Flag Burning

[Nuc]

Any evidence to back this claim?

Statistics, etc?

I'm live in the south now but don't necessarily claim to be a "southerner." I was born in California, lived overseas for 12 years, then Florida for three years before moving to Tennessee.

I would be asking the same questions if you or someone else had posted that about northerners.

No, I don't have any evidence. Just my own observation that for example when Kerry was nominated the pundits automatically disregarded any other northerners as potential VP's, and they were right. Whereas that didn't seem to be an issue for Clinton/Gore. And the fact that most of the presidents we've had lately have been southerners. It seems that you can't win the presidency without getting the southern vote and that entails having a southern candidate. Do you disagree?

 

[GotZoom]

No, I don't have any evidence. Just my own observation that for example when Kerry was nominated the pundits automatically disregarded any other northerners as potential VP's, and they were right. Whereas that didn't seem to be an issue for Clinton/Gore. And the fact that most of the presidents we've had lately have been southerners. It seems that you can't win the presidency without getting the southern vote and that entails having a southern candidate. Do you disagree?

I can see the advantage for a party to have a North/South ticket. After all, it's all about winning. But if each party would put the "best" candidates out there, I think all sections of the United States would vote on message and the quality of persons actually running for the office.

I'm pretty confident that the reason Kerry/Edwards lost had nothing to do with no southerner on the ballot. I'm not even so sure that if they picked a VP from the south, that he would have done any better.

Bottom line is that each party only cares about winning. Why do they pick the candidate who receives the most support in the convention? It isn't the one who has the best message, it's the one who is going to get elected.

I saw something...maybe even here on the board...talking about how sad it is that more people vote for American Idol than the Presidency.

So....how do you fix it?

 

[CSM]

I have read it. Read that paragraph again. The Constitution is stated seperately. It is never refered to as "law." It is considered higher than that. The majority of the framers don't refer to the Constitution as a set of laws. They held it in higher regard.

I dont suppose you recognize the word "and" in the first sentence (third word). You might want to look that up too.

The Constitution may not be referred to as law by some but that is what was signed. It is in fact the Supreme law of the land, along with those others stipulated in that same paragraph.

Don't make me put you in the "deliberately ignorant" category.

 

[Nuc]

I saw something...maybe even here on the board...talking about how sad it is that more people vote for American Idol than the Presidency.

So....how do you fix it?

People are probably disillusioned by the us vs. them attitude towards politics here which is fomented by hate radio and media. The people who end up voting tend to vote against someone based on bogus wedge issues. It would be nice if we could look at the candidates and say, "Both are good, but I'm going to vote for this guy because of (whatever), rather than, "Candidate A is the Antichrist! I heard that from (Rush or Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, whoever) so I'm going to vote for Candidate B."

 

[Darwins Friend]

The flag of Dixie is the one that needs to be burned for the face of the Earth - wherever it occurs. Mark of a lynching murderer and, as a matter of basic history, a loser.

 

[Nuc]

The flag of Dixie is the one that needs to be burned for the face of the Earth - wherever it occurs. Mark of a lynching murderer and, as a matter of basic history, a loser.

It's like the swastika, but there are a lot of people who think it's cute.

 

[GotZoom]

The flag of Dixie is the one that needs to be burned for the face of the Earth - wherever it occurs. Mark of a lynching murderer and, as a matter of basic history, a loser.

Good thing the KKK didn't display the American Flag instead huh?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I dont suppose you recognize the word "and" in the first sentence (third word). You might want to look that up too.

The Constitution may not be referred to as law by some but that is what was signed. It is in fact the Supreme law of the land, along with those others stipulated in that same paragraph.

Don't make me put you in the "deliberately ignorant" category.

Hell, put me in whatever category you want. I'm just going off of what I've been taught and what I have read. I don't place the Constitution in the category as laws, for the reason that laws can be repealed completely. The Constitution is the foundation for laws. You don't rule a law as "unlawful." You rule it "unconstitutional." All I'm saying is, that the Constitution should be held in higher regard than laws made by Congress.

Don't make me ignorant for having a different view. Make me ignorant for not knowing the subject matter.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

The flag of Dixie is the one that needs to be burned for the face of the Earth - wherever it occurs. Mark of a lynching murderer and, as a matter of basic history, a loser.

Come to Alabama and I'll kick your ass. Burn the flag, but don't for second think that the Stars and Bars represents "lynching" and "murder."

 

[Darwins Friend]

Come to Alabama and I'll kick your ass. Burn the flag, but don't for second think that the Stars and Bars represents "lynching" and "murder."

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingsstate.html

 

[CrimsonWhite]

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingsstate.html

How is this connected to the Confederate flag?

 

[GotZoom]

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingsstate.html

There are 7 states listed who had ZERO black lynchings but had WHITE lynchings.

I guess whites need to figure out what flag those states use to represent themselves and get together and scream racism at that flag?

It doesn't surprise me that you join those who find the Stars and Bars racist. It is easier for you to join the crowd and bitch about things than understand the truth behind what you are bitching about.

I asked you something in a previous post...you didn't answer.

I will ask again.

If the KKK decided to march with the flag of the United States of America, would that flag now be considered a symbol of racism?

The KKK picked a certain flag. It could have been the flag of the Red Cross, the flag of Mexico, or a flag with Hello Kitty on it.

They just happened to pick the Stars and Bars.

The flag isn't racist...or a sign of racism.

The KKK is.

