What does the confederate flag mean to you? (1 Viewer)

[Otis]

Racism and intolerance

 

[Otis]

Slavery

 

[Otis]

Losing

 

[dickey moe]

Charlie Sheen

 

[dickey moe]

Winning

 

[Todd Andrews]

enslaving black people

 

[njherdfan]

I can't believe Britain hasn't had to change their flag after all the horrors that thing flew over. British people are jerks.

Britain should acknowledge their faults, as should the USAif the confederacy was a nation it should too, it is not. They attempted to break apart from the union in armed rebellion and failed.

Also, the ideals of those countries aren't horrifying. There's a significant difference between standing for good but sometimes (or even often) failing to live up to those ideals and standing for evil from the get-go. The Confederacy stood for evil as its foundational "cornerstone" principle, to use the words of one of its leaders. To my knowledge- which is admittedly limited- no other flag that stood for evil on that scale is still proudly displayed anywhere else on earth.

Excellent post.

It all depends on how you define their cornerstone principle. Their principle was very much states rights, that is what drove most citizens to fight for the confederacy and IMHO a noble cause. The issue they drew the line on was slavery, but I think characterizing that as their cornerstone is disingenuous.

The States' rights argument was the driving force behind both the Civil War and the tooth-and-nail fight against integration. Trying to pretend that the states' rights argument as it was used by the South in those 100 years had anything other than race as its cornerstone is silly.

 

[JohnnyU]

The only real place for the confederate flag is at the grave sites of fallen confederate soldiers and at civil war memorials. I do believe dead soldiers have earned that right, but in general it shouldn't be displayed. I believe those who hate will always find instruments of hate no matter how many times you remove them.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

The very idea that the principle of states rights somehow trumps such a massive violation of human rights is perverse enough in itself.

 

[jon_mx]

I can't believe Britain hasn't had to change their flag after all the horrors that thing flew over. British people are jerks.

Britain should acknowledge their faults, as should the USAif the confederacy was a nation it should too, it is not. They attempted to break apart from the union in armed rebellion and failed.

Also, the ideals of those countries aren't horrifying. There's a significant difference between standing for good but sometimes (or even often) failing to live up to those ideals and standing for evil from the get-go. The Confederacy stood for evil as its foundational "cornerstone" principle, to use the words of one of its leaders. To my knowledge- which is admittedly limited- no other flag that stood for evil on that scale is still proudly displayed anywhere else on earth.

Excellent post.

It all depends on how you define their cornerstone principle. Their principle was very much states rights, that is what drove most citizens to fight for the confederacy and IMHO a noble cause. The issue they drew the line on was slavery, but I think characterizing that as their cornerstone is disingenuous.

The States' rights argument was the driving force behind both the Civil War and the tooth-and-nail fight against integration. Trying to pretend that the states' rights argument as it was used by the South in those 100 years had anything other than race as its cornerstone is silly.

What is really silly is trying to simplify it into being just about racism. There was racism involved. There were money interests involved. And there was legitimate concerns about states rights. To think otherwise is pretty damn ignorant.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I can't believe Britain hasn't had to change their flag after all the horrors that thing flew over. British people are jerks.

Britain should acknowledge their faults, as should the USAif the confederacy was a nation it should too, it is not. They attempted to break apart from the union in armed rebellion and failed.

Also, the ideals of those countries aren't horrifying. There's a significant difference between standing for good but sometimes (or even often) failing to live up to those ideals and standing for evil from the get-go. The Confederacy stood for evil as its foundational "cornerstone" principle, to use the words of one of its leaders. To my knowledge- which is admittedly limited- no other flag that stood for evil on that scale is still proudly displayed anywhere else on earth.

Excellent post.

It all depends on how you define their cornerstone principle. Their principle was very much states rights, that is what drove most citizens to fight for the confederacy and IMHO a noble cause. The issue they drew the line on was slavery, but I think characterizing that as their cornerstone is disingenuous.

The States' rights argument was the driving force behind both the Civil War and the tooth-and-nail fight against integration. Trying to pretend that the states' rights argument as it was used by the South in those 100 years had anything other than race as its cornerstone is silly.

What is really silly is trying to simplify it into being just about racism. There was racism involved. There were money interests involved. And there was legitimate concerns about states rights. To think otherwise is pretty damn ignorant.

