[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I haven’t argued with your “slavery is the only reason for the civil war” not because I agree, but because it’s been beat to death and I just plan don’t care to get on that merry go round again. There are, in fact, a number of critical elements to the war. Much like men, the motivations of countries are complicated. I can quote documents about the reasons for the war from Abe directly contradicting you. Why is it complicated? Because all participants are individuals with individual motivation.[/quote]
My argument is about the reason for the creation of the CSA (about which Abe’s writings and speeches do not change anything). This – fudging lines between the CSA’s motivation in seceding and the federal government’s motivation in fighting secession – is another fatuous revisionist tactic. I would be happy to illustrate this with evidence if you want to put yours up against mine.
[quote]
I can also continue to point out the flaws in the people you are defacto arguing in favor of celebrating from the same time.[/quote]
I am not “de facto arguing in favor of celebrating” anyone. I am arguing against the public celebration of certain historical figures, and I have written many words about what sets these historical figures apart from most others in our history – words that have gone unaddressed. You tried vis-a-vis the War of 1812 and then backed away quickly when I pressed for evidence. You can argue whatever you want about Grant – I am entirely open to the suggestion that is not worthy of celebration with taxpayer property. Again: You can argue whatever you want about Grant – I am entirely open to the suggestion that is not worthy of celebration with taxpayer property. But in order to argue against me, you have to address my argument, which has to do with whether or not it is appropriate to publicly celebrate people who tried to break the United States by creating and leading a country whose raison d’etre was, explicitly, defense of the institution of slavery. That you would rather pivot to other people about whom these words do not apply and, furthermore, about whom I have not made an argument – this says much even as it endeavors to avoid saying anything at all.
Agreed with your last post, and well said. But one thing I will certainly grant you - it is difficult for someone in my position to make the case when so many have used images/names/symbols in bad faith to promote racist, or if not outrightly racist, unsavory ideas. Many of these troglodytes hide behind the kinds of arguments I am making, but have much darker actual motives in wanted to honor certain Confederate men. And the problem is, people know their use of the good faity arguments is just a cover.
Doesn’t change my view, but I certainly see where someone who doesn’t see it my way would start at a place of skepticism.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I haven’t argued with your “slavery is the only reason for the civil war” not because I agree, but because it’s been beat to death and I just plan don’t care to get on that merry go round again. There are, in fact, a number of critical elements to the war. Much like men, the motivations of countries are complicated. I can quote documents about the reasons for the war from Abe directly contradicting you. Why is it complicated? Because all participants are individuals with individual motivation.[/quote]
My argument is about the reason for the creation of the CSA (about which Abe’s writings and speeches do not change anything). This – fudging lines between the CSA’s motivation in seceding and the federal government’s motivation in fighting secession – is another fatuous revisionist tactic. I would be happy to illustrate this with evidence if you want to put yours up against mine.
[quote]
I can also continue to point out the flaws in the people you are defacto arguing in favor of celebrating from the same time.[/quote]
I am not “de facto arguing in favor of celebrating” anyone. I am arguing against the public celebration of certain historical figures, and I have written many words about what sets these historical figures apart from most others in our history – words that have gone unaddressed. You tried vis-a-vis the War of 1812 and then backed away quickly when I pressed for evidence. You can argue whatever you want about Grant – I am entirely open to the suggestion that is not worthy of celebration with taxpayer property. Again: You can argue whatever you want about Grant – I am entirely open to the suggestion that is not worthy of celebration with taxpayer property. But in order to argue against me, you have to address my argument, which has to do with whether or not it is appropriate to publicly celebrate people who tried to break the United States by creating and leading a country whose raison d’etre was, explicitly, defense of the institution of slavery. That you would rather pivot to other people about whom these words do not apply and, furthermore, about whom I have not made an argument – this says much even as it endeavors to avoid saying anything at all.[/quote]
Considering the North marched on the South to perpetuate the use of force, the North’s reasoning in the culpability for the death of combatants kinda matters too.
