Conservative SC Rep. Doug Brannon to introduce bill to remove Confederate flag

[theeedude]

Republicans don't seem to get the difference between:
the government flying a confederate flag and private citizen flying a confederate flag
and between:
the government banning flying a confederate flag, and private citizens not wanting it flying

It's their siege mentality in action.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Nowhere there does she say people should be prevented from flying that flag, just that it shouldn't be flown. There is a frankly gigantic difference.

My guess is you think the Nazi flag shouldn't be flown anywhere. (I certainly do) that does not mean I think people should be stopped from doing it if they want to.

Your examples were total failures because you don't understand the difference between private and government speech.

Hahahahaha oh boy....

First you ask for where it is being discussed to do more than take down public flags. I link examples, then you go back and want a SPECIFIC quote of words that directly came out of their mouths. No political figurehead is going to say those exact words from the fear of backlash.

Apparently you haven't heard of the language of the politician. But I digress, it's always a back and forth with you 2 puppets. Never consistent, always changing.

 

[fskimospy]

Hahahahaha oh boy....

First you ask for where it is being discussed to do more than take down public flags. I link examples, then you go back and want a SPECIFIC quote of words that directly came out of their mouths. No political figurehead is going to say those exact words from the fear of backlash.

Apparently you haven't heard of the language of the politician. But I digress, it's always a back and forth with you 2 puppets. Never consistent, always changing.

Ahh, so in other words despite no one calling for what you claim they are calling for you just know in your heart that's what it is.

Wake up and look at how ridiculous what you're saying is.

 

[First]

Hahahahaha oh boy....

First you ask for where it is being discussed to do more than take down public flags. I link examples, then you go back and want a SPECIFIC quote of words that directly came out of their mouths. No political figurehead is going to say those exact words from the fear of backlash.

Apparently you haven't heard of the language of the politician. But I digress, it's always a back and forth with you 2 puppets. Never consistent, always changing.

This isn't even a half-way decent attempt at obfuscation. I thought you were a better troll than this.

Come on, even you must be embarrassed for being called out and then coming up completely empty-handed. Don't you feel a little shame, just a little? lol

 

[First]

Btw, nowhere did I say I ask for proof of discussions on banning all confederate imagery (i.e. not just the flag), as that is a complete no-brainer given that the confederate flag is not the only imagery of white supremacy, and the primary cause of these 9 murders. What was specifically asked was your hysterical claim that "people and the media" are talking about banning confederate imagery in homes or some shit. Sorry, that ain't happening. Free speech, and all that.

 

[etrigan420]

Let's get one thing straight: the issue being discussed on the media and the public is NOT bringing down the Confederate flag. It is about demanding the flag stop being produced altogether, let alone simply flying one on a building or in a yard.

Do you have any proof of this or not?

None of your linked articles support your statement, so quit the jibber-jabber adolescent "mic-dropping" nonsense and just answer the goddamned question, "bro-encephalitis".

 

[Fern]

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

The Whiskey Rebellion as the genesis of the Civil War. In Pennsylvania?! Are you fucking joking?
-snip-

Although older accounts of the Whiskey Rebellion portrayed it as being confined to western Pennsylvania, there was opposition to the whiskey tax in the western counties of every other state in Appalachia (Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia).[32] The whiskey tax went uncollected throughout the frontier state of Kentucky, where no one could be convinced to enforce the law or prosecute evaders.[33][34] In 1792, Hamilton advocated military action to suppress violent resistance in western North Carolina, but Attorney General Edmund Randolph argued there was insufficient evidence to legally justify such a reaction.[35]

That part of PA is in the Appalachians. The federal troops continued on down through here.

Also read the 2nd paragraph of this article linked below (The Whiskey Rebellion in North Carolina
Jeffrey J. Crow
The North Carolina Historical Review
Vol. 66, No. 1 (JANUARY 1989), pp. 1-28 .
( I can't seem to figure out how to copy paste that paragraph here.)
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23520745?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Reality isn't buying what you're selling.

Reality is that you're looking at a truncated, white washed version of history.

Everybody knows the victor gets to write the history, but nobody says it's accurate.

The Whiskey tax began right after the Revolutionary War. I.e., the South's problems with the federal govt/North began almost immediately. So, yeah it can fairly be said to the genesis. The Civil War (secession really, the North attacked the South which is what actually causing the Civil War) is a culmination of a long list of grievances many in the South had with Northerners and other self-styled elites.

(Actually, dissatisfaction down here began when the original Articles of Confederation were replaced the Constitution of 1787. If I have time later I'll circle back here and link to some scholarly article on the matter, from the Univ of GA IIRC.)

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Yet here, 150 years later we have people like fern who have been duped into believing it was about taxes. Motivated reasoning at its finest.

