolded is all revisionist BS. What was the civil war fought for? Many things other than JUST slavery. Give me a little time to wade through all the crap on the internet and I'll see if I can find a link (because you obviously won't take my word for it). Maybe I'll remember to save the links to a WORD Document or something so I don't have to search next time. although... the links could change by the next time someone stubbornly refuses to take my word even though I don't lie.
|
|
cranberry49
Familiar Member
'Sometimes the simple things are the prettiest'
Joined: Jul 15, 2011 21:09:58 GMT -5
Posts: 734
|
Post by cranberry49 on Aug 28, 2015 22:48:15 GMT -5
Well, he may have been raised as one, but he sure was not one! Being raised as one and being one is two different things!
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 29, 2015 1:32:29 GMT -5
@richardintn - money.
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Aug 29, 2015 1:43:13 GMT -5
What was the civil war fought for? Many things other than JUST slavery. Give me a little time to wade through all the crap on the internet and I'll see if I can find a link (because you obviously won't take my word for it). Maybe I'll remember to save the links to a WORD Document or something so I don't have to search next time. although... the links could change by the next time someone stubbornly refuses to take my word even though I don't lie. OK you win- it was 99.9% about slavery and .1% about tacky furniture in plantation houses.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Aug 29, 2015 9:16:17 GMT -5
@richardintn - money. Great answer, but still dodges what we all know is the truth. Lets go with money though. Why would only slave owning states secede over money? Because abolishing slavery was going to destabilise their economies which heavily relied on it. Wait, that can't be right, that would mean we're back to the war primarily being about slavery again. Yeah, yeah we are. Probably because the war really truly actually was primarily about slavery. The fact that we're even having this argument is ridiculous. The war was about slavery and the federal government forcing the south to end it. Accept it and move on. Jesus, it happened over a century ago. I'm starting to think the black folks that were actually enslaved, raped, and murdered have moved on more than the white folks that did it to them. Your ancestors were racist assholes that treated non-whites like shit. They actually seceded from their own country and went to war with them trying to keep their ability to be racist assholes when the north wised up and decided maybe we should stop with that nonsense. All the whitewashing and BS in the world isn't going to change that history. It happened, get over it. If it was truly about slavery, Lincoln would have freed the slaves, long before succession, or at least after the first shots were fired.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,165
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 29, 2015 13:07:26 GMT -5
Great answer, but still dodges what we all know is the truth. Lets go with money though. Why would only slave owning states secede over money? Because abolishing slavery was going to destabilise their economies which heavily relied on it. Wait, that can't be right, that would mean we're back to the war primarily being about slavery again. Yeah, yeah we are. Probably because the war really truly actually was primarily about slavery. The fact that we're even having this argument is ridiculous. The war was about slavery and the federal government forcing the south to end it. Accept it and move on. Jesus, it happened over a century ago. I'm starting to think the black folks that were actually enslaved, raped, and murdered have moved on more than the white folks that did it to them. Your ancestors were racist assholes that treated non-whites like shit. They actually seceded from their own country and went to war with them trying to keep their ability to be racist assholes when the north wised up and decided maybe we should stop with that nonsense. All the whitewashing and BS in the world isn't going to change that history. It happened, get over it. If it was truly about slavery, Lincoln would have freed the slaves, long before succession, or at least after the first shots were fired. really? knowing that millions would die? you think?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 8, 2024 8:44:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 18:29:34 GMT -5
And which of those things, slavery included, do you think was the biggest part of it, or main cause of it? I think they were all "about equal". None of them, BY THEMSELVES, would have been enough to make secession reasonable, but when you pile enough straw on a camel's back, eventually you get to one too many. It doesn't make that "one" any more worthy than any of the others... it just makes it the last one.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 8, 2024 8:44:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 18:34:11 GMT -5
Many things other than JUST slavery. Give me a little time to wade through all the crap on the internet and I'll see if I can find a link (because you obviously won't take my word for it). Maybe I'll remember to save the links to a WORD Document or something so I don't have to search next time. although... the links could change by the next time someone stubbornly refuses to take my word even though I don't lie. OK you win- it was 99.9% about slavery and .1% about tacky furniture in plantation houses. Since that's not even close to the truth about the cause of the secession... I cannot accept that "compromise". Make it closer to the truth ("it was one of several causes"), and we can talk...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 8, 2024 8:44:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 18:36:12 GMT -5