What deserves celebration is subjective. You’ve laid out your criteria. I’ve been saying “fine, that’s your opinion” and illustrating that its’ logical conclusion is a whitewashing of history. Something you’ve denied but now presumably are saying you’re open to? If we are going to get rid people involved in horrible injustices, with horribly immoral beliefs, you are going to get rid of most everyone from the even marginally distant past. I’ll argue against Grant sure plus Sherman, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, Jackson, Malcon X, and on and on and on. There are plenty of really powerful reasons NOT to celebrate any of them. Some of them far worse than the likes of guys like LEE and even Forrest.
Did you know that only 12.5 Africans were brought to the new world to be slave labor, and that the holocaust only killed between 15-20 million?
Meanwhile somewhere between 50-70 million native people were killed by those evil Europeans settlers in North America and we havent taken down Mount Rushmore yet…
it’s only a matter of time[/quote]
Yes…
It won’t end with the Confederate flag as all the arguments will have been made, and accepted, for then removing the US flag for a new one. Sort of like how Polyamorous marriage is not set up for a victory after a recent ruling… The flag will change for another. One that never flew over slave stacked, disease ridden ships and the ports where slaves were unloaded like cargo. Or carried high by Calvary shooting down Natives, or driving them to ‘generous’ reservations. The arguments will begin for a new flag, a clean slate, created and agreed upon during a truly multi-racial/cultural period. The Confederate flag, US dollars losing Presidents for women and minorities, and then the US flag.
The nation was not built only for slavery – [/quote]
What? I fail to see the difference. Did that make the slave ships more comfortable or something?
I still fail to see how this makes the nation’s slavery more cozy…
Well sure, the CSA didn’t ever get the chance to learn and grow, remember? In the end it’s still the US/Union that carried on with slavery longer than the CSA (and "learned’) even existed.
A lot of people are simply motivated to wipe out that embarrassing southern culture. You know, that culture shared by a group we can all still make fun of as we do our exaggerated southern/hill-billy/swamp-people/cracker accents while parodying their country/southern songs. When we talk about all the slack-jawed “rednecks” we saw during our trip to Florida. As we make our jokes about “cousins make dozens” and “sister-wives.”
By the way, how many of the same folks screaming about the flag after the shooting are now screaming about the Koran after the marines were just killed? Curious.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
A lot of people are simply motivated to wipe out that embarrassing southern culture. You know, that culture shared by a group we can all still make fun of as we do our exaggerated southern/hill-billy/swamp-people/cracker accents while parodying their country/southern songs. When we talk about all the slack-jawed “rednecks” we saw during our trip to Florida. As we make our jokes about “cousins make dozens” and “sister-wives.” [/quote]
We had some hippies over for dinner a while back. The Redskins controversy came up and I asked them why the name is offensive, but we can openly make fun of “rednecks”. Their reason was that “rednecks” were never ill-treated and are usually racist themselves.
I’d also like to know why it’s currently hip to suggest white people with red hair don’t have souls. Can you imagine the outrage if you suggested a non-white person didn’t have a soul based on a physical attribute?
Two weeks ago, a gay guy told me the following joke:
“Did you hear about the National Ginger Convention? Not a soul showed up!”.
Someone made a gay joke later that day and he pulled that person aside.
We had some hippies over for dinner a while back. The Redskins controversy came up and I asked them why the name is offensive, but we can openly make fun of “rednecks”. Their reason was that “rednecks” were never ill-treated and are usually racist themselves.
I’d also like to know why it’s currently hip to suggest white people with red hair don’t have souls. Can you imagine the outrage if you suggested a non-white person didn’t have a soul based on a physical attribute?
Two weeks ago, a gay guy told me the following joke:
“Did you hear about the National Ginger Convention? Not a soul showed up!”.
Someone made a gay joke later that day and he pulled that person aside. [/quote]
Because somehow it’s PC not to offend anyone but straight, white, christian people.
And according to the PC police, “the fixers” or the social justice warriors, if you disagree with this you are some how labeled a fascist neo-nazi white supremacist, racist.
That kind of thinking is tolerated in today’s PC world.
One should not compare or blame an entire race or religion to the acts of a few. That statement has been drilled into our heads over and over, yet the very same people who repeat this think it’s ok to compare all white people with Roof, or claim all police are somehow evil or corrupt.