I didn't say taxes. Read better next time.

The Civil War was about what virtually all wars in the history of mankind have been about: Money and power. (Those are just sides of the same coin. Money gets you power, reference big corps and lobbyists. Power gets you money, reference our politician peddling influence and funneling lucrative contracts to family and friends. Bill and Hillary were broke but now have over $100 million?)


This is money I spoke above above:
Shipping laws at the time required Southern cotton exports to go through Northern brokers for export to Europe. They were raking off the bulk of the profit. This profit flow to the North from Southern agri products would be stopped immediately upon session. The Confederate States would need not adhere to the shipping laws and could export directly cutting out the North. This, of course, could not be tolerated by the North.

This is what I wrote above:

Another thing many don't like to hear is that the profits from cotton/slavery largely went to the North. You see the North had passed laws that prevented Southerners from selling the big cash crops like cotton to Europe. So the northerners bought it from southern plantations for a low price and used their ships to carry it to Europe and make the big profit.

How you missed that and managed to mangle it into 'session over taxes' I'll never know.

The North was wealthier by 1860 (initially the South was wealthier area) however not by all that much. At the time of session the South alone would have been the 4th wealthiest nation in the world, ahead of countries such as France and Italy. The North couldn't let that go.

Additionally, upon secession the South/Confederate States became a nascent competitor to the North/USA. They needed to kill it in it's crib, so to speak. Otherwise there would be a race to see who could acquire the western territories, among other things.

Fern

 

[LightRider]

I don't believe in flags. Flags give people the right to steal land and claim that they have a country*. The earth is for all people equally. Abolish flaggery, I say.

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTduy7Qkvk8

 

[fskimospy]

I didn't say taxes. Read better next time.

The Civil War was about what virtually all wars in the history of mankind have been about: Money and power. (Those are just sides of the same coin. Money gets you power, reference big corps and lobbyists. Power gets you money, reference our politician peddling influence and funneling lucrative contracts to family and friends. Bill and Hillary were broke but now have over $100 million?)


This is money I spoke above above:
Shipping laws at the time required Southern cotton exports to go through Northern brokers for export to Europe. They were raking off the bulk of the profit. This profit flow to the North from Southern agri products would be stopped immediately upon session. The Confederate States would need not adhere to the shipping laws and could export directly cutting out the North. This, of course, could not be tolerated by the North.

This is what I wrote above:



How you missed that and managed to mangle it into 'session over taxes' I'll never know.

The North was wealthier by 1860 (initially the South was wealthier area) however not by all that much. At the time of session the South alone would have been the 4th wealthiest nation in the world, ahead of countries such as France and Italy. The North couldn't let that go.

Additionally, upon secession the South/Confederate States became a nascent competitor to the North/USA. They needed to kill it in it's crib, so to speak. Otherwise there would be a race to see who could acquire the western territories, among other things.

Fern

This is a huge amount of babbling in an attempt to say that the civil war was about anything other than the south wanting to perpetuate slavery.

I don't know who taught you such nonsense, but you were badly misinformed.

 

[First]

I didn't say taxes. Read better next time.

The Civil War was about what virtually all wars in the history of mankind have been about: Money and power. (Those are just sides of the same coin. Money gets you power, reference big corps and lobbyists. Power gets you money, reference our politician peddling influence and funneling lucrative contracts to family and friends. Bill and Hillary were broke but now have over $100 million?)


This is money I spoke above above:
Shipping laws at the time required Southern cotton exports to go through Northern brokers for export to Europe. They were raking off the bulk of the profit. This profit flow to the North from Southern agri products would be stopped immediately upon session. The Confederate States would need not adhere to the shipping laws and could export directly cutting out the North. This, of course, could not be tolerated by the North.

This is what I wrote above:



How you missed that and managed to mangle it into 'session over taxes' I'll never know.

The North was wealthier by 1860 (initially the South was wealthier area) however not by all that much. At the time of session the South alone would have been the 4th wealthiest nation in the world, ahead of countries such as France and Italy. The North couldn't let that go.

Additionally, upon secession the South/Confederate States became a nascent competitor to the North/USA. They needed to kill it in it's crib, so to speak. Otherwise there would be a race to see who could acquire the western territories, among other things.

Fern

One word missing from this WOT; slavery. It's amazes me people like you, clearly intelligent, are so willfully ignorant.

The Civil War wasn't about any one, single thing. There were all sorts of reasons, absolutely. But slavery was the 800lb gorilla in the room. To whitewash that the way you just did by overemphazing everything else, well, speaks for itself.

 

[fskimospy]

One word missing from this WOT; slavery. It's amazes me people like you, clearly intelligent, are so willfully ignorant.

