Confederate Battle Flag

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That poster who was defending the confederate flag seemed emotionally disturbed. Basically people like that are paranoid schizophrenia. That PP has probably spent YEARS "studying" his "subject" and coming up with facile responses to arguments he's heard hundreds of times. When guys like that PP get too far lost in their delusions, really bad things can happen. Fortunately most are just harmless cranks but not always. The bottom line is that flag is a deliberate racist symbol. That's what it means and it's all that it means, period. It doesn't stand for a brave and noble lost cause. It's always stood for pure stupidity. It's always stood for a horrible war for a worthless "cause"-- slavery--because southern leaders didn't care about slaves and they didn't care about their own sons, they led them to horrible slaughter against the North.

People like PP defending that flag and all those in favor of it are just doubling and tripling down in delusional stupidity. These guys aren't simply racists--they're mentally disturbed people who latch onto a racist world view to provide focus to their pre-existing mental illness. It didn't even have to be racism either. If PP had happened to latch onto something else to obsessively focus on it could have been anything like John Lennon or Jodi Foster.

I'm a white Jewish girl who is also an antiques dealer. I believe history should be preserved; that we can learn so much from the past, that to destroy it or re-write it dooms us to repeat our mistakes. I feel re-writing and/or burying history, no matter how dark it might be, is a hallmark of insanity.

If you want a definition of insanity, political correctness is it.

a) your race, religion and occupation aren't germane, even if you're being truthful, which I doubt.

b) you sound like a sock puppet of the other PP. Something about your writing style.

c) since you claim your religion has some relevance, are you claiming you think it woukd be cool to fly a Nazi flag over your state capitol? How about hanging a swastika in the window of your antiques shop next to the menorah?

Try it and get.back to us

1) I am being truthful. You doubting that tells me that you don't have a leg to stand on. Who I am is very relevant because you decided that only an insane person would not see the relevance of the confederate flag. I do - from a historical standpoint.

2) I have no idea who you think I am sock puppeting. There are definitely more than one of us stating the confederate flag is relevant from a historical standpoint.

3) Why would my state capitol fly a Nazi flag when Germany was responsible for the atrocities? I am onine - so no shop. But if you are asking me if Nazi memorabilia has any historical importance, I'll say absolutely! I deal in girl-stuff, i.e. dresses, wedding accessories, and I don't think there is a market for Nazi memorabilia with my customer base. I do have friends who deal in military memorabilia, and they carry Nazi artifacts. I have no issue with that.

I am a "Jewish girl" (though I do not generally refer to myself that way) and we used to have a neighbor who flew an obscure version of the Nazi flag in front of his house. It was not a swastika but it was distinctly a Nazi flag. My father-in-law (an old German man) recognized the flag and told us what it was. He was quite disturbed to see that flag again. This was incredibly creepy. There is no way that guy had any other reason to fly that flag than to celebrate his Nazi heritage. No matter what you say, I very much doubt you would have felt good about this flag flying in your neighborhood and that is the sinister effect the Confederate flag has on a lot of anti-racist people who are Black or members of other races.

I have never, in my life, understood what the Confederate flag means to white Southern people when the rest of the world sees it only as a celebration of a racist, evil history. I understand Southern pride but there are many other ways to celebrate the good things about that heritage than by offending the rest of the world.

Feeling good or bad about something and trying to control it because of how I feel, are two different things.

No one is asking racists to stop flying the flag. That is actually a good thing because then you know who the racists are. We are asking the government to stop flying the flag. If the government chooses to fly the flag, then the rest of the nation will assume that the entire state is racist.

You know what they say about the word assume, right?

Progressives don't get to speak for 'the rest of the nation'. You understand that as well? If we constantly bowed down to progressive assumptions, we'd look like Detroit.

You know, I am okay with not being 100% accurate in all cases. If you advertise yourself by using a racist symbol, you need to know what most non-Southerners think of you. They assume that you are an ignorant racist. It doesn't really matter if that is true or not. If you are fine looking like an ignorant racist, go right ahead but, like it or not, people do have a right to protest the symbolism of the Confederate flag and if the government decides that they prefer not to be judged as an entire state of ignorant racists, then so be it.

[jsteele]

Governor Nikki Haley to join "pro government busybodies":

"Gov. Nikki Haley will hold a news conference in Columbia at 4 p.m. today at which, sources said, she will call for the Confederate flag to come down from the Statehouse grounds."

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150622/PC1603/150629833

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an immigrant and this whole rewriting of history by the winners is amazing to me. The southern states waned to be independent, just like US wanted to be independent from Britain just a hundred years prior. Americans won, so they are heroes. Southerners lost, so they are traitors, right?

And don't kid yourself - the North did not go to war to free the slaves. Lincoln did not give a flying f&#k about them. In fact, in his inaguration speech he assured the South that they would get to keep their slaves. Lincoln cared about power, and a divided America would not be as powerful, so Lincoln proceeded to burn the South to the ground to get what he wanted.