I guess my “stupid and self evidently absurd” post doesn’t deserve a reply from one as intelligent and articulate as you…[/quote]
I used those words after you compared Malcolm X’s rhetoric with the leaders of a country that fought a war against Americans after having been formed in order to protect the chattelhood of black slaves.
Yes, it was stupid and absurd. No, it doesn’t deserve a reply.
I guess my “stupid and self evidently absurd” post doesn’t deserve a reply from one as intelligent and articulate as you…[/quote]
I used those words after you compared Malcolm X’s rhetoric with the leaders of a country that fought a war against Americans after having been formed in order to protect the chattelhood of black slaves.
Yes, it was stupid and absurd. No, it doesn’t deserve a reply.[/quote]
Yet you did reply to that one, and the this one, but not the post that blows your argument to shit… Gotcha.
Note to self: SMH takes the easy road out when confronted with a superior argument. I’ll remember that next time and not waste my time with you.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
By the way, how many of the same folks screaming about the flag after the shooting are now screaming about the Koran after the marines were just killed? Curious.[/quote]
I’m sure there was no religious motivation and it was completely random…
I guess my “stupid and self evidently absurd” post doesn’t deserve a reply from one as intelligent and articulate as you…[/quote]
I used those words after you compared Malcolm X’s rhetoric with the leaders of a country that fought a war against Americans after having been formed in order to protect the chattelhood of black slaves.
Yes, it was stupid and absurd. No, it doesn’t deserve a reply.[/quote]
Yet you did reply to that one, and the this one, but not the post that blows your argument to shit… Gotcha.
Note to self: SMH takes the easy road out when confronted with a superior argument. I’ll remember that next time and not waste my time with you.
[/quote]
The “edit: ah nevermind” that you quoted was not a response to your last post. In case you haven’t noticed, this thread has become smh v. half a dozen posters making separate (albeit qualitatively alike) arguments. I was not going to respond to your last post because it was an incoherent word-salad full of ALL CAPSSSSS and horseshit (i.e., a waste of my time). But since you’re greasily talking it up as a “superior argument” that “blows [mine] to shit,” I’ll reconsider.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
No, this thread is about people claiming “victim status” over shit that never happened to them, and choosing to be offended by history. Well guess what?
HISTORY HAPPENED![/quote]
Whatever you have fantasized “this thread” to be about, my argument has been, from the very beginning, that certain historical causes and figures are not appropriate for celebration on public property and with taxpayer money. As anyone who can read at a fourth-grade level can surmise, “victim status” has not figured – at all – into the previous sentence. There is no more argument on this point.
[quote]
My Great Great Grandfather RODE with General Lee. Why? He didn’t own any slaves. But the North had an Army advancing towards his HOME. The home of MY ancestors that they had EVERY FUCKING RIGHT TO DEFEND. So he fought in “Thje War Of Northern Aggression” and he fought bravely and managed to live long enough to pass his genetic code down to little old me.
It was the same with MANY PEOPLE. But you northern Yankee FUCKS don’t acknowledge THAT part of it. “it’s all about SLAAAAAAVERY!”. Well guess what? NOT FOR EVERYONE, IT WASN’T! For many people it was about defending their homes and their livelihoods because an invading army made their town a fucking battleground.
What would YOU do, SMH? If an advancing army with thousands of soldiers came marching your way, seizing your resources and raping your women as they came? Would you JOIN this army out of some noble principle, or would you fight against an unwelcomed, uninvited INVADING force that came to your porch, kicked the door in and if you didn’t feed them, they’d burn your house down after they raped your wife and daughters?
Oh, you don’t want to talk about THAT side of the war, do you? That would distract you from your progressive narrative, now wouldn’t it?
