Yep, he was the first southern elected to President in a long time.
Still, being a Democrat it blows apart your assertion. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until the 90's that Mississippi elected its first Republican governor since reconstruction. And the Southern states were split for Clinton in both elections in the 90's. Not much of a stronghold there.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
So the south became a republican stronghold about the time the democrats adopted civil rights into their party correct?
there were a number of factors in the switch and I doubt anyone will agree on one root cause. the beginnings of the neoconservative movement with goldwater most likely broke republicans of their inclination toward government spending (at least pertaining to social programs), and the nascent leftist neoliberal movement that took hold among democrats favored way more federal-level intervention in both social and fiscal matters than I think many in the south were comfortable with.
Of course if you look at actual spending by the parties the GOP rhetoric on fiscal matters ends up being bs. And while a root cause can be debated for the south turning republican, I think it would be hard to argue race didn't play a significant factor. This topic for example shows that.
it's also important to look at the fact that while nice little red/blue dichotomies make for tidy and convenient narratives when briefly glancing at the whole country, they're almost insulting oversimplifications when you're trying to understand the cultural nuances of a single state or even an entire region. sometimes, we have to speculate on such matters just to account for how the polarity of how entire regions voted flip-flopped in such a short span of time, but there's just way too much differentiation even within the same party within the same span of time to be able to lump everyone into red=this, blue=that. not to mention that nowadays, when you look at actual voting records and campaign funding, there's next to no qualitative functional difference between the two big parties anyway.
Dave, is it really so hard to consolidate all your replies into one post?
Originally Posted By: thedoctor
Or just clarifying that the pissed off Fred Savage from Cali shouldn't be bolstering up 'Southern Heritage' when he ain't got none.
Your arrogance is astounding.
If you think I'm gonna play a game of "who's the most in touch with his Southern side," then you're out of your mind. Neither you nor Iggy-tard are the only ones with ties to Southern history, nor--for that matter--are you the only Scottish descendant on this board. Suffice it say, I'm fairly certain that neither of us was alive prior to the 1950s and we've both been subject to second-hand information regarding the cultural evolution of the South regardless of where we live. And if you want to know about my Southern heritage and my connection to Southern relatives, then politely ask me. Don't try to goad me into a game of I'm twice the [WHATEVER] you are.
From the very beginning, I have been most concerned with the flag's historical significance as it pertains to the South's dissent against the state of late 19th century American Federalism, and not once have I brought up "Southern heritage". I can care about our history (and the people who died for it) and try to keep it from being erased without claiming to be a dyed-in-the-wool enthusiast of Southern culture or a Confederate poser. Now that Haley and friends have rolled over and decided to go along to get along with these fuckers, they're not just aiming for the flag: they want to tear down every Confederate monument--Hell! Some retard on ABC suggested we should tear down Thomas Jefferson's monument yesterday because he owned slaves. They will milk and escalate this incident as much as they can.
But none of that matters to you because you're "on the sidelines". And that is exactly the kind of safe, soft headed "For-I-wasn't-a-Jew" attitude born of the fear of being viewed as an extremist. Pleas crawl out of your own ass.
Originally Posted By: iggy the historian
That copy/paste job was of the SC declaration of secession. Thanks for proving the point that you guys will gladly ignore the documented history when it does not jive with your imagined historical narrative.
Yep, he was the first southern elected to President in a long time.
Still, being a Democrat it blows apart your assertion. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until the 90's that Mississippi elected its first Republican governor since reconstruction. And the Southern states were split for Clinton in both elections in the 90's. Not much of a stronghold there.
If you are talking absolutes, no it isn't. But I guess I consider Minnesota a reliably democrat stronghold even though we've had quite a few republican govs. Ones I even thought governed well. Still at the heart of this matter, it is the south and it is the republicans fretting about what to do now about the flag that rose up after desegregation. Maybe in a 100 years they'll get caught up to where the democrats are now?
So the south became a republican stronghold about the time the democrats adopted civil rights into their party correct?
there were a number of factors in the switch and I doubt anyone will agree on one root cause. the beginnings of the neoconservative movement with goldwater most likely broke republicans of their inclination toward government spending (at least pertaining to social programs), and the nascent leftist neoliberal movement that took hold among democrats favored way more federal-level intervention in both social and fiscal matters than I think many in the south were comfortable with.