Great answer, but still dodges what we all know is the truth. Lets go with money though. Why would only slave owning states secede over money? Because abolishing slavery was going to destabilise their economies which heavily relied on it. Wait, that can't be right, that would mean we're back to the war primarily being about slavery again. Yeah, yeah we are. Probably because the war really truly actually was primarily about slavery. The fact that we're even having this argument is ridiculous. The war was about slavery and the federal government forcing the south to end it. Accept it and move on. Jesus, it happened over a century ago. I'm starting to think the black folks that were actually enslaved, raped, and murdered have moved on more than the white folks that did it to them. Your ancestors were racist assholes that treated non-whites like shit. They actually seceded from their own country and went to war with them trying to keep their ability to be racist assholes when the north wised up and decided maybe we should stop with that nonsense. All the whitewashing and BS in the world isn't going to change that history. It happened, get over it. If it was truly about slavery, Lincoln would have freed the slaves, long before succession, or at least after the first shots were fired. Or, as I've suggested, they would have returned voluntarily, with adoption of The Corwin Amendment (which would have guaranteed slavery in their states as long as they wanted to have it) as a requirement first.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 8, 2024 8:44:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 19:37:34 GMT -5
So the war wasn't about slavery, but if the north had just accepted the compromise of letting them continue slavery the war wouldn't have happened? Serious question, do you honestly not see the mental disconnect going on there? There's no mental disconnect... unless it's on your side. The fact that they didn't come back when the Corwin Amendment would have GUARANTEED they could keep slavery PROVES that it wasn't ABOUT slavery. Serious question to you: If it was all about slavery, and the Corwin Amendment would have guaranteed slavery for all time (or at least as long as they wanted it)... why didn't they re-join the union with a requirement of it's adoption by the states (it had already passed both houses of Congress)? Why risk losing a war for no reason. ETA: and the north didn't have to "accept the compromise"... the North PROPOSED it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 8, 2024 8:44:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2015 0:42:53 GMT -5
What was the civil war fought for? Many things other than JUST slavery. Give me a little time to wade through all the crap on the internet and I'll see if I can find a link (because you obviously won't take my word for it). Maybe I'll remember to save the links to a WORD Document or something so I don't have to search next time. although... the links could change by the next time someone stubbornly refuses to take my word even though I don't lie. I know I'm quoting myself... This is a response to the bolded. It's a little (ok... a LOT) "wordy", but it's a good read and MIGHT (if you read it without the "It was all/mostly about slavery" blinders on) enlighten you(general "you") a bit: THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE CIVIL WAR: FACTS YOUR HISTORY TEACHER MAY NOT HAVE MENTIONED ABOUT THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES (apologies for the caps... I copied and pasted the title) I'm going to save it and the link to it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 8, 2024 8:44:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2015 1:17:38 GMT -5
Also good reads are the Secession declarations/Acts of the following States: Virginia Arkansas North Carolina Tennessee Missouri Kentucky They can be found here: Ordinances of SecessionNote that in those 6 slavery is ONLY mentioned in reference to the seceding states that they are JOINING, as a way of describing the states (like "the blue car" or "the red train"... they say "the southern slave-holding states"). They say nothing about their own slavery laws. And even then, only in the Virginia Ordinance of Secession.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 30, 2015 8:05:13 GMT -5
Since there such a call to remove the Confederate flag because of link to slavery, Why are we not calling for the removal anything tied to the first twelve U.S. Presidents, all had something to do slavery, The were still slaves in the White house when Lincoln was President. hauensteincenter.org/slaveholding/ So in your quest to remove symbols that are tied to slavery, start with taking that paper money that you have, put it in a pile , burn it. Yeaaaa, that will show me just strongly you believe in the removal of symbols tied to slavery.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,534
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 30, 2015 8:22:36 GMT -5
Since there such a call to remove the Confederate flag because of link to slavery, Why are we not calling for the removal anything tied to the first twelve U.S. Presidents, all had something to do slavery, The were still slaves in the White house when Lincoln was President. hauensteincenter.org/slaveholding/ So in your quest to remove symbols that are tied to slavery, start with taking that paper money that you have, put it in a pile , burn it. Yeaaaa, that will show me just strongly you believe in the removal of symbols tied to slavery. So the paper money I earned yesterday by editing someone's resume is tied to slavery?