My arguments are FAR from stupid, my friend. You are the one with the one trick pony of “SLAAAAVERY”. Not everyone fought for slavery. Those that fought to defend their homes, such as my great great grandfather, fought with HONOR. They fought under that flag that you seek to ban and their ancestors (ME) have EVERY FUCKING RIGHT to be proud to fly it (and I do). But we’re just scratching the surface… [/quote]
Unless you have read your great, great grandfather’s diaries or some other primary evidence – which you may well have – you have no idea whether he fought for slavery. Many non-slave-owners were as adamant about keeping the negro in shackles as their rich, landed superiors. But even if we assume that slavery didn’t figure into his soldiership, do you believe that he is unique in having been swept up in a war the great historical causes and implications of which had no bearing on his actual life? No, you don’t, because you know that the very same phenomenon is attested a thousand-fold in every war since war’s beginning. Here is what this simple fact does not do: it does not change anything about the wars themselves, and it does not change anything about their various historical meanings. The CSA was created for an explicit set of reasons, and your great great grandfather – about whom, as you know, nobody outside of your family cares in the slightest – doesn’t have any power to change this. Because of this explicit set of reasons, celebration of the CSA is plainly and obviously stupid, and if your great, great grandfather actually was forced by advancing northern armies into a war he wouldn’t have otherwise joined/supported, then the CSA’s creation (in explicit defense of slavery) and its subsequent war with the North (in resistance of the undoing of the CSA’s breaking of the United States of America, which country’s citizens’ money, you would do well to remember, we’re talking about right now) were in fact great and unfair burdens hoisted upon him by the moral filth responsible for breaking the United States into pieces for reasons like the following:
“We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.”
…Which is to say in other words that if your great, great grandfather was not interested in killing Americans in order to remain broken apart from the U.S. for the sake of the ownership of black slaves, then his memory is in fact dishonored by celebration of the CSA, which did him injury by bringing war upon him.
Furthermore, when we talk about celebrating CSA leaders, we are in fact talking about celebrating CSA leaders – people who were politically or militarily instrumental in the creation and administration of the Confederacy – i.e., people from whom the Confederacy’s raison d’etre is fundamentally inextricable.
[quote]
African Americans are not the only people to ever be enslaved in the US. For example, the Irish were enslaved by the English and brought to America - you don’t see them up in arms and asking for reparations, do you? “I’m Irish and the British enslaved my ancestors, so I want ALL streets, schools and parks with a British name to be changed”. That’s fucking ridiculous.[/quote]
This is a stupid and ahistorical line of reasoning that gained currency on white supremacist websites because of ridiculous (but, no doubt, intentional) misinterpretations and misrepresentations of a historical monograph (which I’ve read in full) and a couple of journal articles. Both TB and I, among others, spent a little effort (but too much time) tearing it to pieces. I’m not going to do it again, so here’s the link if you’re interested:
While this is a fascinating history lesson, it has jack and fucking shit to do with whether or not the CSA is worthy of celebration on public property and with public money. Or is “genocide happened” a good argument to the same effect, mutatis mutandis? Only if you are an utter imbecile.
[quote]
There is like ONE African American still alive today who was allegedly a slave, and he’s 109 years old. THATS IT![/quote]
Again, it is entirely unclear what you think this changes.
[quote]
Everyone else is just playing the race / victim card and trying to curtail the First Amendment rights of other people in the name of political correctness - just like you are doing.[/quote]
I am not going to explain to you what the First Amendment does and does not protect, but it’s clear you would do well to try figuring it out on your own. My response to the next excerpt will offer you a clue.
Nobody in this thread wants to “ban a flag.” I literally could not care less about, for example, you flying CSA colors above your house. This is about public money, public property, what they ought/ought not be used to celebrate. Or do you believe that “First Amendment!!!” is an argument against, say, someone who says it’s inappropriate to fly a Black Panther flag before the State House in Albany, New York? Do you believe it’s an argument against someone who objects to the naming of a public high school “Anwar Al-Awlaki Memorial High”? No. Or maybe you do believe this, in which case we can just stop debating now.