Thank you. I love this country and its people, but when it comes to history, most Americans are absolutely delusional. They believe they live in a democracy for Pete's sake! I learned not to expect much in terms on knowledge of world history or current events

If you think it had nothing to do with slavery then you are the one who is delusional. Here for example are some key slavery-related facts and events about the escalation leading to the Civil War - and note that South Carolina features prominently at the center of it:

For example, the debates over westward expansion of slavery - with Senator John Calhoun of South Carolina arguing hard for expanding slavery westward, leading to the Compromise of 1850

Then, the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854, which led to clashes and guerrilla warfare between abolitionists and pro-slavery forces in Kansas and adjoining areas.

In 1856, in a debate over slavery, Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner condemned slavery and was physically attacked and brutally beaten with a cane by South Carolina Senator Preston Brooks.

In 1858, a full on brawl erupted in Congress over the westward expansion of slavery, involving more than 50 representatives.

December 20, 1860, South Carolina was the first state to secede.

April 12, 1861, South Carolina becomes the first aggressor and starts the Civil War by attacking Fort Sumter.

Maybe you forgot about those little tidbits of history. I suggest you brush up.

If you think it had everything to do with slavery you would be delusional. And your list is so woefully short as to be inconsequential. The central issue had been, and still was in 1860, about states rights. Lee didn't join the Army of Virginia to fight for slavery...to fight for the Confederacy...he was fighting for Virginia. Here is some good reading into the subject of General Lee http://americancivilwar.com/authors/Joseph_Ryan/Articles/General-Lee-Slaves/General-Lee-Family-Slaves.html

In 1860 the U.S.A. would have been more appropriately called something other than United. I find it interesting that 150 years ago the northern states were more amenable to a central government's authority and the southern were not...how is it today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If you think it had everything to do with slavery you would be delusional. And your list is so woefully short as to be inconsequential. The central issue had been, and still was in 1860, about states rights. Lee didn't join the Army of Virginia to fight for slavery...to fight for the Confederacy...he was fighting for Virginia. Here is some good reading into the subject of General Lee http://americancivilwar.com/authors/Joseph_Ryan/Articles/General-Lee-Slaves/General-Lee-Family-Slaves.html

In 1860 the U.S.A. would have been more appropriately called something other than United. I find it interesting that 150 years ago the northern states were more amenable to a central government's authority and the southern were not...how is it today?

Yes. It had everything, directly and indirectly, to do with slavery. States rights = the rights of stats to have slaves. Why did Texas secede from Mexico? Because Mexico banned slavery. Why was Texas an independent country for almost 10 years? Because it would enter the Union as a slave state and that was a huge issue. The eventual compromise allowed Texas to enter as a slave state and also included provisions for additional free states. It was all about slavery, for each state. There were some counties of some Southern states that seceded from the South, to remain pro-Union, because they were poor and had no slaves and no interest in defending slavery.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Governor Nikki Haley to join "pro government busybodies":

"Gov. Nikki Haley will hold a news conference in Columbia at 4 p.m. today at which, sources said, she will call for the Confederate flag to come down from the Statehouse grounds."

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150622/PC1603/150629833

This is very good news. I'm predicting it will be gone by the end of the week.

[Anonymous]

Jeff. Did you delete the post that showed the Clintons celebrating the confederacy, including adding a star to the AK flag? Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Governor Nikki Haley to join "pro government busybodies":

"Gov. Nikki Haley will hold a news conference in Columbia at 4 p.m. today at which, sources said, she will call for the Confederate flag to come down from the Statehouse grounds."

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150622/PC1603/150629833

This is very good news. I'm predicting it will be gone by the end of the week.

At best it may come down sometime in 2015-2016 session, but that seems optimistic to me. The "compromise" of 2000 requires a super-majority to remove the flag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an immigrant and this whole rewriting of history by the winners is amazing to me. The southern states waned to be independent, just like US wanted to be independent from Britain just a hundred years prior. Americans won, so they are heroes. Southerners lost, so they are traitors, right?

And don't kid yourself - the North did not go to war to free the slaves. Lincoln did not give a flying f&#k about them. In fact, in his inaguration speech he assured the South that they would get to keep their slaves. Lincoln cared about power, and a divided America would not be as powerful, so Lincoln proceeded to burn the South to the ground to get what he wanted.

Thank you. I love this country and its people, but when it comes to history, most Americans are absolutely delusional. They believe they live in a democracy for Pete's sake! I learned not to expect much in terms on knowledge of world history or current events

If you think it had nothing to do with slavery then you are the one who is delusional. Here for example are some key slavery-related facts and events about the escalation leading to the Civil War - and note that South Carolina features prominently at the center of it:

For example, the debates over westward expansion of slavery - with Senator John Calhoun of South Carolina arguing hard for expanding slavery westward, leading to the Compromise of 1850

Then, the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854, which led to clashes and guerrilla warfare between abolitionists and pro-slavery forces in Kansas and adjoining areas.