Of course if you look at actual spending by the parties the GOP rhetoric on fiscal matters ends up being bs. And while a root cause can be debated for the south turning republican, I think it would be hard to argue race didn't play a significant factor. This topic for example shows that.
it's also important to look at the fact that while nice little red/blue dichotomies make for tidy and convenient narratives when briefly glancing at the whole country, they're almost insulting oversimplifications when you're trying to understand the cultural nuances of a single state or even an entire region. sometimes, we have to speculate on such matters just to account for how the polarity of how entire regions voted flip-flopped in such a short span of time, but there's just way too much differentiation even within the same party within the same span of time to be able to lump everyone into red=this, blue=that. not to mention that nowadays, when you look at actual voting records and campaign funding, there's next to no qualitative functional difference between the two big parties anyway.
I would disagree about the difference between the two parties. Gotta remember a couple of years ago I couldn't marry the person I loved. That changed because of the democratic party. That may not seem like a big deal to you but consider how much you value your marriage and how you would view a party that fundraised off of making your marriage illegal. Big difference!
If you are talking absolutes, no it isn't. But I guess I consider Minnesota a reliably democrat stronghold even though we've had quite a few republican govs. Ones I even thought governed well. Still at the heart of this matter, it is the south and it is the republicans fretting about what to do now about the flag that rose up after desegregation. Maybe in a 100 years they'll get caught up to where the democrats are now?
Herein lies the paradox: over the last 50 years, it has been democratic politicians and their constituents that have had more to do with using that flag as a social apparatus to the benefit of the democratic party. That includes both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Despite this very apparent fact, the Stars and Bars are being called a Republican issue when it's clearly a Democrat issue. I'm sure people on the left are going ape-shit, using this incident to further push the Dixiecrat myth, but in reality it's not all that helpful to their cause.
And that's exactly the kind of engineering employed to turn reality inside out.
Historically, democrats established themselves as racially supremacist cunts. Then, seeing the tides turn, they offer their former slaves a boon of largesse in the form of free healthcare, welfare, and affirmative action. In the face of socialist excess, the Republicans scream that there's no such thing as a free lunch regardless of race, thus allowing the transference of public opinion to take place and making the term "Dixiecrat" into a thing.
"I'll have those niggers voting Democrat for 200 years." -Landslide Lyndon
Fast forward to today, the Democrats have spent decades using the Confederate Flag as a point of common interest between them and Southern culture. Suddenly people are killed under its banner, turning it into a reviled symbol of racism that should be burned, and despite its recent Democratic history, Hillary and friends roll with the punches in speeches that affirm the idea of expelling it from the culture. Republicans, like Cruz, call that destructive demagoguery, thus allowing the transference of public opinion to take place once again even though Republicans have no relation to that flag.
Yet no where near the amount of arrogance you display by not only ignoring Iggy's posting the transcript of an actual historical document because it completely knocks your bullshit 'state's rights' excuse down in the dirt but calling him an idiot for using historical fact in rebuttal against you.
Yes, I am of Scottish decent (though I never mentioned it here). You know what I don't do? I don't wear a kilt and tell the people in Glasgow about breaking away from the UK or what their history on the island of Great Britain is all about. You've read a book and some guy's website. Good for you. I've read a bunch of books on the subject as well. Guess what else, I've also lived it for 37 years. Your attempt to be an expert on the subject is laughable. Only slightly less laughable than your attempt to associate this with the Holocaust. That's fucking hilarious.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
I actually agree here, G. The point was to resign the flag from public lands that serve an official government function and to its proper place in history and museums. It was not to go on what is looking more and more like a pandering-fest on the part of private businesses wanting to appear progressive. It is cheap and really disrespectful, IMO, to the victims of the shooting. And, I would not be surprised at all if the rush to look good on the part of these businesses--though, the choice to sell or not sell merch containing the flag is up to them--is probably what set off the moron who lit up a black church in Charlotte today.
WHEN a mass shooting happens in America, the motivation of the killer is usually unfathomable. In the case of Dylann Roof, who was arrested on June 18th for murdering nine people at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal (AME) church in Charleston, South Carolina, it was all too clear. “I chose the city of Charleston because it is the most historic city in my state, and at one time had the highest ratio of blacks to whites in the country,” wrote Mr Roof in a message posted online before the massacre. “We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet.” A friend said that Mr Roof intended to ignite a race war. Instead he started something else. By wrapping himself in a Confederate flag, along with those of Rhodesia and apartheid-era South Africa, he has transformed a symbol that a week ago flew on the grounds of state capitols into a pictogram of hatred.