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 30, 2015 8:40:38 GMT -5
If we use the standard that the flag was just the continuation of slavery, Sure why not.
so, if you have paper money with the portrait of Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Jackson, Grant and even Ben Franklin. Put it in a pile, burn it.
Just to show your support for removing symbols of slavery.
I am pretty sure you are not quite that committed to that cause.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 30, 2015 8:43:40 GMT -5
It's pretty bad when I had to go into my cash stash, to see who was on the fifty dollar bill. Me thinks oldcoyote is losing his memory sometimes.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,494
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 30, 2015 9:19:34 GMT -5
If we use the standard that the flag was just the continuation of slavery, Sure why not. so, if you have paper money with the portrait of Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Jackson, Grant and even Ben Franklin. Put it in a pile, burn it. Just to show your support for removing symbols of slavery. I am pretty sure you are not quite that committed to that cause. Working to have those symbols removed would be the analogous behavior.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,534
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 30, 2015 9:20:17 GMT -5
If we use the standard that the flag was just the continuation of slavery, Sure why not. so, if you have paper money with the portrait of Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Jackson, Grant and even Ben Franklin. Put it in a pile, burn it. Just to show your support for removing symbols of slavery. I am pretty sure you are not quite that committed to that cause. I took payment in Hamiltons so I'm good.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,534
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 30, 2015 9:22:52 GMT -5
It's pretty bad when I had to go into my cash stash, to see who was on the fifty dollar bill. Me thinks oldcoyote is losing his memory sometimes. You probably self-butted yourself in the head with your "unregistered Chinese military semi auto 7.62X39 riflewith the synthetic folding stock, 30 round detachable magazine, pistol grip, bi pod, and flash suppressor." Have your head checked out.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 30, 2015 10:30:25 GMT -5
If we use the standard that the flag was just the continuation of slavery, Sure why not. so, if you have paper money with the portrait of Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Jackson, Grant and even Ben Franklin. Put it in a pile, burn it. Just to show your support for removing symbols of slavery. I am pretty sure you are not quite that committed to that cause. People still use paper money?
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 30, 2015 22:50:12 GMT -5
Ohh, you like my rifle, it is a little unique being that it is a actual military piece, not one of late model pieces of junk.
I bought this one just because I knew highly intelligent persons like yourself would appreciate it.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 30, 2015 22:55:34 GMT -5
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,494
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 30, 2015 23:20:39 GMT -5
The Founding Fathers have resume material that is not connected to the slavery issue. Jefferson Davis really doesn't.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 30, 2015 23:46:03 GMT -5
You are ahead of me on this Bills, "resume material" I googled it did not get a definition.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 8, 2024 8:44:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2015 1:08:51 GMT -5
The Founding Fathers have resume material that is not connected to the slavery issue. Jefferson Davis really doesn't. I disagree. They all have basically the same "pedigree"/"resume". The Founding Fathers and Jefferson Davis owned slaves. The Founding Fathers and Jefferson Davis wrote slavery into the Founding Documents. The Founding Fathers and Jefferson Davis founded a country that (at the time) approved of slavery. The Founding Fathers and Jefferson Davis broke away from an oppressive government.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,905
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 31, 2015 7:32:46 GMT -5
The Founding Fathers have resume material that is not connected to the slavery issue. Jefferson Davis really doesn't. I disagree. They all have basically the same "pedigree"/"resume". The Founding Fathers and Jefferson Davis owned slaves. The Founding Fathers and Jefferson Davis wrote slavery into the Founding Documents. The Founding Fathers and Jefferson Davis founded a country that (at the time) approved of slavery. The Founding Fathers and Jefferson Davis broke away from an oppressive government. No - not all the founding fathers owned slaves. In order to keep the wealthiest states in the new union, (which were states that relied heavily on slaves, like Virginia), the founders had to compromise and allow slavery, although several, including Jefferson, himself a slave owner, had qualms about that. Jefferson Davis was clear that he wanted a government separate from the US in order to preserve the ability of slave states to keep slaves, and didn't want the federal government interfering in that. This is very clearly outlined in documents Davis wrote at the time. I don't think we should be celebrating a man whose whole purpose in life was to maintain a lifestyle that was based on slavery.
|
|