We banned a flag not too long ago...HEY what about this one? A very long rant...

[Katzndogz]

The civil war was not fought to protect slavery.

 

[BULLDOG]

The Confederate Flag is not banned...you are still free to fly it from your pickup

You just can't demand that it fly on the statehouse

I'll fly it in your yard.

With permission perfectly okay.
Without permission, you may come to regret our Second Amendment rights....

Don't think I don't exercise my 2nd amendment rights, too. I don't need your permission. I'll do it and laugh at you when you try to stop me.

Well you see, like so many Conservatives-you think your 2nd Amendment rights gives you permission to break the law.

Carrying a weapon with the intent to break the law- criminal trespass- is not a 2nd Amendment right.

But shooting an armed criminal trespassing on my land- yeah- that is my right.

Since the first 10 or so feet, depending on the local laws where you live is the right of way, while you maintain it (i.e. cutting grass), it's not yours. Try stopping the local government from putting a sidewalk on that area. Therefore, if what I put is in the right of way, I'm not putting it on your property. That means if you're dumb enough to make the mistake of shooting, don't be surprised if you get return fire.

Based on your premise, I have the right to shoot someone and their dog if it's taking a shit on my yard unless you're going to claim someone's dog has a right to do that.

You really think your silly remarks make sense, don't you?

 

[BULLDOG]

I have no idea why they chose to continue the war, but the reason they started it is unquestionable. The reason was plainly laid our in their declarations. Are you suggesting they didn't list all their grievances for trying to seceded in those documents? Why would they do that?

not every state mentioned slavery in their secession.

The north was purposely trying to agitate and destabilize the south by weaponizing the negroes and that's why some states directly addressed the issue.

Southerners knew slavery was a dying practice and with the industrial revolution underway there was no no need to import any more farm animals when there were machines being developed to do more work, more efficiently..

The south tried to peacefully withdraw from the union.
The north invaded the south and southerners fired on the invaders as all patriots would when their homeland is being attacked. Just simple facts.No spin.

Wow- that is one of the largest collection of bullshit I have seen posted here.

'weaponizing the negroes'- what the hell does that mean? You think Northern states were going around giving guns to escaped slaves prior to secession?

Many Northern States opposed slavery- and claiming their own states rights- made it difficult for Slave States to recover their escaped human property.

Southerners were looking forward to importing more Slaves after they seceded- far from thinking it was a dying practice- slaves represented the single largest type of asset in the South. Slaves were being sold from the East Coast to the Cotton States- because the huge demand for human labor in cultivating cotton- whole families were being torn apart and Slave owners on the east coast were making fortunes selling their human slaves.

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

Yes- after the rebel slave states fired on American troops- then the United States mobilized to quash the rebellion.

The simple facts are that the rebel slave states rebelled primarily- if not exclusively to protect their interest in owning human beings.

That is no spin- just the facts.

Just a foreigner here who has often wondered:

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

What on earth were Union Troops doing in the South??

Greg

They were garrisoned in a federal fort.

How was there a Federal Fort when the state had seceded from the Union?

Greg

The state tried to secede from the union. They failed. Didn't you study any history in school?

 

[BULLDOG]

I have no idea why they chose to continue the war, but the reason they started it is unquestionable. The reason was plainly laid our in their declarations. Are you suggesting they didn't list all their grievances for trying to seceded in those documents? Why would they do that?

not every state mentioned slavery in their secession.

The north was purposely trying to agitate and destabilize the south by weaponizing the negroes and that's why some states directly addressed the issue.

Southerners knew slavery was a dying practice and with the industrial revolution underway there was no no need to import any more farm animals when there were machines being developed to do more work, more efficiently..

The south tried to peacefully withdraw from the union.
The north invaded the south and southerners fired on the invaders as all patriots would when their homeland is being attacked. Just simple facts.No spin.

Wow- that is one of the largest collection of bullshit I have seen posted here.

'weaponizing the negroes'- what the hell does that mean? You think Northern states were going around giving guns to escaped slaves prior to secession?

Many Northern States opposed slavery- and claiming their own states rights- made it difficult for Slave States to recover their escaped human property.