That Mr Roof’s crime has had the opposite effect to the one he intended is largely owing to the extraordinary response from Emanuel AME church, whose pastor was among the dead. The church already had too much meaning for one building to bear. It is one of the oldest black churches in the South and its congregation, like early Christians, once met in secret because of a ban on black services. The ancestor of the whitewashed Gothic church where the congregation now meets was burned to the ground after a slave revolt. To this repository has now been added a racist massacre and, more powerfully, the generosity of the church’s surviving worshippers in offering forgiveness to their assailant.
In the days after the shooting Charleston followed this lead, with people gathering in the streets for vigils rather than protests. At one of these a few thousand people gathered in a small basketball stadium, each holding a rose. Robert Guglielmone, a Catholic bishop, read Psalm 27—“For in the day of trouble/He will keep me safe in this dwelling”—which ought to be an affirmation but sounded more like a plea. The city’s many churches kept their doors open for prayer meetings.
Beyond Charleston, Mr Roof’s shooting started heated arguments about guns, race and flags. That a man who had been arrested twice and posted pictures of himself with white supremacist symbols should have access to a semi-automatic pistol is no surprise. Getting hold of guns is already easy, and the South Carolina legislature has worked hard to make it easier: in April its House of Representatives passed a bill to introduce “permitless carry”, which would exempt anyone who is allowed to own a gun from having to get a permit. In the 1970s the state passed the nation’s first law limiting firearms purchases to one a month, a measure designed to stop gun trafficking. It was repealed in 2004.
Nor was it a surprise when a board member of the National Rifle Association in effect blamed the dead pastor, Clementa Pinckney, who was also a Democratic member of the South Carolina Senate, for what happened at Emanuel AME, on the ground that he had voted against allowing guns into churches in 2011. As the motivation for owning guns has changed over the past two decades, the need for citizens to be armed for self-defence has become a frequent refrain among fans of the Second Amendment (see next story), though most are more sensitive about when they make it. Charleston’s mayor, Joseph Riley, who fervently opposes guns, hit back: “We don’t want to live in a country where you need a security guard for Bible study.”
Take it down
What was different about the reaction to this shooting, compared with so many others, is that something tangible has already changed as a result of it. On June 22nd South Carolina’s governor, Nikki Haley, said that it was time to take down the Confederate flag from its position on the grounds of the state capitol. In Mississippi the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives said it was also time to take it off the Mississippi state flag. The governor of Alabama had a Confederate flag removed from the grounds of the state capitol. The governors of Virginia, Tennessee and North Carolina said they wanted the flag removed from car licence-plates in their states. A clutch of prominent businesses made the same decision. Amazon, Walmart, eBay, Sears and Google announced they would no longer sell the flag or goods branded with it.
The swiftness of this change has been extraordinary. The Confederate flag has at different times been used to honour the war dead of southern states, to signal a disregard for authority and to decorate belt buckles. It was waved by George Wallace, who offered Alabama “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation for ever” in 1963, and then made the same pitch to the country in the 1968 presidential election. And it was painted on the roof of the orange car driven in “The Dukes of Hazzard”, a television series adored by children who grew up in the 1980s, many of whom thought the blue cross with the white stars was just a nice paint job.
The debate over the meaning of the Confederate flag is 150 years old this year, the anniversary of the end of the civil war. Almost as soon as the Stars and Stripes were raised over Fort Sumter, just across the water from Charleston, in 1865, a concerted effort to rewrite the causes of the war began. In this telling, the conflict had little to do with slavery and everything to do with states’ rights, as if the two were unrelated. Northerners were quick to accept a version of events according to which both sides in the war had been right, if it helped to mend the country in the aftermath. Charleston’s Hampton Park, named after a Confederate major-general and once the site of a prisoner-of-war camp, is a small reminder of this forgetting. Its tree-lined avenues and fountain make a popular backdrop for wedding photographs, the brides standing on ground that served as a mass grave for more than 200 Union soldiers.
But when used in politics the meaning of the Confederate flag has been all too clear. Mississippi adopted its current state flag, which has the Confederate cross in its top left corner, in 1894, when the state was pushing back hard against Reconstruction and only eight years after ten blacks were murdered in one of the state’s courthouses. Georgia incorporated the Confederate cross into its state flag in 1956, while the state’s politicians were fighting against attempts to end Jim Crow laws, and just two years after the Supreme Court ruled that schools must be desegregated in Brown v Board of Education. Georgia redesigned its state flag in 2003.