 

[Darwins Friend]

Come to Alabama and I'll kick your ass. Burn the flag, but don't for second think that the Stars and Bars represents "lynching" and "murder."

http://www.pointsouth.com/csanet/kkk.htm

Take note of the "1975 in Alabama" photo for a clue.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

http://www.pointsouth.com/csanet/kkk.htm

Take note of the "1975 in Alabama" photo for a clue.

What that flag stands for and what organizations pick it up are two different things.

 

[GotZoom]

http://www.pointsouth.com/csanet/kkk.htm

Take note of the "1975 in Alabama" photo for a clue.

I guess when you were sworn into the military, and each subsequent enlistment, you were swearing allegiance to lynching and murder.

 

[CSM]

Hell, put me in whatever category you want. I'm just going off of what I've been taught and what I have read. I don't place the Constitution in the category as laws, for the reason that laws can be repealed completely. The Constitution is the foundation for laws. You don't rule a law as "unlawful." You rule it "unconstitutional." All I'm saying is, that the Constitution should be held in higher regard than laws made by Congress.

Don't make me ignorant for having a different view. Make me ignorant for not knowing the subject matter.

I understand what you are saying. Consider this line of thought:


The Constitution can indeed be "repealed" in the sense that if the correct process is followed, this country could hold a Constitutional Convention, scrap the 'old' Constitution and draft a new one. The process is not easy, that's for sure, but there is one. Also, some of the drafters of the current document advocated a convention be held periodically to do exactly that. Also, the Constitution can be amended. Again, the process for doing that is not easy but there is a process. Notice that there is no restrictions on WHAT can be amended by this process.

One more thing; there are many citizens (and even some drafters of the Constitution) who consider some other text or document as higher than law. However, the founders of this country realized that this nation must be a nation of law. The ratification of the Constitution required that the document itself be the Supreme law of the land. If not, anyone who believed there existed a "higher law" could simply refuse to follow the law and summarily dismiss the Constitution and any laws persuant thereof.

Finally, all that is taught and read is not necessarily truth. As has been demonstrated many many times on this board, some documents are fabricated, things are taken out of context and some people just plain outright lie. When it comes to things like debate of the Constitution, it is always a good thing to have the document on hand for reference.

By the way, when I said "deliberately ignorant" I meant that there are some that refuse to acknowledge the facts even when they get poked in the brain with them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with changing your opinion or beliefs when the TRUE facts are presented. Some would call that "growth".

 

[Gunny]

Actually, there have been two attempts to illegalize subversive speech. Once in 1798 and again in 1917. Both were called Sedition Acts. Both were appealed when Congress, in there infinite wisdom, realized that they violated the First Amendment. Subversive speech may be treason in your eyes, but until you are elected to Congress, it is perfectly legal.

And I caveated my statement with "IMO." I am fully-aware that is what it is. Nothing more nor less.

 

[Gunny]

Sorry, but you are wrong again. The Constitution isn't law. It is a blueprint for our government. It is simply a set of guidelines that the goverment should follow. The Amendments aren't laws either. The are a list of rights and amended guidelines that are attached to the Constitution. Laws can be repealed, the Constitution can't. It can only be amended. A high school civics class should have covered this with you.

Right. You are arguing for the sake of it. If the Constitution bestows rights on individuals and penalties for those violating said rights, that pretty-much equals "law."

A quick dissertation on "cause and effect" and "logical conclusion" would cover THAT with you.

If an amendment in fact changes the Constitution to allow/disallow something it has heretofore taken the opposite stance on, it is in effect a repeal of the previous version. Again, simple logical conclusion.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I guess It doesn't really matter. Hell, I forgot what my original point was. Lets move along.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Slavery was *a* reason for the civil war. To be specific, it was "slavery, as an economic issue", not "a moral crusade against slavery". The sad truth is that neither side had any real moral qualms about the injustice of slavery. Many in the north opposed slavery, not because they had any concern about blacks, but because they didn't want blacks competing against white labor, or occupying any more land west of Texas. Notice that many northern states had laws that flatly prohibited free blacks from living in a given state at all--thus the need for fugitive to emmigrate all the way to Canada.

When Lincoln was seeking the presidential nomination at the republican convention, he told the crowd that he was going to keep the union together, keep slavery legal, and enforce the fugitive slave act, in order to stop blacks from coming north and competing with white labor (which they eventually did)--and the crowd went absolutely wild with approval. He made it clear that he would abolish slavery or keep slavery, whichever preserved the union--it didn't matter to him. Only after a couple years of a stalemate did he write the Emancipation Proclamation. Many foreign newspapers (domestic papers were muzzled) opined that it was a crass move to give the north the appearance of moral superiority, and incite a slave revolt while much of the male population was away at war. It only granted freedom to slaves in areas that the union didn't control, while leaving slavery untouched in areas which the north controlled.

Yes, there were a few people who were against the morality of slavery, but they were a tiny minority. And interestingly enough, many of them had longed for the north to secede from the south--so that northern states would no longer be required to return slaves to the south.

If the KKK decided to march with the flag of the United States of America, would that flag now be considered a symbol of racism?

The KKK picked a certain flag. It could have been the flag of the Red Cross, the flag of Mexico, or a flag with Hello Kitty on it.

They just happened to pick the Stars and Bars.

The flag isn't racist...or a sign of racism.

The KKK is.

"If"?

http://www.pointsouth.com/csanet/kkk.htm (scroll to the bottom for pics)