Max Fischer Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) So, NC is getting rid of the Confederate license plates which honor the daughters of the Confederacy. SC, too. S Virginia will, also, and it won't be long until we bulldoze the city of Richmond and the Confederate cemetery to build a new Senior Center, Walmart and mosque. But its amazing how we grew up with a whitewashed history lesson on the Civil War. Now the narrative that the flag only means slavery and ignoring states and individual rights - that just goes right in step with the leadership of this country. Knee jerk reaction to appease the masses and further the divide. Amusing use of "whitewashed." States rights to preserve slavery. No slavery = no Civil War. Edited June 24, 2015 by Max Fischer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Amusing use of "whitewashed." States rights to preserve slavery. No slavery = no Civil War. I've enjoyed some of the give and take in this thread (some being the operative word) and the bold text offers another snippet I appreciate. Rob's House raised an interesting point about there being a difference between why the southern states seceded vs. why the Civil War was fought. I hadn't considered that in great detail previously, but I think it gets to the difference between the political reasons we go to war vs. why the soldiers tasked to fight in it do just that. I'm sure the confederate soldiers had a myriad of reasons for going into battle. The issue of slavery certainly wasn't the main reason the majority of northern soldiers fought, either. But ultimately, I agree with your point above. The political impetus to secede was to preserve their perceived right to have slavery in their states. Everything I've ever read authored by the politicians in charge of those states bears that out in my mind. So yeah, if not for question of maintaining their slave states, the south never would have seceded in the first place. And if the south hadn't seceded, would there have been a civil war? Nothing I've read suggests that but I'm willing to be edified otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Further to my earlier point about the enitre flag issue: Republicans move to remove flag, political left throws a hissie fit for getting rid of a progressive whining point. Interesting that The Hill is the one throwing the fit. This is usually Politico's ground. But in the end, it's all just embarrassing. The lede is all you need to read to know just how bent people get about the most ridiculously stupid stuff. In a shrewdly mapped play, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley's ® call to remove the flapping Confederate rebel jack from state capitol grounds suddenly prompted an entire party to reverse course on the issue. And after years of happily whistling political Dixie as part of its mad racial plan for Southern domination, the Republican Party backed away from this in an unprecedentedly humble about face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) Further to my earlier point about the enitre flag issue: Republicans move to remove flag, political left throws a hissie fit for getting rid of a progressive whining point. Interesting that The Hill is the one throwing the fit. This is usually Politico's ground. But in the end, it's all just embarrassing. The lede is all you need to read to know just how bent people get about the most ridiculously stupid stuff. It's just an opinion piece, they have opinion writers from both the left and the right, this one is from a regular contributor from the ROOT. So, it's not "The Hill" who is throwing a fit, it's this particular dude. Edited June 24, 2015 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 I've thought about it... ...and while I support a person's right to wave a confederate flag, there's a difference when it's endorsed by the government. If the people (even if they are uniformed) want to remove it from public buildings, then they should do it. Both parties are okay with getting rid of it so what's the debate? ...but if they pass a law preventing individuals from waving the flag, now we have a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) I've thought about it... ...and while I support a person's right to wave a confederate flag, there's a difference when it's endorsed by the government. If the people (even if they are uniformed) want to remove it from public buildings, then they should do it. Both parties are okay with getting rid of it so what's the debate? ...but if they pass a law preventing individuals from waving the flag, now we have a problem. You have come to a very sensible conclusion. Edited June 24, 2015 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Since the thread is now about the flag, I guess I'll put this here. I would encourage you to read the whole thing. We Have Officially Reached Peak Leftism by Kevin D. WilliamsonRead more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420211/left-activist-peak-kevin-d-Williamson FTA: Which is to say, the Confederate flag is an emblem of regional distinctiveness disapproved of by 21st-century Democrats. Their reinvigorated concern is awfully nice: When the South actually was a segregationist backwater that African-Americans were fleeing by the million — when Democrats were running the show — they were ho-hum. Today the South is an economic powerhouse, dominated by Republicans, and attracting new African-American residents by the thousands. And so the Left and its creature, the Democratic party, insist that Southern identity as such must be anathematized. The horrific crime that shocked the nation notwithstanding, black life in Charleston remains very different, in attractive ways, from black life in such Left-dominated horror shows as Cleveland and Detroit, and the state’s governor is, in the parlance of identity politics, a woman of color — but she is a Republican, too, and therefore there must be shrieking, rending of garments, and gnashing of teeth. This is a fraud, and some scales are starting to fall from some