Southerners were looking forward to importing more Slaves after they seceded- far from thinking it was a dying practice- slaves represented the single largest type of asset in the South. Slaves were being sold from the East Coast to the Cotton States- because the huge demand for human labor in cultivating cotton- whole families were being torn apart and Slave owners on the east coast were making fortunes selling their human slaves.

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

Yes- after the rebel slave states fired on American troops- then the United States mobilized to quash the rebellion.

The simple facts are that the rebel slave states rebelled primarily- if not exclusively to protect their interest in owning human beings.

That is no spin- just the facts.

Just a foreigner here who has often wondered:

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

What on earth were Union Troops doing in the South??

Greg

Are you too dumb to know that Union troops were American troops? Saying those troops shouldn't have been it the south is as dumb as saying recent military maneuvers in Texas were the same attacking Texas.

Who said this?

I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution.

Perhaps it is not as "Black and white" as you suggest??

As for "dumb"? Get stuffed!!

Greg

And yet Lee went ahead with the attempted secession. Sounds like he was a very confused man.

 

[gtopa1]

not every state mentioned slavery in their secession.

The north was purposely trying to agitate and destabilize the south by weaponizing the negroes and that's why some states directly addressed the issue.

Southerners knew slavery was a dying practice and with the industrial revolution underway there was no no need to import any more farm animals when there were machines being developed to do more work, more efficiently..

The south tried to peacefully withdraw from the union.
The north invaded the south and southerners fired on the invaders as all patriots would when their homeland is being attacked. Just simple facts.No spin.

Wow- that is one of the largest collection of bullshit I have seen posted here.

'weaponizing the negroes'- what the hell does that mean? You think Northern states were going around giving guns to escaped slaves prior to secession?

Many Northern States opposed slavery- and claiming their own states rights- made it difficult for Slave States to recover their escaped human property.

Southerners were looking forward to importing more Slaves after they seceded- far from thinking it was a dying practice- slaves represented the single largest type of asset in the South. Slaves were being sold from the East Coast to the Cotton States- because the huge demand for human labor in cultivating cotton- whole families were being torn apart and Slave owners on the east coast were making fortunes selling their human slaves.

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

Yes- after the rebel slave states fired on American troops- then the United States mobilized to quash the rebellion.

The simple facts are that the rebel slave states rebelled primarily- if not exclusively to protect their interest in owning human beings.

That is no spin- just the facts.

Just a foreigner here who has often wondered:

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

What on earth were Union Troops doing in the South??

Greg

Are you too dumb to know that Union troops were American troops? Saying those troops shouldn't have been it the south is as dumb as saying recent military maneuvers in Texas were the same attacking Texas.

Who said this?

I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution.

Perhaps it is not as "Black and white" as you suggest??

As for "dumb"? Get stuffed!!

Greg

And yet Lee went ahead with the attempted secession. Sounds like he was a very confused man.

He lived in interesting times.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

not every state mentioned slavery in their secession.

The north was purposely trying to agitate and destabilize the south by weaponizing the negroes and that's why some states directly addressed the issue.

Southerners knew slavery was a dying practice and with the industrial revolution underway there was no no need to import any more farm animals when there were machines being developed to do more work, more efficiently..

The south tried to peacefully withdraw from the union.
The north invaded the south and southerners fired on the invaders as all patriots would when their homeland is being attacked. Just simple facts.No spin.

Wow- that is one of the largest collection of bullshit I have seen posted here.

'weaponizing the negroes'- what the hell does that mean? You think Northern states were going around giving guns to escaped slaves prior to secession?

Many Northern States opposed slavery- and claiming their own states rights- made it difficult for Slave States to recover their escaped human property.

Southerners were looking forward to importing more Slaves after they seceded- far from thinking it was a dying practice- slaves represented the single largest type of asset in the South. Slaves were being sold from the East Coast to the Cotton States- because the huge demand for human labor in cultivating cotton- whole families were being torn apart and Slave owners on the east coast were making fortunes selling their human slaves.