Color me shocked that you are on the wrong side of this.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

To our heroes of Montgomery Co., Maryland.

That we through life will not forget to love

The Thin Grey Line.

1861-1865

CSA

https://d38ls2kcjnhfdj.cloudfront.net/f2fe3e47-cd67-47dd-ad1f-5aa9706e6602.JPG

Confederate war memorial, Rockville MD, at the courthouse.

Should it stay or go?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

To our heroes of Montgomery Co., Maryland.

That we through life will not forget to love

The Thin Grey Line.

1861-1865

CSA

https://d38ls2kcjnhfdj.cloudfront.net/f2fe3e47-cd67-47dd-ad1f-5aa9706e6602.JPGConfederate war memorial, Rockville MD, at the courthouse.

Should it stay or go?

"Heroes". Lol

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

To our heroes of Montgomery Co., Maryland.

That we through life will not forget to love

The Thin Grey Line.

1861-1865

CSA

https://d38ls2kcjnhfdj.cloudfront.net/f2fe3e47-cd67-47dd-ad1f-5aa9706e6602.JPGConfederate war memorial, Rockville MD, at the courthouse.

Should it stay or go?

"Heroes". Lol

So, 'Go,' Ok. Anyone else?

 

[njherdfan]

I can't believe Britain hasn't had to change their flag after all the horrors that thing flew over. British people are jerks.

Britain should acknowledge their faults, as should the USAif the confederacy was a nation it should too, it is not. They attempted to break apart from the union in armed rebellion and failed.

Also, the ideals of those countries aren't horrifying. There's a significant difference between standing for good but sometimes (or even often) failing to live up to those ideals and standing for evil from the get-go. The Confederacy stood for evil as its foundational "cornerstone" principle, to use the words of one of its leaders. To my knowledge- which is admittedly limited- no other flag that stood for evil on that scale is still proudly displayed anywhere else on earth.

Excellent post.

It all depends on how you define their cornerstone principle. Their principle was very much states rights, that is what drove most citizens to fight for the confederacy and IMHO a noble cause. The issue they drew the line on was slavery, but I think characterizing that as their cornerstone is disingenuous.

The States' rights argument was the driving force behind both the Civil War and the tooth-and-nail fight against integration. Trying to pretend that the states' rights argument as it was used by the South in those 100 years had anything other than race as its cornerstone is silly.

What is really silly is trying to simplify it into being just about racism. There was racism involved. There were money interests involved. And there was legitimate concerns about states rights. To think otherwise is pretty damn ignorant.

Okay. What legitimate concerns about states' rights other than states' rights to have slaves, or to keep black people as second-class citizens, were so important? Actual, specific rights, please.

 

[Clifford]

Losing

This more than anything. You lost a war. You went down defending a way of life already dead to the world that flew in the face of all modern thought. It continues to mean the same thing to everyone who values it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Memorial toArizona Confederate Troops

1861 - 1865

United Daughters of the Confederacy

1961

"A Nation That Forgets its Past has no Future"

http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=27400

http://www.hmdb.org/PhotoFullSize.asp?PhotoID=96044

Stays or Goes?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I can't believe Britain hasn't had to change their flag after all the horrors that thing flew over. British people are jerks.

Britain should acknowledge their faults, as should the USAif the confederacy was a nation it should too, it is not. They attempted to break apart from the union in armed rebellion and failed.

Also, the ideals of those countries aren't horrifying. There's a significant difference between standing for good but sometimes (or even often) failing to live up to those ideals and standing for evil from the get-go. The Confederacy stood for evil as its foundational "cornerstone" principle, to use the words of one of its leaders. To my knowledge- which is admittedly limited- no other flag that stood for evil on that scale is still proudly displayed anywhere else on earth.

Excellent post.

It all depends on how you define their cornerstone principle. Their principle was very much states rights, that is what drove most citizens to fight for the confederacy and IMHO a noble cause. The issue they drew the line on was slavery, but I think characterizing that as their cornerstone is disingenuous.

The States' rights argument was the driving force behind both the Civil War and the tooth-and-nail fight against integration. Trying to pretend that the states' rights argument as it was used by the South in those 100 years had anything other than race as its cornerstone is silly.