The Civil War wasn't about any one, single thing. There were all sorts of reasons, absolutely. But slavery was the 800lb gorilla in the room. To whitewash that the way you just did by overemphazing everything else, well, speaks for itself.

Think about it this way: your ancestors were insanely horrible people who fought a big war so that they could keep enslaving black people because they were black.

Wouldn't you try to find a way where they were better than that?

Sure it's motivated reasoning, but I get it.

 

[Fern]

Couple things here. First, Lincoln was a politician, and as such he would say anything to advance his cause. At that moment, his cause was to avoid splintering the Union, but Lincoln was also known as something of an abolitionist who would certainly continue applying the pressure the Northern states were applying on the Southern. Without slavery being legal in the territories and new states, and with slaves free once they escaped the South
-snip-

IIRC, slaves weren't free once they escaped the South. There was a federal law to force Northern states to capture and return them. I also believe the SCOTUS had upheld in a case just shortly before the Civil War.

Yeah, found it. Here, look at the last SCOTUS case listed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_slave_court_cases

I happen to think Lincoln was one of the worst Presidents ever. IMO he needlessly caused a war that likely killed more soldiers than all other wars combined. Estimates are now at about 750,000: http://www.history.com/news/civil-war-deadlier-than-previously-thought

He also violated the Constitution and disobeyed SCOTUS.

You apparently think he was an idiot. To halt slavery/free all slaves would have been disastrous to this country and his presidency. It would have instantly wiped out a huge portion of this country's wealth. Look up how much the cotton industry was worth, how big it was. Then freed slaves would have been flooding North. Some here can believe the North were benevolent and non-racist but that's BS; they didn't want millions of former black slaves flooding in to their states.

No, he didn't want to abolish it for good reason. Hell, he allowed border states to continue on with slavery for a while after the Civil War.

His every move indicates he wanted to allow it to continue, but contain it and then transition the cotton industry (etc.) off slavery. But once the South seceded that plan was caput.

Most countries slowly transitioned, eventually finding other sources of cheap labor to take over (e.g., Indian and Chinese coolies who were often forced into labor, bought and sold and treated barely a step above slaves.) Check out South America if you're interested. They imported about 95% of the Africans sold in to slavery. They transitioned without a civil war; the European overlords didn't want to lose money.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

IIRC, slaves weren't free once they escaped the South. There was a federal law to force Northern states to capture and return them. I also believe the SCOTUS had upheld in a case just shortly before the Civil War.

Yeah, found it. Here, look at the last SCOTUS case listed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_slave_court_cases

I happen to think Lincoln was one of the worst Presidents ever. IMO he needlessly caused a war that likely killed more soldiers than all other wars combined. Estimates are now at about 750,000: http://www.history.com/news/civil-war-deadlier-than-previously-thought

He also violated the Constitution and disobeyed SCOTUS.

You apparently think he was an idiot. To halt slavery/free all slaves would have been disastrous to this country and his presidency. It would have instantly wiped out a huge portion of this country's wealth. Look up how much the cotton industry was worth, how big it was. Then freed slaves would have been flooding North. Some here can believe the North were benevolent and non-racist but that's BS; they didn't want millions of former black slaves flooding in to their states.

No, he didn't want to abolish it for good reason. Hell, he allowed border states to continue on with slavery for a while after the Civil War.

His every move indicates he wanted to allow it to continue, but contain it and then transition the cotton industry (etc.) off slavery. But once the South seceded that plan was caput.

Most countries slowly transitioned, eventually finding other sources of cheap labor to take over (e.g., Indian and Chinese coolies who were often forced into labor, bought and sold and treated barely a step above slaves.) Check out South America if you're interested. They imported about 95% of the Africans sold in to slavery. They transitioned without a civil war; the European overlords didn't want to lose money.

Fern

Holy shit. Quoting this in case you edit this later.

 

[Fern]

If the Confederate flag needs to banned because of slavery then we must ban the flags of New York, New Jersey etc.

New York slave uprising: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Slave_Revolt_of_1712

New Jersey (hell they continued to have slaves in NJ during the Civil War): http://slavenorth.com/newjersey.htm

At the start of the Civil War, New Jersey citizens owned 18 "apprentices for life" (the federal census listed them as "slaves") -- legal slaves by any name.

"New Jersey's emancipation law carefully protected existing property rights. No one lost a single slave, and the right to the services of young Negroes was fully protected. Moreover, the courts ruled that the right was a 'species of property,' transferable 'from one citizen to another like other personal property.' "[10]

Thus "New Jersey retained slaveholding without technically remaining a slave state.