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

Yes- after the rebel slave states fired on American troops- then the United States mobilized to quash the rebellion.

The simple facts are that the rebel slave states rebelled primarily- if not exclusively to protect their interest in owning human beings.

That is no spin- just the facts.

Just a foreigner here who has often wondered:

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

What on earth were Union Troops doing in the South??

Greg

They were garrisoned in a federal fort.

How was there a Federal Fort when the state had seceded from the Union?

Greg

The state tried to secede from the union. They failed. Didn't you study any history in school?

The State seceded....but lost the war and were Carpetbagged. Hardly an edifying event in US History.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

How was there a Federal Fort when the state had seceded from the Union?

Greg

Well two points-
- the United States did not agree that they had seceded from the Union and secondly
- South Carolina gave that island to the Federal govenment I believe 20 years earlier to build a Federal fort.

Now- what do you think should happen to people who fire on American troops?

South Carolina took it back so I suggest that the incident following was a reaction to a presence the locals found illegal and intolerable. Now what would you do if a mob of foreigners encamped on your front lawn and wouldn't leave and threatened you with guns and stuff?

Greg

Yes- South Carolina did take it back- by firing on American troops.

What do you think about those who fire on the U.S. military?

Do you prefer we give them aid and comfort?

So you consider firing on invaders the same as attacking the USA? The Union may have had one view but the locals had another. The Union's presence was not acceptable to the new Nation and they gave ample opportunity for Anderson to retire the facility. I consider the whole situation a failure of Political will and frankly a blight on US History. Yes: Lincoln did preserve the Union and that matter is settled. I am quite glad of the outcome in that a united USA is a wonderful thing. But the scar of the Civil War still has not healed. That is obvious by posts I have read here and on other sites. I question whether it was necessary. As for the "excuse" of Fort Sumter? The only person killed was by friendly fire AFTER the surrender. How on earth was that enough to start a war of annihilation??

Greg

What did they 'invade'?

They were troops of the United States Army- lawfully stationed in a federal fort.

The rebels didn't have to fire on the United States Army- but chose to do so.

Certainly that wasn't necessary. Nor was secession necessary for the Confederacy to protect slavery- no one was taking away the right to own slaves.

We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the "United States of America," is hereby dissolved.

Done at Charleston the twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty.

The South Secedes [ushistory.org]

Sounds very goneski to me./

Greg

 

[JoeB131]

Poor, poor Liberals. Pander and cater to the PC crowd who gets butthurt when they see something they don't like. I still fly several Confederate flags. Willing to try and take them down or be considered a loud mouth pussy that does nothing but talk?

Your neighbors called. YOu are scaring their children.

 

[Rustic]

To the leftists here:

You wanted to ban this flag when some white boy shot up a black church. You got your wish:

Not soon after the massacre, a picture of Dylann Roof was found where he was sporting a Confederate flag, and then again not soon after, liberals behaved as if banning that flag would somehow bring those poor souls who died in Charleston back to life. It didn't. If it were only that simple.

But when a black gay man kills two people on live TV, what would have been the reaction if people began calling for a ban of the Gay Pride Flag? This flag does represent him, does it not?

If you want to ban one flag when someone goes on a killing spree, why don't we ban all of them? Sins have been committed under all sorts of banners and flags. Banning the flags will not undo any of the crimes.

But here liberals are, using the very same narrative which they once viewed as a defense of racism, hatred, slavery, or even the murderer himself to defend a flag which represented the sexual preference of the man who murdered two people. What if we used that same logic against gay rights activists? That flying that flag is a defense of the man who killed two people in cold blood?

Even in her ignorance, the woman in the tweet below asks an important question. How does removing (banning) a flag change someone's actions? It doesn't. But here we are, fighting over which flags to ban when some psychopath goes on a killing spree. My gosh, such petty arguments over such things as pieces of fabric. Why aren't we condemning the person instead of the flag? Why are we blaming the flag or the weapon he used? On a separate note, a number of you liberals want to ban firearms when a perceived conservative commits a mass murder, however, when a gay black man commits murder, no longer is he the perpetrator, but the firearm itself. How I wish you knew how much of a double standard is being perpetrated here.