[quote]
Open your eyes. The Left is following the Progressing axiom of “never let a good crisis go to waste”. That’s IT! They saw an opening to “take” from their enemy (the WHITE MAN, the SOUTH, the RACIST CRACKER, etc…) something that they hold dear, and they won. This was only a skirmish in a much larger war - and that WAR is against YOU, and ME and ALL AMERICANS. It is a war against our freedom and you are following lock step with their jack booted thugs that would jump at the chance to “re-educate” EVERYONE who doesn’t see the world in their twisted socialist viewpoint. Bravo, SMH - I thought you were smarter than that. But you’re just another libtard drinking the koolaid.[/quote]
Thanks for the diversion, from the bottom of my “libtard” heart.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
By the way, how many of the same folks screaming about the flag after the shooting are now screaming about the Koran after the marines were just killed? Curious.[/quote]
I’m sure there was no religious motivation and it was completely random… [/quote]. According to CNN right now, he wasn’t a terrorist he was just misunderstood… And the irony (or not) of the shooting in a “gun free zone”. Gun free for everyone except the shooter. As always in these situations since CC was implemented.
I guess my “stupid and self evidently absurd” post doesn’t deserve a reply from one as intelligent and articulate as you…[/quote]
I used those words after you compared Malcolm X’s rhetoric with the leaders of a country that fought a war against Americans after having been formed in order to protect the chattelhood of black slaves.
Yes, it was stupid and absurd. No, it doesn’t deserve a reply.[/quote]
Yet you did reply to that one, and the this one, but not the post that blows your argument to shit… Gotcha.
Note to self: SMH takes the easy road out when confronted with a superior argument. I’ll remember that next time and not waste my time with you.
[/quote]
The “edit: ah nevermind” that you quoted was not a response to your last post. In case you haven’t noticed, this thread has become smh v. half a dozen posters making separate (albeit qualitatively alike) arguments. I was not going to respond to your last post because it was an incoherent word-salad full of ALL CAPSSSSS and horseshit (i.e., a waste of my time). But since you’re greasily talking it up as a “superior argument” that “blows [mine] to shit,” I’ll reconsider.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
No, this thread is about people claiming “victim status” over shit that never happened to them, and choosing to be offended by history. Well guess what?
HISTORY HAPPENED![/quote]
Whatever you have fantasized “this thread” to be about, my argument has been, from the very beginning, that certain historical causes and figures are not appropriate for celebration on public property and with taxpayer money. As anyone who can read at a fourth-grade level can surmise, “victim status” has not figured – at all – into the previous sentence. There is no more argument on this point.
[/quote]Yes, there is. Because YOUR argument want’s to infringe upon each STATE’S right to fly whatever fucking flag it wants. You want to CONTROL us. You want to impose YOUR version and view of history on OTHER PEOPLE. If a STATE wants vote on some of the issues you are proposing that’s fine with me, that is their right. But what you are proposing is some sweeping FEDERAL standard that will cover ALL things “confederate”, and it’s fucking bullshit. Who the fuck are YOU to play God? What you are proposing is quite simply UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I’d say that’s a far better argument than your liberal drivel. The TENTH AMMENDMENT - READ IT. It damn sure doesn’t give you (or the Federal government) the right to tell STATES what to do.[quote]
[quote]
My Great Great Grandfather RODE with General Lee. Why? He didn’t own any slaves. But the North had an Army advancing towards his HOME. The home of MY ancestors that they had EVERY FUCKING RIGHT TO DEFEND. So he fought in “Thje War Of Northern Aggression” and he fought bravely and managed to live long enough to pass his genetic code down to little old me.
It was the same with MANY PEOPLE. But you northern Yankee FUCKS don’t acknowledge THAT part of it. “it’s all about SLAAAAAAVERY!”. Well guess what? NOT FOR EVERYONE, IT WASN’T! For many people it was about defending their homes and their livelihoods because an invading army made their town a fucking battleground.
What would YOU do, SMH? If an advancing army with thousands of soldiers came marching your way, seizing your resources and raping your women as they came? Would you JOIN this army out of some noble principle, or would you fight against an unwelcomed, uninvited INVADING force that came to your porch, kicked the door in and if you didn’t feed them, they’d burn your house down after they raped your wife and daughters?
Oh, you don’t want to talk about THAT side of the war, do you? That would distract you from your progressive narrative, now wouldn’t it?