What is really silly is trying to simplify it into being just about racism. There was racism involved. There were money interests involved. And there was legitimate concerns about states rights. To think otherwise is pretty damn ignorant.

Okay. What legitimate concerns about states' rights other than states' rights to have slaves, or to keep black people as second-class citizens, were so important? Actual, specific rights, please.

The right for states to say "states' rights" whenever they do something terrible?

 

[joffer]

Memorial to

Arizona Confederate Troops

1861 - 1865

United Daughters of the Confederacy

1961

"A Nation That Forgets its Past has no Future"

http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=27400Stays or Goes?

it can stay

 

[njherdfan]

Memorial to Arizona Confederate Troops

1861-1865

http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=27400

Stays or Goes?

This reminds me of people who reflexively say that the NCAA shouldn't pay ANY student-athletes, because who can decide if the lunch stipend for a Division-II backup goalie should be $5 or $6!?!!? It's a disingenuous slippery slope argument, at best. There's no real interest in resolving this "question" about removing these monuments, because no one is asking that question.

No one cares about these monuments put up by the Daughters of the Confederacy, because they don't suggest that an entire state supports the Confederacy or puts it on an equal footing with the United States. As has already been established, the flag at issue was put up in SC's capitol fifty years ago specifically as a middle finger to the evil federal government for having the audacity to enforce desegregation. Context matters, and that's a big part of why the NAACP has long been so outspoken in its desire to have the flag taken down from the SC capitol. When you have a state putting the Confederate flag on equal or superior footing with the US flag, it sends a clear and unambiguous message. That same message is not sent by a 100 year old stone monument that you need to go on the internet to learn about.

 

[timschochet]

Let's make this easy:

1. Don't remove any memorials.

2. Don't pull down any statues.

3. Don't change the names of any streets.

Just take the flag off of the ###### capitol. How hard is that?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Let's make this easy:

1. Don't remove any memorials.

2. Don't pull down any statues.

3. Don't change the names of any streets.

Just take the flag off of the ###### capitol. How hard is that?

BUT WHEN WILL IT END?!?! :cuebanjo:

 

[General Tso]

I am still thinking through this one, and I think I'm kind of where Ivan is. The flags absolutely have to go. That's a no brainier. Flags are way too emotive and symbolic. Surprised as hell they lasted this long.

The road names and school names is tricky. I have to admit, I don't like them. At all. But the practical side of me says to leave them alone. Taking down a flag doesn't really inconvenience anyone. Changing a road or a school name does. And I also think it would really piss off some people. And at this stage of the game we should be concentrating on bring people together to the extent we can.

But I wouldn't object if any of the names were changed. Anything that puts slavery and racism in the past, where it belongs, is a good thing in my book. This country needs to move past this.

 

[jon_mx]

I can't believe Britain hasn't had to change their flag after all the horrors that thing flew over. British people are jerks.

Britain should acknowledge their faults, as should the USAif the confederacy was a nation it should too, it is not. They attempted to break apart from the union in armed rebellion and failed.

Also, the ideals of those countries aren't horrifying. There's a significant difference between standing for good but sometimes (or even often) failing to live up to those ideals and standing for evil from the get-go. The Confederacy stood for evil as its foundational "cornerstone" principle, to use the words of one of its leaders. To my knowledge- which is admittedly limited- no other flag that stood for evil on that scale is still proudly displayed anywhere else on earth.

Excellent post.

It all depends on how you define their cornerstone principle. Their principle was very much states rights, that is what drove most citizens to fight for the confederacy and IMHO a noble cause. The issue they drew the line on was slavery, but I think characterizing that as their cornerstone is disingenuous.

The States' rights argument was the driving force behind both the Civil War and the tooth-and-nail fight against integration. Trying to pretend that the states' rights argument as it was used by the South in those 100 years had anything other than race as its cornerstone is silly.

What is really silly is trying to simplify it into being just about racism. There was racism involved. There were money interests involved. And there was legitimate concerns about states rights. To think otherwise is pretty damn ignorant.

Okay. What legitimate concerns about states' rights other than states' rights to have slaves, or to keep black people as second-class citizens, were so important? Actual, specific rights, please.