The Confederate flag, wrote Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Convention on his blog on June 19th, “was the emblem of Jim Crow defiance to the civil-rights movement, of the Dixiecrat opposition to integration, and of the domestic terrorism of the Ku Klux Klan and the White Citizens’ Councils of our all too recent, all too awful history [...]That sort of symbolism is out of step with the Justice of Jesus Christ.”
Mr Moore expected a flood of complaint, but has received only a trickle. The noisiest protestations have come from the professionally outraged, such as Rush Limbaugh, a radio host. Mr Limbaugh told listeners to his show that the same people who are out to confiscate the Confederate flag would one day come for the American one. He ought to read Mr Roof’s manifesto. “I hate the sight of the American flag,” wrote the shooter, making its stars and stripes appear instantly brighter.
In his statement about the shooting, Barack Obama expressed frustration that he had been obliged to make statements about gun massacres too many times. “At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries,” he said. “It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency.” He spoke of his anger and of Emanuel AME’s prominent place in the civil-rights movement, and quoted Martin Luther King. Like most presidents reaching the end of their second term, Mr Obama is hardly popular at the moment. But at times when decades-old questions about race, history, hatred and violence resurface, his calming, thoughtful presence is an asset. He will give the eulogy at Mr Pinckney’s funeral on June 26th.
***
tl:dr = There seems to be a consensus now amongst the political class of the Dixie states, as a consequence of the shootings and the global outrage the full-mast flag provoked, that the flag is a racist emblem and is being removed from state buildings.
I see that this thread has expanded to five pages and that G-man has put his trademark open-minded spin on the front page of the site, and I'll respond to all of that when I have time and inclination. Which might be a while as I'm getting my chops smacked at work.
Yeah, the banning of Confederate flag merchandise is just another example of caving in to political correctness. I think it's better to acknowledge history, the good with the bad, than to ban it, and thus erase the lessons learned by preserving it.
Originally Posted By: M E M
I would disagree about the difference between the two parties. Gotta remember a couple of years ago I couldn't marry the person I loved. That changed because of the democratic party. That may not seem like a big deal to you but consider how much you value your marriage and how you would view a party that fundraised off of making your marriage illegal. Big difference!
Except that Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the other Democrat leadership were all advocating the same defense of marriage position, the exact same ("marriage is only between one man and one woman") as every Republican, until right before the 2012 election. It is so blatantly not about principle for Democrats, but for cynically exploiting the gay demographic for election purposes, shamelessly hypocritical to the position they held just 5 minutes ago.
Likewise the position of Democrats with the Confederate flag. There's plenty of video out there of Bill and Hillary advocating for the Confederate flag and the need for its cultural/heritage/historical preservation, that should be displayed in Republican commercials over the next year or so, highlighting (another) Democrat hypocrisy.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
That simply isn't true WB. Hillary argued on the senate floor against changing the constitution so that it would have an anti-gay clause in it when she was a senator. Very well documented and easy to find if you want to check it out. It is true that she had been on record about marriage being for one man one woman but her actions against amending the constitution doesn't equal a republicans who went much further than saying voicing opposition against marriage equality. I can marry who I love because of democrats like Hillary and Obama.
Yeah, the banning of Confederate flag merchandise is just another example of caving in to political correctness. I think it's better to acknowledge history, the good with the bad, than to ban it, and thus erase the lessons learned by preserving it.
But this mis-states what has happened. Its not banned at all. If you want to wear it on your t-shirt or as a bumper sticker, you go for it.
What is happening is that a flag perceived by many (but I concede not all) people as a racist and indeed, thank you Mr JLA, a treasonous emblem is being removed from official buildings.
Plus, some large retailers are no longer stocking goods featuring the flag.
Hardly a ban. (Germany and France have actual bans on the sale of Nazi paraphernalia.)
I'll concede that the Confederate Flag is not banned, Australia-Dave. But the ability of free people to preserve it as part of their history and heritage is being leveraged out. It is being marginalized by the forces of Political Correctness. Where if you value the Confederate flag in any context, you are labelled and shouted down as a hater.
As I said above, there is certainly an argument that even with the man who created one of the earliest Confederate flags, that it was conceived as a symbol of white supremacy. But that to millions today, 150-plus years later, in former Confederate states it is not a symbol of hate, just part of their history. And that this "symbol of treason" was the banner fought under by military units in World War II against the Germans and Japanese.