If only all of you (both sides now) realized how colossally hypocritical your narratives are. Ban one, keep the other. Ban, ban, ban, ban! This offends me! Ban it! Ban all the things! Wow. No... I can't even... just... just stop. Seriously.

If you're about to use the same narrative you criticize, you will have a bad time.

Racism is an over used term, made meaningless by progressives

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Attacks on the confederate flag have more to do with the fact it is a strong symbol of states rights. This is why you hear things like if you. Eleven in stars rights you must support racism.

 

[BULLDOG]

Wow- that is one of the largest collection of bullshit I have seen posted here.

'weaponizing the negroes'- what the hell does that mean? You think Northern states were going around giving guns to escaped slaves prior to secession?

Many Northern States opposed slavery- and claiming their own states rights- made it difficult for Slave States to recover their escaped human property.

Southerners were looking forward to importing more Slaves after they seceded- far from thinking it was a dying practice- slaves represented the single largest type of asset in the South. Slaves were being sold from the East Coast to the Cotton States- because the huge demand for human labor in cultivating cotton- whole families were being torn apart and Slave owners on the east coast were making fortunes selling their human slaves.

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

Yes- after the rebel slave states fired on American troops- then the United States mobilized to quash the rebellion.

The simple facts are that the rebel slave states rebelled primarily- if not exclusively to protect their interest in owning human beings.

That is no spin- just the facts.

Just a foreigner here who has often wondered:

The South fired on American Troops at Fort Sumter- and that started the war- so much for 'peaceful withdrawal'.

What on earth were Union Troops doing in the South??

Greg

They were garrisoned in a federal fort.

How was there a Federal Fort when the state had seceded from the Union?

Greg

The state tried to secede from the union. They failed. Didn't you study any history in school?

The State seceded....but lost the war and were Carpetbagged. Hardly an edifying event in US History.

Greg

No.The state tried to secede.

 

[Seawytch]

Attacks on the confederate flag have more to do with the fact it is a strong symbol of states rights. This is why you hear things like if you. Eleven in stars rights you must support racism.

"Attacks" on the losing flag of a traitorous nation have nothing to do with states rights.

Also a newsflash for you, the Nazi flag is not a symbol of patriotism.

 

[Syriusly]

The civil war was not fought to protect slavery.

The Confederate slave states attempted to secede to protect their sacred right to own human property.

The Union of course didn't fight to end slavery- but the South seceded to protect slavery.

 

[Syriusly]

Attacks on the confederate flag have more to do with the fact it is a strong symbol of states rights. This is why you hear things like if you. Eleven in stars rights you must support racism.

Attacks on the confederate flag has to do with its symbolism of representing an attempted slave nation.

Defense of the confederate flag is motivated by it being a symbol of states rights.

To own slaves.

 

[auditor0007]

To the leftists here:

You wanted to ban this flag when some white boy shot up a black church. You got your wish:

Not soon after the massacre, a picture of Dylann Roof was found where he was sporting a Confederate flag, and then again not soon after, liberals behaved as if banning that flag would somehow bring those poor souls who died in Charleston back to life. It didn't. If it were only that simple.

But when a black gay man kills two people on live TV, what would have been the reaction if people began calling for a ban of the Gay Pride Flag? This flag does represent him, does it not?

If you want to ban one flag when someone goes on a killing spree, why don't we ban all of them? Sins have been committed under all sorts of banners and flags. Banning the flags will not undo any of the crimes.

But here liberals are, using the very same narrative which they once viewed as a defense of racism, hatred, slavery, or even the murderer himself to defend a flag which represented the sexual preference of the man who murdered two people. What if we used that same logic against gay rights activists? That flying that flag is a defense of the man who killed two people in cold blood?

Even in her ignorance, the woman in the tweet below asks an important question. How does removing (banning) a flag change someone's actions? It doesn't. But here we are, fighting over which flags to ban when some psychopath goes on a killing spree. My gosh, such petty arguments over such things as pieces of fabric. Why aren't we condemning the person instead of the flag? Why are we blaming the flag or the weapon he used? On a separate note, a number of you liberals want to ban firearms when a perceived conservative commits a mass murder, however, when a gay black man commits murder, no longer is he the perpetrator, but the firearm itself. How I wish you knew how much of a double standard is being perpetrated here.