The very foundation of our government was that tge federal government would have very little say in Domestic issues. The Constitution did not empower the federal government to abolish slavery. Whether it was morally the right thing to do was not the issue. Constitutionally, it was something up to the states to abolish.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Has anyone mentioned that the church where the massacre took place was on Calhoun Street? As in John C. Calhoun?

Black guy I heard on the radio this morning compared that to having a synagogue built on Himmler Avenue...

Let's make this easy:

1. Don't remove any memorials.

2. Don't pull down any statues.

3. Don't change the names of any streets.

Just take the flag off of the ###### capitol. How hard is that?

Right.

 

[timschochet]

I can't believe Britain hasn't had to change their flag after all the horrors that thing flew over. British people are jerks.

Britain should acknowledge their faults, as should the USAif the confederacy was a nation it should too, it is not. They attempted to break apart from the union in armed rebellion and failed.

Also, the ideals of those countries aren't horrifying. There's a significant difference between standing for good but sometimes (or even often) failing to live up to those ideals and standing for evil from the get-go. The Confederacy stood for evil as its foundational "cornerstone" principle, to use the words of one of its leaders. To my knowledge- which is admittedly limited- no other flag that stood for evil on that scale is still proudly displayed anywhere else on earth.

Excellent post.

It all depends on how you define their cornerstone principle. Their principle was very much states rights, that is what drove most citizens to fight for the confederacy and IMHO a noble cause. The issue they drew the line on was slavery, but I think characterizing that as their cornerstone is disingenuous.

The States' rights argument was the driving force behind both the Civil War and the tooth-and-nail fight against integration. Trying to pretend that the states' rights argument as it was used by the South in those 100 years had anything other than race as its cornerstone is silly.

What is really silly is trying to simplify it into being just about racism. There was racism involved. There were money interests involved. And there was legitimate concerns about states rights. To think otherwise is pretty damn ignorant.

Okay. What legitimate concerns about states' rights other than states' rights to have slaves, or to keep black people as second-class citizens, were so important? Actual, specific rights, please.

The very foundation of our government was that tge federal government would have very little say in Domestic issues. The Constitution did not empower the federal government to abolish slavery. Whether it was morally the right thing to do was not the issue. Constitutionally, it was something up to the states to abolish.

Not only is this incorrect, it was NOT the position the Confederate states took. Basing themselves on the Dred Scott decision, they held that a state could not abolish slavery even if it wanted to. That's why they were opposed to popular sovereignty. So no, slavery was in fact not a states' rights issue.

 

[njherdfan]

I can't believe Britain hasn't had to change their flag after all the horrors that thing flew over. British people are jerks.

Britain should acknowledge their faults, as should the USAif the confederacy was a nation it should too, it is not. They attempted to break apart from the union in armed rebellion and failed.

Also, the ideals of those countries aren't horrifying. There's a significant difference between standing for good but sometimes (or even often) failing to live up to those ideals and standing for evil from the get-go. The Confederacy stood for evil as its foundational "cornerstone" principle, to use the words of one of its leaders. To my knowledge- which is admittedly limited- no other flag that stood for evil on that scale is still proudly displayed anywhere else on earth.

Excellent post.

It all depends on how you define their cornerstone principle. Their principle was very much states rights, that is what drove most citizens to fight for the confederacy and IMHO a noble cause. The issue they drew the line on was slavery, but I think characterizing that as their cornerstone is disingenuous.

The States' rights argument was the driving force behind both the Civil War and the tooth-and-nail fight against integration. Trying to pretend that the states' rights argument as it was used by the South in those 100 years had anything other than race as its cornerstone is silly.

What is really silly is trying to simplify it into being just about racism. There was racism involved. There were money interests involved. And there was legitimate concerns about states rights. To think otherwise is pretty damn ignorant.

Okay. What legitimate concerns about states' rights other than states' rights to have slaves, or to keep black people as second-class citizens, were so important? Actual, specific rights, please.

The right for states to say "states' rights" whenever they do something terrible?

It's funny, because there are a lot of actual states' rights issues that should really upset those who strongly believe in states' rights, but for whatever reason, we don't hear a peep.

One that comes to mind is the passage of the 1984 law that essentially coerced states to lower their drinking age by withholding federal money. Of course, the law was signed by Reagan, and the Supreme Court opinion upholding it was written by Rehnquist, but I'm sure that it's just a coincidence that people who strongly believe in states' rights aren't still up in arms about it.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I can't believe Britain hasn't had to change their flag after all the horrors that thing flew over. British people are jerks.

Britain should acknowledge their faults, as should the USAif the confederacy was a nation it should too, it is not. They attempted to break apart from the union in armed rebellion and failed.

Also, the ideals of those countries aren't horrifying. There's a significant difference between standing for good but sometimes (or even often) failing to live up to those ideals and standing for evil from the get-go. The Confederacy stood for evil as its foundational "cornerstone" principle, to use the words of one of its leaders. To my knowledge- which is admittedly limited- no other flag that stood for evil on that scale is still proudly displayed anywhere else on earth.

Excellent post.

It all depends on how you define their cornerstone principle. Their principle was very much states rights, that is what drove most citizens to fight for the confederacy and IMHO a noble cause. The issue they drew the line on was slavery, but I think characterizing that as their cornerstone is disingenuous.

The States' rights argument was the driving force behind both the Civil War and the tooth-and-nail fight against integration. Trying to pretend that the states' rights argument as it was used by the South in those 100 years had anything other than race as its cornerstone is silly.

What is really silly is trying to simplify it into being just about racism. There was racism involved. There were money interests involved. And there was legitimate concerns about states rights. To think otherwise is pretty damn ignorant.

Okay. What legitimate concerns about states' rights other than states' rights to have slaves, or to keep black people as second-class citizens, were so important? Actual, specific rights, please.

The right for states to say "states' rights" whenever they do something terrible?

It's funny, because there are a lot of actual states' rights issues that should really upset those who strongly believe in states' rights, but for whatever reason, we don't hear a peep.One that comes to mind is the passage of the 1984 law that essentially coerced states to lower their drinking age by withholding federal money. Of course, the law was signed by Reagan, and the Supreme Court opinion upholding it was written by Rehnquist, but I'm sure that it's just a coincidence that people who strongly believe in states' rights aren't still up in arms about it.

Did the same with the 55 speed limit.

 

[njherdfan]

I can't believe Britain hasn't had to change their flag after all the horrors that thing flew over. British people are jerks.

Britain should acknowledge their faults, as should the USAif the confederacy was a nation it should too, it is not. They attempted to break apart from the union in armed rebellion and failed.

Also, the ideals of those countries aren't horrifying. There's a significant difference between standing for good but sometimes (or even often) failing to live up to those ideals and standing for evil from the get-go. The Confederacy stood for evil as its foundational "cornerstone" principle, to use the words of one of its leaders. To my knowledge- which is admittedly limited- no other flag that stood for evil on that scale is still proudly displayed anywhere else on earth.

Excellent post.

It all depends on how you define their cornerstone principle. Their principle was very much states rights, that is what drove most citizens to fight for the confederacy and IMHO a noble cause. The issue they drew the line on was slavery, but I think characterizing that as their cornerstone is disingenuous.

The States' rights argument was the driving force behind both the Civil War and the tooth-and-nail fight against integration. Trying to pretend that the states' rights argument as it was used by the South in those 100 years had anything other than race as its cornerstone is silly.

What is really silly is trying to simplify it into being just about racism. There was racism involved. There were money interests involved. And there was legitimate concerns about states rights. To think otherwise is pretty damn ignorant.

Okay. What legitimate concerns about states' rights other than states' rights to have slaves, or to keep black people as second-class citizens, were so important? Actual, specific rights, please.

The very foundation of our government was that tge federal government would have very little say in Domestic issues. The Constitution did not empower the federal government to abolish slavery. Whether it was morally the right thing to do was not the issue. Constitutionally, it was something up to the states to abolish.

Putting aside the fact that what you're saying is historically inaccurate, and the fact that slavery was, in fact, abolished by a Constitutional amendment, do you have any other legitimate, important right that made the cause of states' rights "noble," and not just a thinly veiled attempt to keep on discriminating without the meddling of the federal government?

 

[timschochet]

Good one, njherdfan.

Of course the most famous ironic example was the Fugitive Slave Act, which the South supported but was an incredible violation of the states' right's argument. In modern times, there was the Bush vs. Gore Supreme Court decision, which most conservatives supported despite the fact that it involved the federal government telling a state supreme court how to handle an election. And then of course there was the Teri Schiavo incident, in which a bunch of conservative congressmen rushed to Washington in order to attempt to overturn state laws regarding private medical decisions.

States rights, IMO, is utter bull####, and most of the people who scream it the loudest will discard it if the situation doesn't go their way.

 

[Otis]

Losing

This more than anything. You lost a war. You went down defending a way of life already dead to the world that flew in the face of all modern thought. It continues to mean the same thing to everyone who values it.

ALL MY LIKES

 

[BassNBrew]

I always find it interesting that the people who get the most upset about a piece of cloth come from the most segregated areas of the country.

 

[Mjolnirs]

Mjolnirs, I really respect your viewpoint, (and I always love your posts on the Civil War, as you know), but ultimately I disagree with it.

Fair enough.

The problem with trying to apply this "defense" motive to South Carolina is because the first shots of the war were fired in South Carolina by rebels against United States soldiers and the flag of the United States.

You and I know it wasn't that cut and dry.

Second, you argue that the war was not about slavery, but about the right of secession. But if that is the case, why is it that when West Virginia attempted to secede from Virginia early in the Civil War, the Confederate response was to invade West Virginia and put down the rebellion? Why did the Confederacy attempt to put down similar rebellions in Tennessee and North Carolina?

If Lincoln had decided the Union was better off without the South and let them leave, would there have been a war?I can't answer to the latter points. I've never really read up on them.

Look folks, as I have mentioned, I know I'm not swaying anyone.

Know this though, I am not one of these people that deny the slavery issue. Slavery was the center point of the struggle. I do think that secession was completely the result of the South's loss of political strength on a national level as the number of states increased. This loss directly impacted the existence of slavery and the people in power knew they couldn't let that happen and retain power.

Lincoln made it completely evident that his goal was to preserve the Union, and he was willing to sacrifice slavery to do so. If he did not need the South, its economy and its wealth, and let secession stand, the war we know would not have happened. Who knows how history would have played out?

I have expressed how I feel regarding honoring my ancestors and that you cannot change. You can question their motives, I don't. I do know that the last census I have found with any of my family owning a slave was in 1790, and he owned one.

I know the flag is a lightning rod, but it is the soldiers' flag, and that is what I see. I understand most others see something else, and it will always be that way. I've never had words with anyone in person over the flag. I have had multiple black co-workers ask me about it, and we've had pretty good conversations on the subject. While they may not agree, they always understand my point of view and accept that, for me, that is what it means.

 

[Otis]

Car parking on the front lawn encouraged.

 

[Otis]

I know the flag is a lightning rod, but it is the soldiers' flag, and that is what I see.

The red one with a swastika on it was also someone's "soldiers' flag."

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

When you have to type like 500 words to justify your position (and still sound like a goober) you might want to reflect for a moment.

 

[timschochet]

I know the flag is a lightning rod, but it is the soldiers' flag, and that is what I see.

The red one with a swastika on it was also someone's "soldiers' flag."

This comparison is being made all over the place today- I must have heard it a dozen times or more. And I find it offensive.

Slavery was a terrible evil. And the South were wrong to secede. And the Confederate flag is a symbol of slavery, and should be removed. But the Confederacy were not Nazis. They didn't exterminate people en masse, and they weren't a dictatorship either. They were made up of Americans who valued most of the same principles as other Americans, and who believed that ultimately they were fighting for freedom- not for the Fuhrerprinzip.

It's gotten to the point in our politics where every time somebody does something we don't like, we compare them to the ####### Nazis.

 

[Slapdash]

Losing

This more than anything. You lost a war. You went down defending a way of life already dead to the world that flew in the face of all modern thought. It continues to mean the same thing to everyone who values it.

The institution of slavery wasn't dead during the time of the Civil War and it certainly isn't now. It is, however, outsourced.

 

[Leviathan]

States rights, IMO, is utter bull####, and most of the people who scream it the loudest will discard it if the situation doesn't go their way.

Not a fan of the Bill of Rights? Last time I looked, the 10th Amendment was still in there.Case in point: I heard over and over, by prominent politicians (including our current president), that gay marriage should be left to each individual state.