And that even black Americans push for its historic preservation.
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
That simply isn't true WB. Hillary argued on the senate floor against changing the constitution so that it would have an anti-gay clause in it when she was a senator. Very well documented and easy to find if you want to check it out. It is true that she had been on record about marriage being for one man one woman but her actions against amending the constitution doesn't equal a republicans who went much further than saying voicing opposition against marriage equality. I can marry who I love because of democrats like Hillary and Obama.
So Hillary Clinton was against gay marriage before she was for it. And only cynically/opportunistically changed her POV on the subject AFTER Joseph Biden, Barack Obama and others tested the political waters. And even then, only to rally political support for an election.
I clearly am not a fan of gay marriage, but plenty of other Republicans/conservatives are on board for gay marriage. But you continue to front the lie that Democrats support it and Republicans oppose it. That is a lie.
Democrats until 5 minutes ago said marriage was only between a man and a woman, and not out of belief or principle, but purely out of political expediency, now suddenly endorse gay marriage. But to listen to liberal/gay zealots like yourself (and the partisan liars in the 80% liberal media) one would think that Democrats have been pushing gay rights for decades, and that roughly half of Republicans don't support gay marriage as well.
That is a lie. Democrats are not longtime supporters of gay marriage, Republicans are not 100% opponents of gay marriage. Democrats only suddenly support gay marriage for political expediency, and I feel the same way about the Republicans who support it. From Charles Kraauthammer to Marco Rubio to John Kasich to Jeb Bush to Hillary to Obama, they just want to cave in and make the issue go away.
Clinton as I pointed out and you ignored is on record as arguing on the senate floor against the republican push to change the constitution to include a ban on gay marriage years ago. It's well documented who said and did what WB. It seems you are already trying to muddy the waters but go ahead and try naming one presidential candidate on the republican side that argued against the anti-gay amendment?
Clinton as I pointed out and you ignored is on record as arguing on the senate floor against the republican push to change the constitution to include a ban on gay marriage years ago. It's well documented who said and did what WB. It seems you are already trying to muddy the waters but go ahead and try naming one presidential candidate on the republican side that argued against the anti-gay amendment?
And Clinton as I pointed out was against gay marriage before she was for it.
...go ahead and try naming one presidential candidate on the republican side that argued against the anti-gay amendment?
I already offered a list of prominent conservatives who are openly relieved that the gay marriage issue is off the table, and that the US Supreme Court's ruling a few days ago gives them cover to drop the issue. Even though a minority of Republican candidates such as Marco Rubio and Mike Huckabee still press the issue, while most have ceased to make it a priority.
Even your compatriots on the snarky partisan far-Left MediaMatters fringe acknowledge Republicans have moved away from the issue. This clip from 8 months ago:
I don't have to name and quote Republicans on the gay marriage issue, your side did that for me.
And that doesn't change the fact that 2 years ago, Obama and Hillary Clinton both vocally upheld that marriage is only between a man and a woman. And AGAIN, not out of principle, but only in deceitful cunning and cynical political expediency did Obama and Hillary very recently embrace gay marriage. As have many Republicans maneuvering for 2016.
Although maybe in the future I can just link to the other topic, or copy-and-paste it here. Although what M E M said here about Republicans isn't the same as the points he and I made in the other topic.
But boththe gay marriage deception and the Confederate flag-issue deception are two different fronts of the same Cultural Marxist war on American culture and history.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
More precisely, the Confederate flag controversy is a first step toward further undermining the American flag as racist, and further attacking the U.S. as a nation and a culture as racist and unworthy of defending.
And undefended, replace it with a new socialist/globalist system. Despite the above bratty liberal snark, the rhetoric of people like Louis Farrakhan, Rev Jeremiah Wright, and Al Sharpton just in the last week, and going back much further, take that notion into fact and out of the realm of speculation. America-bashers all, most of whom are very close to the current president, I might add. Not distanced from the center of power and dismissively ignored, but given tremendous influence by this administration.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Confederate flag gets 'Dukes of Hazzard' yanked: TV Land has pulled the 1980s-era comedy Dukes of Hazzard from its lineup because it featured a car — called The General Lee — that prominently displayed the flag on the roof.
I can see the wisdom in pulling it down from government buildings. However, much like banning Civil War games, this type of crap is re-goddam-diculous.
...go ahead and try naming one presidential candidate on the republican side that argued against the anti-gay amendment?