In 1856, in a debate over slavery, Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner condemned slavery and was physically attacked and brutally beaten with a cane by South Carolina Senator Preston Brooks.

In 1858, a full on brawl erupted in Congress over the westward expansion of slavery, involving more than 50 representatives.

December 20, 1860, South Carolina was the first state to secede.

April 12, 1861, South Carolina becomes the first aggressor and starts the Civil War by attacking Fort Sumter.

Maybe you forgot about those little tidbits of history. I suggest you brush up.

If you think it had everything to do with slavery you would be delusional. And your list is so woefully short as to be inconsequential. The central issue had been, and still was in 1860, about states rights. Lee didn't join the Army of Virginia to fight for slavery...to fight for the Confederacy...he was fighting for Virginia. Here is some good reading into the subject of General Lee http://americancivilwar.com/authors/Joseph_Ryan/Articles/General-Lee-Slaves/General-Lee-Family-Slaves.html

In 1860 the U.S.A. would have been more appropriately called something other than United. I find it interesting that 150 years ago the northern states were more amenable to a central government's authority and the southern were not...how is it today?

It was mostly about slavery. Ok? Yes, also states' rights, which included a a state's right to have slaves.

[Anonymous]

Yep it was. So why would the Clintons also honor the legacy of the Stars and Bars?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Governor Nikki Haley to join "pro government busybodies":

"Gov. Nikki Haley will hold a news conference in Columbia at 4 p.m. today at which, sources said, she will call for the Confederate flag to come down from the Statehouse grounds."

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150622/PC1603/150629833

This is very good news. I'm predicting it will be gone by the end of the week.

At best it may come down sometime in 2015-2016 session, but that seems optimistic to me. The "compromise" of 2000 requires a super-majority to remove the flag.

According to the article, there is some currently open legislation that might be used to remove the flag. I think there might be an incentive to get this resolved before the South Carolina primary season heats up. If the flag issue is still around then, Republican candidates may be compelled to support the flag in order to appeal to South Carolina Republican voters, but risk losing support nationally and giving an opening to an eventual Democratic opponent. I'm sure they don't want to be caught between a rock and a hard place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That poster who was defending the confederate flag seemed emotionally disturbed. Basically people like that are paranoid schizophrenia. That PP has probably spent YEARS "studying" his "subject" and coming up with facile responses to arguments he's heard hundreds of times. When guys like that PP get too far lost in their delusions, really bad things can happen. Fortunately most are just harmless cranks but not always. The bottom line is that flag is a deliberate racist symbol. That's what it means and it's all that it means, period. It doesn't stand for a brave and noble lost cause. It's always stood for pure stupidity. It's always stood for a horrible war for a worthless "cause"-- slavery--because southern leaders didn't care about slaves and they didn't care about their own sons, they led them to horrible slaughter against the North.

People like PP defending that flag and all those in favor of it are just doubling and tripling down in delusional stupidity. These guys aren't simply racists--they're mentally disturbed people who latch onto a racist world view to provide focus to their pre-existing mental illness. It didn't even have to be racism either. If PP had happened to latch onto something else to obsessively focus on it could have been anything like John Lennon or Jodi Foster.

Take your meds. There is not a clear link between that flag and mental illness. Are all the people in the SC legislature paranoid schizophrenics? I guess to you they are. Meds -- they do wonders.

Not only that PP, those racist South Carolinans elected a governor of Indian descent and an African American man to the Senate! And those racist Louisiana residents elected Bobby Jindal!! But no worries - a DCUMer called Scott an Uncle Tom, so he doesn't count

That was me. I called him an Uncle Tom and meant it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an immigrant and this whole rewriting of history by the winners is amazing to me. The southern states waned to be independent, just like US wanted to be independent from Britain just a hundred years prior. Americans won, so they are heroes. Southerners lost, so they are traitors, right?

And don't kid yourself - the North did not go to war to free the slaves. Lincoln did not give a flying f&#k about them. In fact, in his inaguration speech he assured the South that they would get to keep their slaves. Lincoln cared about power, and a divided America would not be as powerful, so Lincoln proceeded to burn the South to the ground to get what he wanted.

Actually the US did do go to war over slaver. Read "Lies my Teacher told me." Don't rely on your recollection of your high school history book.

Another endorsement for Lies My Teacher Told Me. Amazing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yep it was. So why would the Clintons also honor the legacy of the Stars and Bars?

The fourth star was added to the Arkansas state flag in 1923. Were the Clintons alive then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep it was. So why would the Clintons also honor the legacy of the Stars and Bars?

The fourth star was added to the Arkansas state flag in 1923. Were the Clintons alive then?

Might want to take a gander at this article, complete with document signed by Bill


http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/22/hillary-clintons-history-with-the-confederate-flag/

[Anonymous]

So assuming the flag is taken down in SC, what's the next token evil? Or rainbow and unicorns and world pecans are expected? Honest question to all libs here.