The Confederate Flag

TerranceL · Jun 30, 2015

Armoured said:
OK, explain that one, please?

Lets not and say we did.

Albion · Jun 30, 2015

TerranceL said:
So is the American flag. nt.

We were just making that point. Our consciences are sorely tested every time we see that flag, knowing that it "stands for" bad stuff. No one should be allowed to see anything that makes him think of bad stuff.

The Cadet · Jun 30, 2015

rider99 said:
Everything I said was accurate.

Ever hear of freedom of speech? That includes the freedom to make fun of 55 year-olds who have sex with 9 year-old "wives." Mohammed was an evil man, but beyond that in America we USED TO have the freedom to make movies without the permission of the Muslim community.

Yeah, Mark Basseley Youssef had the right to make that movie. He had the right to speak his mind on whatever platform would host him. You know what he didn't have the right to do? Use an alias and lie to probation officials. Now guess which one he got charged with. I'll give you a hint: it's the one which is illegal. Seriously, where are you getting this from?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakoula_Basseley_Nakoula#Arrest_and_imprisonment
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/mark-basseley-youssef-prison-sentence_n_2090279.html

The sentence was the result of a plea bargain between lawyers for Mark Bassely Youssef and federal prosecutors. Youssef admitted in open court that he had used several false names in violation of his probation order and obtained a driver's license under a false name. He was on probation for a bank fraud case.

I mean, come on! It was a plea bargain! The main openly admitted that he had broken the law in order to bargain for a lesser prison sentence! Normally, for historical revisionism to take place, it needs to actually be history, and not something anyone with 30 seconds on hand can google and instantly find all of the relevant information, including his past convictions, the trial records, and more!

TerranceL said:
So you will make bigoted assumptions of them without understanding their culture and reasoning.

It most certainly is cultural imperialism to assume that because something offends your western sensibility it should offend everones.

You don't understand what the world revisionism means. Nobody is claiming that the holocaust didn't happen, just that people of another culture might not relate a uniform with it. What do you think they were thinking? "Gosh genocide is cool, I want to get married in this uniform to show just how cool it was." Or could they perhaps have other reason for wanting to do it?

What about it?

I occurs to me that my background knowledge of the Asian obsession with the nazis may be overstated. My apologies.

Armoured · Jun 30, 2015

TerranceL said:
Because there is in the west, power in proclaiming yourself offended.

Yep.

Sadly, some significant number of people just can't help themselves from hating some designated group of "other" that's pointed out as the group to hate. In times past, these people have hated and/or derided other races, other ethnicities, other political affiliations, other genders, other sexualities. But now, for most people, there's a lot of sacrifice required to openly hate or deride those groups. But when someone is designated OK to hate for entirely PC reasons, the haters dogpile on with a vengeance. I've seen the phenomenon called many things, but "indignation inappropriate content" captures it nicely, I think.

Winepress777 · Jun 30, 2015

The Cadet said:
http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/crittenden-compromise
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/the_south_still_lies_about_the_civil_war/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy#Contemporary_historians

It's not "liberal news spinning". It's the consensus view among modern historians, and the evidence is hugely visible throughout their own words.

Or just read this one speech:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech#The_.27Cornerstone.27

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

. . . look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgement of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws.

No, I'm sorry, but this is just plain historical revisionism. You might as well claim that the Nazis went to war because Poland was looking at them funny! That's just not what happened! The civil war was largely about slavery. Not entirely, but white supremacy and the role of african-americans as subservient played a huge role. As historian William C. Davis put it:

To the old Union they had said that the Federal power had no authority to interfere with slavery issues in a state. To their new nation they would declare that the state had no power to interfere with a federal protection of slavery. Of all the many testimonials to the fact that slavery, and not states’ rights, really lay at the heart of their movement, this was the most eloquent of all.

...and there's the spin... such a FAIL...

Here's a good one though, just google "the civil war", and without even clicking on the link, here is the first result on the web search I copied just for you...