My arguments are FAR from stupid, my friend. You are the one with the one trick pony of “SLAAAAVERY”. Not everyone fought for slavery. Those that fought to defend their homes, such as my great great grandfather, fought with HONOR. They fought under that flag that you seek to ban and their ancestors (ME) have EVERY FUCKING RIGHT to be proud to fly it (and I do). But we’re just scratching the surface… [/quote]
Unless you have read your great, great grandfather’s diaries or some other primary evidence – which you may well have – you have no idea whether he fought for slavery.
[/quote]That’s an awfully big assumption you are making about MY family. I STATED the reasons he fought. Who are you to challenge them?[quote]
Many non-slave-owners were as adamant about keeping the negro in shackles as their rich, landed superiors. But even if we assume that slavery didn’t figure into his soldiership, do you believe that he is unique in having been swept up in a war the great historical causes and implications of which had no bearing on his actual life? No, you don’t, because you know that the very same phenomenon is attested a thousand-fold in every war since war’s beginning. Here is what this simple fact does not do: it does not change anything about the wars themselves, and it does not change anything about their various historical meanings. The CSA was created for an explicit set of reasons, and your great great grandfather – about whom, as you know, nobody outside of your family cares in the slightest – doesn’t have any power to change this. Because of this explicit set of reasons, celebration of the CSA is plainly and obviously stupid,
[/quote]You are obviously a fucking retard if that’s how you really feel. Let’s take that position and apply it to modern times: the Iraq war. Are all of those veterans “STUPID”? I mean, they fought bravely and sacrificed life and limb for WMD’s that weren’t there… According to you, their bravery and courage is worth nothing because the premise of the war was “wrong”. Are you going on record stating that OUR American troops should not be celebrated? Dig your way out of that one, Asshole. [quote]
and if your great, great grandfather actually was forced by advancing northern armies into a war he wouldn’t have otherwise joined/supported, then the CSA’s creation (in explicit defense of slavery) and its subsequent war with the North (in resistance of the undoing of the CSA’s breaking of the United States of America, which country’s citizens’ money, you would do well to remember, we’re talking about right now) were in fact great and unfair burdens hoisted upon him by the moral filth responsible for breaking the United States into pieces for reasons like the following:
“We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.”
…Which is to say in other words that if your great, great grandfather was not interested in killing Americans in order to remain broken apart from the U.S. for the sake of the ownership of black slaves, then his memory is in fact dishonored by celebration of the CSA, which did him injury by bringing war upon him.
[/quote]You never answered my question above, SMH. What would YOU DO if an invading army kicked in your front door and demanded that you feed them or they’d rape your wife and daughters and burn your house down? I suppose a coward like you would probably join them.
The Northern Army RAPED it’s way through the south. Burning and pillaging as they went. It was a TOTAL war. And guess who their primary target’s were? Negro women. You know, the one’s they were supposedly “fighting for”…
Riddle me that… [quote]
Furthermore, when we talk about celebrating CSA leaders, we are in fact talking about celebrating CSA leaders – people who were politically or militarily instrumental in the creation and administration of the Confederacy – i.e., people from whom the Confederacy’s raison d’etre is fundamentally inextricable.
[quote]
African Americans are not the only people to ever be enslaved in the US. For example, the Irish were enslaved by the English and brought to America - you don’t see them up in arms and asking for reparations, do you? “I’m Irish and the British enslaved my ancestors, so I want ALL streets, schools and parks with a British name to be changed”. That’s fucking ridiculous.[/quote]
This is a stupid and ahistorical line of reasoning that gained currency on white supremacist websites because of ridiculous (but, no doubt, intentional) misinterpretations and misrepresentations of a historical monograph (which I’ve read in full) and a couple of journal articles. Both TB and I, among others, spent a little effort (but too much time) tearing it to pieces. I’m not going to do it again, so here’s the link if you’re interested:
While this is a fascinating history lesson, it has jack and fucking shit to do with whether or not the CSA is worthy of celebration on public property and with public money. Or is “genocide happened” a good argument to the same effect, mutatis mutandis? Only if you are an utter imbecile.
[quote]
There is like ONE African American still alive today who was allegedly a slave, and he’s 109 years old. THATS IT![/quote]
Again, it is entirely unclear what you think this changes.