If the Confederate flag must be banned because it fought a war against the USA then we must ban Mexican flags too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican–American_War

Fern

 

[Theb]

Pretty soon the only place to buy a confederate flag will be

Spoiler

the black market

.

 

[fskimospy]

If the Confederate flag needs to banned because of slavery then we must ban the flags of New York, New Jersey etc.

New York slave uprising: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Slave_Revolt_of_1712

New Jersey (hell they continued to have slaves in NJ during the Civil War): http://slavenorth.com/newjersey.htm



If the Confederate flag must be banned because it fought a war against the USA then we must ban Mexican flags too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican–American_War

Fern

You have grown up in a seriously terrible educational system.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

New York slave uprising: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Slave_Revolt_of_1712

New Jersey (hell they continued to have slaves in NJ during the Civil War): http://slavenorth.com/newjersey.htm

You do realize that

1) Their flags did not explicitly represent support of slavery due to how commonplace it was at the time, and
2) Neither had to be defeated in war in order to cease slavery

right?

 

[DrDoug]

I found out a few ago (via a family member) that the store director of at least one Kroger affiliate was told to pull all Confederate flagged merchandise.

Once again, WalMart leads the way...lol!

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

It's a forgone conclusion at this point. You'll still find them here and there I'm sure but it's toxic for a major chain not to hop on board now. It really feels like this event should have a name. The Great Confederate Purge of 2015?

 

[etrigan420]

You have grown up in a seriously terrible educational system.

Florida State University, if memory serves...

That would explain a ton.

 

[etrigan420]

It's a forgone conclusion at this point. You'll still find them here and there I'm sure but it's toxic for a major chain not to hop on board now. It really feels like this event should have a name. The Great Confederate Purge of 2015?

It's gotta have -gate in it somewhere.

Flaggate? Mmm, I see potential. The mild racist-homophobe tie in is convenient.

TheCivilWarWasAboutTheSouthsIndependence... ToEnlsaveBlackPeoplegate? A bit wordy, perhaps.

That's all I got. :\

 

[kage69]

Florida State University, if memory serves...

That would explain a ton.

Ouch. lol

 

[Sonikku]

Pretty soon the only place to buy a confederate flag will be

Spoiler

the black market

.

:thumbsup::awe:

 

[sportage]

I'm going to repeat myself...

This tells me one thing I have looooong believed about not all, but a large chunk of republicans.
Especially southern republicans.
THAT... if slavery was in force today and ole Abe Lincoln had never freed the slaves, if we still had slavery today, that many republicans WOULD NOT be in favor of ending slavery nor freeing the slaves. P E R O I D !!!!!
Not Coulter, (who I could give a rats ass about), and not the republican self appointed fuhrer in chief Rush Limbaugh.
Neither would want to see the slaves freed.
Why???
Well, what they would do, what they would say, and push as argument against ending slavery, is the financial aspect and financial repercussions for ending slavery.
Rush, Coulter, and a damn huge chunk of white southern republicans, all would argue that slaves are property, slaves are wealth, slaves are necessary labor needed for a strong American economy, and that the slave as property is under the sole control of the slave owner.
The slave master.

While many republicans claim what president Lincoln did, has done, was the right thing to do, if these republicans had lived back in the days of slave ownership and if Lincoln had failed to end slavery, those same republicans would not be in favor nor support ending slavery today because of the financial considerations.

And THAT is why I am a democrat. The reason that all democrats are democrats.
Because for democrats when it comes to fairness, justice, and civil rights, we do not need a brick wall to fall on us.
A democrat knows in the heart what is right, and what is wrong.
Unlike so so so many republicans.
Democrats know what is right when it comes to civil rights, minority rights, including gay rights, women's rights, etc etc.
A democrat knows the right from the wrong in their heart.

Where the republican mindset lacks that compassion and common sense.
And there you have the difference between the republican and the democrat.
And why we all know in today's world, that if slavery did in fact still exist, democrats as unified would be for the freeing of the slaves and ending slavery no matter what the cost.
Republicans, many republicans, the Rush Limbaugh republicans, would be against ending slavery.
That such action would be financially unfair to the slave owner.
And THAT is exactly how it would go down. And we all know that.
Especially now with this flag issue.
And despite what many republicans might have said in the past, those same republicans have now been B U S T E D big time.
No one is really that surprised.

For every republican presidential candidate that believes marriage is only between a man and woman, or in other words against marriage equality, you can bet your life that they all speak with forked tongue about the flag and seeking true justice as well.
They lie.
They support voter suppression. All of them. Every one.
It is time the republicans that truly believe in equality and justice cross over to the democratic party. Turn away from the dark side. Join the winning team.
Be assured that the force is not with you as long as you resist decency, justice, civil rights advancements, and the American history of equality and justice for all.