Slavery in the United States - CivilWar Trust
www.civilwar.org/…y/civil-war-overview/slavery.html
The outbreak of the Civil War forever changed the future of the American nation. The war began as a struggle to preserve the Union, not a struggle to free the slaves ...

But you can stick with your 'revisionist' history and subsequent spins to say otherwise, whatever that will get you

Albion · Jun 30, 2015

"

Winepress777 said:
The war began as a struggle to preserve the Union, not a struggle to free the slaves

But you can stick with your 'revisionist' history and subsequent spins to say otherwise, whatever that will get you

Apparently it "gets you" (meaning some other posters) quite a ways, such as ingratiating themselves with other people who similarly do not know the history.

TerranceL · Jun 30, 2015

The Cadet said:
I occurs to me that my background knowledge of the Asian obsession with the nazis may be overstated. My apologies.

No need, It's cool.

KWCrazy · Jun 30, 2015

The Cadet said:
Seriously, where are you getting this from?

The president of the United States and Hillary Clinton orchestrated a campaign to lie to the American people and blame the video, not terrorism, on the attack. Hillary vowed to get the man responsible and suddenly he's arrested. Why wasn't he arrested a week earlier? Or a week later? He was arrested because this administration lied to its citizens and Obama wanted to show the Muslim world he would not tolerate those who would slander the "prophet."

Is lying to Congress a lesser felony than lying to your parole officer? Nobody ever said Youssef was innocent of any wrongdoing, but he was specifically targeted because of the Obama/Clinton lie. Hillary promised to get the man who made the internet video, and they did.

Armoured · Jun 30, 2015

rider99 said:
The president of the United States and Hillary Clinton orchestrated a campaign to lie to the American people and blame the video, not terrorism, on the attack. Hillary vowed to get the man responsible and suddenly he's arrested. Why wasn't he arrested a week earlier? Or a week later? He was arrested because this administration lied to its citizens and Obama wanted to show the Muslim world he would not tolerate those who would slander the "prophet."

Is lying to Congress a lesser felony than lying to your parole officer? Nobody ever said Youssef was innocent of any wrongdoing, but he was specifically targeted because of the Obama/Clinton lie. Hillary promised to get the man who made the internet video, and they did.

I don't think anyone has ever denied that the attack at Benghazi was committed by terrorists.

What motivated them, though?

KWCrazy · Jun 30, 2015

outsidethecamp said:
Pretty soon it will be illegal to say anything untoward (speak the truth) about Islam. You know, it's not good to speak the truth. It exposes people and makes them angry, and we can't have that.

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barrack Obama

Armoured · Jun 30, 2015

rider99 said:
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barrack Obama

Citation?

The Cadet · Jun 30, 2015

rider99 said:
The president of the United States and Hillary Clinton orchestrated a campaign to lie to the American people and blame the video, not terrorism, on the attack. Hillary vowed to get the man responsible and suddenly he's arrested. Why wasn't he arrested a week earlier? Or a week later?

Congratulations for this complete and utter non-argument. There are countless people saying meaner things about muslims in public on a daily basis. Youssef was arrested for and pled guilty to 8 counts of parole violation. The claim that he was arrested "because he made a video critical of islam" is a lie. And apparently, you seem to know that as well.

rider99 said:
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barrack Obama

And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. (Applause.) There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There's no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There's no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

[...]

It is time to leave the call of violence and the politics of division behind. On so many issues, we face a choice between the promise of the future, or the prisons of the past. And we cannot afford to get it wrong. We must seize this moment. And America stands ready to work with all who are willing to embrace a better future.

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt — it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, "Muslims, Christians, we are one." The future must not belong to those who bully women — it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.

The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country's resources — it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the women and men that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/25/remarks-president-un-general-assembly

Reading the whole speech casts those particular statements in a slightly different light, no? Not that I agree with him (I think Mohammed is a figure worthy of considerable mockery), but this conspiracy that somehow Obama is trying to bring on New Saudi America is ludicrous.