eyes. Americans believe broadly in sexual equality, but only a vanishing minority of us describe ourselves as “feminists.” “Social-justice warrior” is a term of derision. The Bernie Sanders movement, like the draft-Warren movement of which it is an offshoot, is rooted in disgust at the opportunistic politics of the Clinton claque. Young people who have heard all their lives that the Republican party and the conservative movement are for old white men — young people who may be not be quite old enough to remember Democrats’ boasting of their “double-Bubba” ticket in 1992, pairing the protégé of one Southern segregationist with the son of another — see before them Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, Susana Martinez, Carly Fiorina, Tim Scott, Mia Love, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Elise Stefanik. None of those men and women is bawling about “microaggressions” or dreaming up new sexless pronouns. None belongs to the party that hoisted Dixie over the capitol in South Carolina either. Governor Haley may be sensitive to the history of her state, but she is a member of the party of Lincoln with family roots in Punjab — it isn’t her flag. What’s going to happen between now and November 8 of next year will be a political campaign on one side of the aisle only. On the other side, it’s going to be something between a temper tantrum and a panic attack. That’s excellent news if you’re Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, or Carly Fiorina. It’s less good news if you live in Baltimore or Philadelphia. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 the anecdote was given to address how and why i would fix loopholes in gunlaws. done. So how would it have been different if he bought the gun at Wal Mart? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 You have come to a very sensible conclusion. As I said earlier, the constitution allows room for bad taste. If someone wants to show off their redneck street cred, then by all means. Thankfully, it also allows people like me to mock them for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Amusing use of "whitewashed." States rights to preserve slavery. No slavery = no Civil War. Deep thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 So how would it have been different if he bought the gun at Wal Mart? whether it's different or not (and i believe it is) a system that allows for what i described is broken and needs repairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 So how would it have been different if he bought the gun at Wal Mart? He would have had trouble finding enough ammo. (or a clerk to open the case) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 whether it's different or not (and i believe it is) a system that allows for what i described is broken and needs repairs. You believe it is? How so? All you've said is he bought a gun and sold it to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 You believe it is? How so? All you've said is he bought a gun and sold it to you. well and truly done with this. i've given an instructive example and you concentrate on minutia that is irrelevant to the discussion. pretty typical of the boards cons... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 The new insanity to come out of this church shooting is a "national dialogue" about whether blacks should, or should be expected to, forgive white people over this ****. Seeing as how most white people I know have never shot, robbed, assaulted, or otherwise violated the rights of any blacks, I don't think they have anything to be forgiven for. How racist is it to pin the acts of one on another just because they have the same color skin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) Warner Brothers to remove confederate flag from Dukes of Hazzard General Lee! They said it could never happen, but finally, peace in our time! But alas, what will Hillary do???? I had no idea she was a racist! Edited June 24, 2015 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 well and truly done with this. i've given an instructive example and you concentrate on minutia that is irrelevant to the discussion. pretty typical of the boards cons... What's the instructive example? Was it that you violated what you think the law should be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 well and truly done with this. i've given an instructive example and you concentrate on minutia that is irrelevant to the discussion. pretty typical of the boards cons... You've done no such thing. You said there was a gun show loophole and when asked what the problem was you said that someone else bought you a gun at a gun show as the example of the "broken" system that allowed this to happen. You never explained why this was evidence of a broken system and when I asked you how the transaction differed from one at a retail store (and thus not part of the "gun show loophole you spoke of) you respond with the garbage I just quoted. It looks like a less than gracious admission of defeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 You've done no such thing. You said there was a gun show loophole and when asked what the problem was you said that someone else bought you a gun at a gun show as the example of the "broken" system that allowed this to happen. You never explained why this was evidence of a broken system and when I asked you how the transaction differed from one at a retail store (and thus not part of the "gun show loophole you spoke of) you respond with the garbage I just quoted. It looks like a less than gracious admission of defeat. To add, I'd also like to see the percentages of gun crime that directly stem from the use of the gun show "loophole." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 To add, I'd also like to see the percentages of gun crime that directly stem from the use of the gun show "loophole." We'll have to wait for Birdog to weigh in on this, but I'm afraid that might fall under his definition of minutia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts