The Confederate Flag

Discussion in 'World Events' started by dumbest man on earth, Jun 15, 2020.

  1. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,553
    There you have summed up their entire philosophy. Both ways is exactly how they want it, and they're prepared to shoot you for calling them violent.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,315
    What many if not most conservatives don't seem to realize is that governments also have a duty to protect natural resources, lands and infrastructure which fundamentally belong collectively to the people, and to tax these lands and resources appropriately so that everyone has a fair chance to benefit from them.
     
    sideshowbob likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,974
    Even before American conservatism was wholly replaced by fascism, I'm not familiar with any sort of appreciation--or even acknowledgment--for the commons by American conservatives. Republicans, certainly--when you go back well more than a half century--but conservatives?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,974
    And the irony in this is wholly lost, even amongst those with a functioning brain on the rare occasions in which they're apt to speak honestly. For instance, Tucker Carlson, believe it or not, actually has a brain--and, of course, being born into tremendous wealth and privilege, he had ample opportunity to foster and nurture his developing sensibilities. I don't know precisely what happened somewhere along the way to turn him into the practicing half-wit he is today, but... there was something there in his younger years. Of course, he's quite the rarity, they've mostly got lugs virtually indistinguishable from a broken and gangrenous thumb like Sean Hannity.
     
  8. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,553
    I don't know what American conservatives are. I used to have an idea thirty, forty years ago, what the honest conservatives hoped to conserve: the Protestant ethic, the class structure, fiscal stability and territorial security. I never agreed with them, rarely respected them, but I more or less understood what they were about.
    Now, I don't see self-styled conservatives as much more than dogs in the throes Closing Panic - the mad scramble to eat, fuck or piss on everything before the end of the world.
     
    sideshowbob likes this.
  9. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,900
    No I could never be so clever ...I did not know about the incident that you linked.
    Alex
     
  10. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,610
    Even though that's already been refuted. Just more impotent triangulation.

    No, that's just another in your long list of ignorant straw men.

    And that's why you're so clueless. You were wrong then and even more ignorant now. You've insulated yourself in your little bubble so much that you can't fathom how half the country thinks. That's pretty bad.
     
  11. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,553
    Half of that country doesn't think at all; it just reacts, like a dead frog hooked up to a battery.
    Seems like my insulated bubble is much the best place to be, just now.
     
  12. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,315
    Give me exclusive title over the land I lease from the guvamint, quit taxin' me and git yer grubby paws off muh gurns! I don't have to pay for that bridge, you don't like me usin' it then you shouldn'ta put it thar! And that thar oil n' water in the ground belongs to muh company because I paid for the campaign of the guy who gave it to me!
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2020
  13. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,884
    agree

    It was about money.
    Personally, i find the whole concept of slavery to be repugnant.
    I find revisionist history and propaganda to be also repugnant.
    The secessionists didn't want a war, all they wanted was a divorce.
    It was the unionists who wanted and started the war---"to preserve the union".
    The war didn't start out as an abolitionist venture-------that came after 2 years of losses, and may have been an act of desperation.
    .....................................
    most people seem to have an inaccurate cartoonish view of slavery
    the average slaveholder lived in a log cabin, not a mansion, and had fewer than 5 slaves who did everything from timbering to blacksmithing to gardening to farming to construction...etc...
    ..............................................
    viewing the lives of the people who lived then is difficult enough without the revisionist history and propaganda.
     
  14. foghorn Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    379
    That's makes it alright then?

    ''propaganda''.
    Don't you know there are books written by later freed slaves. Don't you know there are memories of later freed slaves transcribed for posterity.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_narrative

    Here's a slave that bought his own freedom (James Bradley).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_of_slaves_in_the_United_States
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States
     
  15. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,553
    The United States of America was always "about the money".
    The colonists didn't want to pay tax to England.
    The Southern States didn't want to pay tax to the Union.
    The secessionist elite found it entirely congenial. So much so that they would hold onto it, even if they had to secede, even if they had to get lots and lots of peasant boys horribly killed and maimed in its defense.
    Keeping the land titles, infrastructure and shipping lines and trade agreements from the erstwhile union; the freedom to export agricultural product and import more slaves; to trade as an independent nation with unhampered access to world markets -- in direct competition with the norther states' wage economies. ("Honey, I'm leaving you for the lover I've been cheating with. So, I'll just keep the credit cards, the car and the boat. That's fair, isn't it?")
    Of-bloody-course it's about the money!
    But without your slave labor, you can't get very much cotton!
     
  16. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,610
    Oh, so it's okay for you to dehumanize a black man waving a Confederate flag, just so long as you're dehumanizing half the country too?
    Seems like your insulated bubble makes you completely ignorant. I guess ignorance is bliss.
     
  17. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,553
    Heavens, no!! I couldn't possibly dehumanize them. They're all too, too human!
    Other species can't get this stupid unless humans breed them for stupidity.
     
  18. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,884
    fyi
    The nullification crisis was a United States sectional political crisis in 1832–33, during the presidency of Andrew Jackson, which involved a confrontation between the state of South Carolina and the federal government. It ensued after South Carolina declared that the federal Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and therefore null and void within the sovereign boundaries of the state.