[quote]
Everyone else is just playing the race / victim card and trying to curtail the First Amendment rights of other people in the name of political correctness - just like you are doing.[/quote]
I am not going to explain to you what the First Amendment does and does not protect, but it’s clear you would do well to try figuring it out on your own. My response to the next excerpt will offer you a clue.
[/quote]I don’t need your help figuring that out, thank you very much. Even if that’s the thrust of YOUR particular argument, when Walmart and Amazon decide to ban things because of “pressure”, you can goddamned well count on the fact that it’s going WAY beyond State and federal property.[quote]
Nobody in this thread wants to “ban a flag.” I literally could not care less about, for example, you flying CSA colors above your house. [/quote]There are plenty that do[quote] This is about public money, public property, what they ought/ought not be used to celebrate. Or do you believe that “First Amendment!!!” is an argument against, say, someone who says it’s inappropriate to fly a Black Panther flag before the State House in Albany, New York? Do you believe it’s an argument against someone who objects to the naming of a public high school “Anwar Al-Awlaki Memorial High”? No. Or maybe you do believe this, in which case we can just stop debating now.
[/quote]No, but I believe that “TENTH Amendment” is an appropriate argument [quote]
[quote]
Open your eyes. The Left is following the Progressing axiom of “never let a good crisis go to waste”. That’s IT! They saw an opening to “take” from their enemy (the WHITE MAN, the SOUTH, the RACIST CRACKER, etc…) something that they hold dear, and they won. This was only a skirmish in a much larger war - and that WAR is against YOU, and ME and ALL AMERICANS. It is a war against our freedom and you are following lock step with their jack booted thugs that would jump at the chance to “re-educate” EVERYONE who doesn’t see the world in their twisted socialist viewpoint. Bravo, SMH - I thought you were smarter than that. But you’re just another libtard drinking the koolaid.[/quote]
Thanks for the diversion, from the bottom of my “libtard” heart.
I guess my “stupid and self evidently absurd” post doesn’t deserve a reply from one as intelligent and articulate as you…[/quote]
I used those words after you compared Malcolm X’s rhetoric with the leaders of a country that fought a war against Americans after having been formed in order to protect the chattelhood of black slaves.
Yes, it was stupid and absurd. No, it doesn’t deserve a reply.[/quote]
Yet you did reply to that one, and the this one, but not the post that blows your argument to shit… Gotcha.
Note to self: SMH takes the easy road out when confronted with a superior argument. I’ll remember that next time and not waste my time with you.
[/quote]
The “edit: ah nevermind” that you quoted was not a response to your last post. In case you haven’t noticed, this thread has become smh v. half a dozen posters making separate (albeit qualitatively alike) arguments. I was not going to respond to your last post because it was an incoherent word-salad full of ALL CAPSSSSS and horseshit (i.e., a waste of my time). But since you’re greasily talking it up as a “superior argument” that “blows [mine] to shit,” I’ll reconsider.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
No, this thread is about people claiming “victim status” over shit that never happened to them, and choosing to be offended by history. Well guess what?
HISTORY HAPPENED![/quote]
Whatever you have fantasized “this thread” to be about, my argument has been, from the very beginning, that certain historical causes and figures are not appropriate for celebration on public property and with taxpayer money. As anyone who can read at a fourth-grade level can surmise, “victim status” has not figured – at all – into the previous sentence. There is no more argument on this point.