I already offered a list of prominent conservatives who are openly relieved that the gay marriage issue is off the table, and that the US Supreme Court's ruling a few days ago gives them cover to drop the issue. Even though a minority of Republican candidates such as Marco Rubio and Mike Huckabee still press the issue, while most have ceased to make it a priority. ....
Yeah but I'm asking if you can name any GOP candidates that actually argued against their own party's advocacy in anti-gay legislation. You want to compare the two parties but stop when it becomes inconvenient. The republican party didn't just give lip service to "one man, one woman" but pursued antigay legislation to enshrine it.
Forget it, G-man. It's the Politics and Current Events forum.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Here's a more balanced look at the Confederate flag, that acknowledges both the racist aspect, as well as the broader diverse perceptions of what the Confederate flag means, by both blacks and whites.
This is a far more sophisticated video on the various perspectives of the Confederate flag, although 56 minutes in length.
"Confederacy Theory"
It interviews a number of former governors and other state officials involved in raising the Confederate flag over the Capitol of South Carolina. Unlike MSNBC, they clarify that it was part of a 100-year anniversary commemoration of the Civil War, that happened to coincide with the civil rights movement, and that some opposed to civil rights took it on as a banner of defiance of those pressing to end segregation laws.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
But none of that matters to you because you're "on the sidelines". And that is exactly the kind of safe, soft headed "For-I-wasn't-a-Jew" attitude born of the fear of being viewed as an extremist. Pleas crawl out of your own ass.
More from my heritage of defiance. How fucking dare the federal government oppress my people so...
Originally Posted By: Ben Tillman 1895
If we were free, instead of having negro suffrage, we would have negro slavery. Instead of having the United States government, we would have the Confederate States government.
Confederate flag gets 'Dukes of Hazzard' yanked: TV Land has pulled the 1980s-era comedy Dukes of Hazzard from its lineup because it featured a car — called The General Lee — that prominently displayed the flag on the roof.
I can see the wisdom in pulling it down from government buildings. However, much like banning Civil War games, this type of crap is re-goddam-diculous.
I still want to get back to this topic, but it's been so long that I've lost most of the context and the immediate criteria upon which I was operating. Maybe I'll get back to it later on in the week.
That being said, Iggy's latest response doesn't require further context for me to adequately respond to it:
Originally Posted By: iggy
More from my heritage of defiance. How fucking dare the federal government oppress my people so...
Originally Posted By: Ben Tillman 1895
If we were free, instead of having negro suffrage, we would have negro slavery. Instead of having the United States government, we would have the Confederate States government.
Neither you nor Doc can operate under the premise that robbing the states of their rights by military force constituted a social high ground taken by the North when Lincoln wasn't actually pushing for the abolition of slavery to begin with. From the get go, the conflict initiated by the North was motivated by a desire to keep the tangent culture(s) of the Southern states within the political and economic sway of the North through Federal bondage. You can (erroneously) attempt to push the narrative that the South was motivated by slavery if you prefer, but you can neither passively nor actively claim that the North's aggression was an act of beneficence directed at the slaves.
I still want to get back to this topic, but it's been so long that I've lost most of the context and the immediate criteria upon which I was operating. Maybe I'll get back to it later on in the week.
That being said, Iggy's latest response doesn't require further context for me to adequately respond to it:
Originally Posted By: iggy
More from my heritage of defiance. How fucking dare the federal government oppress my people so...
Originally Posted By: Ben Tillman 1895
If we were free, instead of having negro suffrage, we would have negro slavery. Instead of having the United States government, we would have the Confederate States government.
Neither you nor Doc can operate under the premise that robbing the states of their rights by military force constituted a social high ground taken by the North when Lincoln wasn't actually pushing for the abolition of slavery to begin with. From the get go, the conflict initiated by the North was motivated by a desire to keep the tangent culture(s) of the Southern states within the political and economic sway of the North through Federal bondage. You can (erroneously) attempt to push the narrative that the South was motivated by slavery if you prefer, but you can neither passively nor actively claim that the North's aggression was an act of beneficence directed at the slaves.
I believe that I was the first to bring up the fact that the North's anti-slavery bent was due to political reasons and not a higher morality. But thanks for playing anyway. And it is not erroneous to say that the South was motivated by slavery. It's a plain fact that they wrote down time and time again themselves in the very documents they used to succeed from the Union. You can claim economics and culture, but the center point of both of those arguments is still slavery.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/blogban3.jpg)
[/center]![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/jlamiska.jpg)
[/center]