    The U.S. suffered an economic downturn throughout the 1820s, and South Carolina was particularly affected. Many politicians of South Carolina blamed the change in fortunes on the national tariff policy that developed after the War of 1812 to promote American manufacturing over its European competition.[1] The controversial and highly protective Tariff of 1828 was enacted into law during the presidency of John Quincy Adams. The tariff was strongly opposed in the South, since it was perceived to put an unfair tax burden on the Southern agrarian states that imported most manufactured goods. By 1828, South Carolina state politics increasingly organized around the tariff issue.

    The tariff's opponents expected that Jackson's election as President would result in a significant reduction of it.[2] When the Jackson administration failed to take any action to address their concerns, the state's most radical faction began to advocate that the state declare the tariff null and void within South Carolina. In Washington, an open split on the issue occurred between Jackson and Vice President John C. Calhoun, a native South Carolinian and the most effective proponent of the constitutional theory of state nullification, the legal theory that if a state believed a federal law unconstitutional, it could declare the law null and void in the state.[3]

    On July 14, 1832, before Calhoun had resigned the vice presidency to run for the Senate, where he could more effectively defend nullification,[4] Jackson signed into law the Tariff of 1832. This compromise tariff received the support of most Northerners and half the Southerners in Congress.[5] But it did not satisfy South Carolina, and on November 24, 1832, a state convention adopted the Ordinance of Nullification, which declared that the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and unenforceable in South Carolina after February 1, 1833.[6] South Carolina initiated military preparations to resist anticipated federal enforcement,[7] but on March 1, 1833, Congress passed both the Force Bill—authorizing the President to use military forces against South Carolina—and a new negotiated tariff, the Compromise Tariff of 1833, which was satisfactory to South Carolina. The South Carolina convention reconvened and repealed its Nullification Ordinance on March 15, 1833, but three days later, nullified the Force Bill as a symbolic gesture of principle.

    The crisis was over, and both sides found reasons to claim victory. The tariff rates were reduced and stayed low to the satisfaction of the South, but the states' rights doctrine of nullification remained controversial. The states' rights issue, which was not fully resolved in the crisis, intensified in the following decades and culminated in the American Civil War.

    ..............................
    perspective matters
    keep an open mind
     
  19. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,553
    I'll paste that on my bumper.
    The nasty ol' North imposed an unfair tax on the poor long- suffering South. But they got that worked out OK, so didn't need to secede over it. The nasty ol' North also tried to restrict slavery to the established boundaries. But they changed their mind and let the poor, long-suffering South expand slavery into the new territories.... IOW, the poor, long-suffering South got pretty much everything it wanted... until Lincoln refused the states sovereign rights.
    If not for that, all the contented slaves would still be happily working away on their idyllic plantations and there would be no racial strife in the land of the [semi]free.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2020
  20. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,610
    "a dead frog hooked up to a battery" seems pretty dehumanizing.
     
  21. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,553
    reacts, like a dead frog hooked up to a battery
    I neither dehumanized nor killed those people: I compared them. Perhaps that's even more cruel.
     
  22. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,900
    Thank you for setting out some of the background.

    So I find it difficult to see how the tariff situation many years earlier led to war ... that was your initial position, was it not, suggesting that the war was about tariff and not slavery....and now it becomes less clear now that you raise this aspect of states rights issue.

    Who fired first? Who attacked? I think it was the Confederates was it not...would there have been a war if they had not attacked? Was military action by the Union imminent?

    Do we have records of any speeches by confederate leaders in the week prior to the attack?

    The mentality that comes over from the South these days to me an outsider seems irrational ...the image comes over as a aggressive bunch who hold a much too high opinion of themselves, convinced the Federal Government is their enemy ...fearing that said government will round them up and place them in concentration camps, a reason sometimes offered as to why they need their guns...I expect a real fear in the USA could be that the South could start another civil war...personally I don't think it would be difficult to round up some good old boys happy to protect the honour of their flag cause no doubt god is on their side.

    The KKK gets me..the costumes..what idiots..they are like silly children...and if you had kids who played like that would you be embarrassed or what.
    Just forget what they are about for a moment and ask what is the deal with all this dress up and hoods and masks...why act like children? What is the appeal? Anonymity? We don't want anyone to notice us so we wear these hoods not to be noticed?.. and they always, always seem to carry their flag, the confederate flag, heck is that not a good reason for decent folk to throw it out rather than say it's all about our pride...
    Then you have some dingbats who say the fact that the flag is offensive and associated with racism is no reason to ban it...really stuffed in the head.

    The question which I would like you to answer Sculptor is this...

    If the South had won the war would it still have slavery? Would the good Christian folk so proud of their heritage etc allow it? Or would they use the bible to endorse it given that it does?



    Alex
     
  23. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,610
    Yeah, saying "a black man is like an ape" is also a dehumanizing comparison. Starting to understand yet?
    Man, for people who are so vocal in their fight against racism, you'd think you'd have a better idea of what it entails.
     

Share This Page