[/quote]
Yes, there is. Because YOUR argument want’s to infringe upon each STATE’S right to fly whatever fucking flag it wants. You want to CONTROL us. You want to impose YOUR version and view of history on OTHER PEOPLE. If a STATE wants vote on some of the issues you are proposing that’s fine with me, that is their right. But what you are proposing is some sweeping FEDERAL standard that will cover ALL things “confederate”, and it’s fucking bullshit. Who the fuck are YOU to play God? What you are proposing is quite simply UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I’d say that’s a far better argument than your liberal drivel. The TENTH AMMENDMENT - READ IT. It damn sure doesn’t give you (or the Federal government) the right to tell STATES what to do.[/quote]
“But what you are proposing is some sweeping FEDERAL standard that will cover ALL things…”
What the ever-loving fuck are you talking about? You go ahead and find the words of mine in which I proposed a federal ban on anything. Actually, I’ll save you the time – I never did. If you were to liberate your head from your own body cavity, you might discover that, contrary to what you have evidently been assuming in fantasyland, this particular leg of our discussion has to do with the wisdom or folly of legislation proposed in the state of California. Either way (and more importantly), I am and have from the beginning been making arguments about what are and what are not stupid things to celebrate with public property and money, and nowhere in my argument is some explicit or implicit call for federal legislation. Part of what makes me reluctant to continue in this thread is that idiots keep re-making old and stupid arguments that have already been dealt deserved deaths. To repeat myself for the last time: When I say that something ought or ought not to be done, I am not necessarily endorsing any particular action on any particular party’s behalf. So, when I say that it’s stupid for Finland to charge $60,000 for a speeding ticket, I am not suggesting that the U.S. army invade and conquer Finland in order to put things in order. I am instead making a simple and worthwhile argument about what is and what is not stupid for my fellow humans to be doing. Similarly, when I say that there are lots of things parents shouldn’t teach their children, I am not advocating for the government to set up a department in order to monitor and regulate what kids are told while they’re being tucked into bed.
What I argue when I argue is just what I’m arguing – it does not include nonsense that you bake, in some kind of fever-dream, into my position. It is highly uncharitable of you to force me to waste my time teaching you the very basics of thought and argument.
[quote]
That’s an awfully big assumption you are making about MY family. I STATED the reasons he fought. Who are you to challenge them?[/quote]
“Which you may well have.” Again, you need to be able to get through this on your own, without hand-holding and in one try.
[quote]
You are obviously a fucking retard if that’s how you really feel. Let’s take that position and apply it to modern times: the Iraq war. Are all of those veterans “STUPID”? I mean, they fought bravely and sacrificed life and limb for WMD’s that weren’t there… According to you, their bravery and courage is worth nothing because the premise of the war was “wrong”. Are you going on record stating that OUR American troops should not be celebrated? Dig your way out of that one, Asshole.[/quote]
The logic here is laughably bad, and it’s made even more laughable by “dig your way out of that one, asshole.” First, the Iraq War, clusterfuck that it was, is not remotely comparable to the CSA’s forming in defense of slavery and then fighting against the re-making of the United States. Second, if you read what I wrote, you will discover that what I was calling “STUPID” was the public celebration, in 2015, of the CSA. I was clearly not referring to any individual soldier who fought for the South. Making your analogy more apt (or “less like a pile of dog shit”), if we had fought the Iraq War in an attempt to safeguard our right to own other human beings as chattel, it would in fact be very and obviously stupid for us to celebrate the Iraq War with public money in the future. Not a bad digger, eh?
I’m going to assume that you don’t have evidence of my cowardice and are instead trying to make yourself feel tough out of a needling suspicion that you aren’t. Or perhaps it is simply the case that you are under some kind of contractual obligation to behave, at least once per argument, like – note that I try not to be too crude, but I do allow myself the odd Chaucerian vulgarity – a weak and whiny cunt?
Anyway, I am not defending any rape committed by the Union army, and my answer to your question is that it is fucking inconsequential for reasons already very clearly given. See the part about how people’s being swept up in history does not alter the great realities of that history. See, more importantly, the part about how, if you’re right about the motivations of your great, great grandfather’s soldiership, to celebrate the CSA is to dishonor him by licking the boots of the moral filth who broke the United States for slavery and then fought to defend the disunion they’d made.
[quote]
[quote]
I don’t need your help figuring that out, thank you very much. Even if that’s the thrust of YOUR particular argument, when Walmart and Amazon decide to ban things because of “pressure”, you can goddamned well count on the fact that it’s going WAY beyond State and federal property.[/quote]
Then you shouldn’t have brought up the First Amendment, which sure as shit has nothing to do with consumer pressure, Walmart, and Amazon. Consumers are free to criticize retailers, and retailers are free to respond or not respond as they please. Again, you would do well to figure out just what the First Amendment does and does not protect. Go ahead and read it: It isn’t long. This is the last time that I help you to understand one of the simplest and most fundamental political principles of the country in which you live.