If only all of you (both sides now) realized how colossally hypocritical your narratives are. Ban one, keep the other. Ban, ban, ban, ban! This offends me! Ban it! Ban all the things! Wow. No... I can't even... just... just stop. Seriously.

If you're about to use the same narrative you criticize, you will have a bad time.

Your entire argument is misplaced. The only place anyone wanted the Confederate Flag banned was at public government facilities. Please tell us where a gay pride flag is displayed at any state, county, or city government facility. Something tells me you will have a hard time coming up with one. People have the right to their Confederate Flags if that is what they want, just as those who want to have a gay pride flag can have those.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your entire argument is misplaced. The only place anyone wanted the Confederate Flag banned was at public government facilities ... People have the right to their Confederate Flags if that is what they want, just as those who want to have a gay pride flag can have those.

Auditor, it has more far reaching effects than just that. Government can't directly ban flags, but they, as you said, can ban such a flag only on their premises. However, such an act will lend credence to the cause, and will spread it among the people. Eventually such an act will render the surrounding society intolerant to those who choose to display it. So, do people really have a right to display the flag of their choice? Or will they be shamed into naught for expressing unpopular views among the public?

Now, this issue has taken a distant back burner to the current issues we face today. Terrorism, the tolerance of Islam, the acceptance of like refugees, gun control and et cetera. I have had time since I created this thread to think about this flag thing. I concluded it was a waste of time and effort. Pointless furor over a flag. I got caught up in it and I jumped ship just as quickly. Completely and totally obnoxious. I moved on, cleansed my intelligence of these pointless apoplectics.Too much obsequience.

I will issue no further replies to this (supposedly dead) thread.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

This is another attempt by the Democratic Party leaders to bury the past. The Democratic Party was the party of slavery, and Jim Crow. The KKK was its militant arm. They are still the party of slavery just in a more subtle tone. Government dependence is their shackles

“I’ll have those ******* voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”
Lyndon B Johnson

 

[Conservative65]

Poor, poor Liberals. Pander and cater to the PC crowd who gets butthurt when they see something they don't like. I still fly several Confederate flags. Willing to try and take them down or be considered a loud mouth pussy that does nothing but talk?

Your neighbors called. YOu are scaring their children.

My neighbors are too good to talk to you son. They laugh at morons like you.

 

[Conservative65]

I'll fly it in your yard.

With permission perfectly okay.
Without permission, you may come to regret our Second Amendment rights....

Don't think I don't exercise my 2nd amendment rights, too. I don't need your permission. I'll do it and laugh at you when you try to stop me.

Well you see, like so many Conservatives-you think your 2nd Amendment rights gives you permission to break the law.

Carrying a weapon with the intent to break the law- criminal trespass- is not a 2nd Amendment right.

But shooting an armed criminal trespassing on my land- yeah- that is my right.

Since the first 10 or so feet, depending on the local laws where you live is the right of way, while you maintain it (i.e. cutting grass), it's not yours. Try stopping the local government from putting a sidewalk on that area. Therefore, if what I put is in the right of way, I'm not putting it on your property. That means if you're dumb enough to make the mistake of shooting, don't be surprised if you get return fire.

Based on your premise, I have the right to shoot someone and their dog if it's taking a shit on my yard unless you're going to claim someone's dog has a right to do that.

You really think your silly remarks make sense, don't you?

I really think you don't have the mental capacity to understand what they meant.

 

[JoeB131]

Poor, poor Liberals. Pander and cater to the PC crowd who gets butthurt when they see something they don't like. I still fly several Confederate flags. Willing to try and take them down or be considered a loud mouth pussy that does nothing but talk?

Your neighbors called. YOu are scaring their children.

My neighbors are too good to talk to you son. They laugh at morons like you.

Naw, seriously dude, you are scaring everyone else in the trailer park. Just sayin'.