There was a vote in California regarding that exact issue.

In the end, what happened?

 

[timschochet]

States rights, IMO, is utter bull####, and most of the people who scream it the loudest will discard it if the situation doesn't go their way.

Not a fan of the Bill of Rights? Last time I looked, the 10th Amendment was still in there.Case in point: I heard over and over, by prominent politicians (including our current president), that gay marriage should be left to each individual state.

There was a vote in California regarding that exact issue.

In the end, what happened?

The question is, in the end, what's going to happen? And that is, hopefully this week, that the Supreme Court will find that gay marriage is a federal right, and that states won't be able to prohibit it. We'll see.

 

[Mjolnirs]

I know the flag is a lightning rod, but it is the soldiers' flag, and that is what I see.

The red one with a swastika on it was also someone's "soldiers' flag."

Actually that was a national flag. Sorry, I think the Godwin's Law award was given many pages back. Nice try though.

When you have to type like 500 words to justify your position (and still sound like a goober) you might want to reflect for a moment.

I'm good, thanks.Also, I know the flag will come down. It may not be this attempt, but I know it will at some point.

 

[Leviathan]

States rights, IMO, is utter bull####, and most of the people who scream it the loudest will discard it if the situation doesn't go their way.

Not a fan of the Bill of Rights? Last time I looked, the 10th Amendment was still in there.Case in point: I heard over and over, by prominent politicians (including our current president), that gay marriage should be left to each individual state.

There was a vote in California regarding that exact issue.

In the end, what happened?

The question is, in the end, what's going to happen? And that is, hopefully this week, that the Supreme Court will find that gay marriage is a federal right, and that states won't be able to prohibit it. We'll see.

Are you stating that the Supreme Court has the power to nullify the Bill of Rights?Don't get me wrong, I agree with the "equal protection" argument.

Just sayin'.

 

[General Tso]

I know the flag is a lightning rod, but it is the soldiers' flag, and that is what I see.

The red one with a swastika on it was also someone's "soldiers' flag."

Actually that was a national flag. Sorry, I think the Godwin's Law award was given many pages back. Nice try though.

When you have to type like 500 words to justify your position (and still sound like a goober) you might want to reflect for a moment.

I'm good, thanks.Also, I know the flag will come down. It may not be this attempt, but I know it will at some point.

do you think Southern whites are going to be resentful of it? Sounds like the prevailing emotion down there is more like resignation. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

 

[Christo]

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t21/ultimatehotwheels/1gldc-20.jpg

 

[Mjolnirs]

do you think Southern whites are going to be resentful of it? Sounds like the prevailing emotion down there is more like resignation. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

If/when it comes down there will be plenty of anger and resentment. People feel this is the product of outside influence, and they aren't happy about it.It will be interesting to see how this plays out politically though. The last governor that made a move on the flag did not get re-elected. Whether the flag comes down or not, it will be interesting to see the re-election percentages based on what side of the vote a politician is on.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t21/ultimatehotwheels/1gldc-20.jpg

Never meanin no harm.

 

[Christo]

do you think Southern whites are going to be resentful of it? Sounds like the prevailing emotion down there is more like resignation. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

If/when it comes down there will be plenty of anger and resentment. People feel this is the product of outside influence, and they aren't happy about it.It will be interesting to see how this plays out politically though. The last governor that made a move on the flag did not get re-elected. Whether the flag comes down or not, it will be interesting to see the re-election percentages based on what side of the vote a politician is on.

If your people didn't attack a church and kill nine people no "outsiders" would give a ####.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

TIL: Arizona had Confederate troops.

 

[jonessed]

do you think Southern whites are going to be resentful of it? Sounds like the prevailing emotion down there is more like resignation. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

If/when it comes down there will be plenty of anger and resentment. People feel this is the product of outside influence, and they aren't happy about it.It will be interesting to see how this plays out politically though. The last governor that made a move on the flag did not get re-elected. Whether the flag comes down or not, it will be interesting to see the re-election percentages based on what side of the vote a politician is on.

If your people didn't attack a church and kill nine people no "outsiders" would give a ####.

Whose people?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I'm good, thanks.

Actually you're delusional and backwardsass.