AmericanChristian91 · Jun 30, 2015

Winepress777 said:
...and there's the spin... such a FAIL...

Here's a good one though, just google "the civil war", and without even clicking on the link, here is the first result on the web search I copied just for you...

Slavery in the United States - CivilWar Trust
www.civilwar.org/…y/civil-war-overview/slavery.html
The outbreak of the Civil War forever changed the future of the American nation. The war began as a struggle to preserve the Union, not a struggle to free the slaves ...

But you can stick with your 'revisionist' history and subsequent spins to say otherwise, whatever that will get you

Your right.....The North did not fight the South originally to destroy slavery.....It was to preserve the union. Im glad at least you don't believe in that civil war myth.

However your problem is that you think that just because the North did not at first fight to end slavery, that means the South were not fighting to preserve it.

Well even at the beginning of the War, one of the main reasons the South left the war was to preserve white supremacy, and the existence and expansion of slavery (although Lincoln said he wouldn't end slavery, him and his party was opposed to the expansion of slavery in new territories). Remember that not only did the existence of slavery benefit white supremacy, but also their economics, so expanding slavery would benefit the South.

You can see how slavery is mentioned several times in their decelerations of secession and their views of North and the anti-slavery views, infringing on their rights and the constitution (which at that time allowed slavery), and the "natural order of things" ordained by God.

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

The Union began to focus the war also on slavery after the battle of Gettysburg.

quatona · Jun 30, 2015

DaveW-Ohev said:
And the swastika may just mean German culture to some germans.

Believe that and I will show you my ocean beach property in Nevada ..... Its for sale if you are interested ...

Indeed, the swastika had a lot of different meanings throughout history.

SuperCloud · Jun 30, 2015

rider99 said:
Everything I said was accurate.

Ever hear of freedom of speech? That includes the freedom to make fun of 55 year-olds who have sex with 9 year-old "wives." Mohammed was an evil man, but beyond that in America we USED TO have the freedom to make movies without the permission of the Muslim community.

Was President TJ an evil man?

I don't know if Mohammad was evil but his description do fit that of an alpha male. Not only that but his supposed robbing of caravans to finance the spread of his religious crusade kind of reminded me of the truck hijackings (robberies) La Cosa Nostra--the American mafia used to carry out. And Mohammad had a lot of women lovers--which reminded me of alpha males in La Cosa Nostra, as well.

Albion · Jun 30, 2015

SuperCloud said:
Was President TJ an evil man?

Not known to be so. His brother apparently had relations with some slave woman, although I don't think anyone has said she was 9 years old!

I don't know if Mohammad was evil but his description do fit that of an alpha male. Not only that but his supposed robbing of caravans to finance the spread of his religious crusade kind of reminded me of the truck hijackings (robberies) La Cosa Nostra--the American mafia used to carry out. And Mohammad had a lot of women lovers--which reminded me of alpha males in La Cosa Nostra, as well.

How many of them are considered to be the chief prophet of the only true God?

The Cadet · Jun 30, 2015

Winepress777 said:
...and there's the spin... such a FAIL...

Spin? There are pages upon pages of quotes from major figures in the Confederacy and influential people in the south in that Atlantic article, offered with very little spin whatsoever. One of the sources is just a straightly-delivered speech from the vice president of the confederacy!

Here's a good one though, just google "the civil war", and without even clicking on the link, here is the first result on the web search I copied just for you...

Slavery in the United States - CivilWar Trust
www.civilwar.org/…y/civil-war-overview/slavery.html
The outbreak of the Civil War forever changed the future of the American nation. The war began as a struggle to preserve the Union, not a struggle to free the slaves ...

Okay. So why did the union need preserving in the first place? Do you see what the problem is here?

SuperCloud · Jun 30, 2015

Albion said:
Not known to be so. His brother apparently had relations with some slave woman, although I don't think anyone has said she was 9 years old!

Some how I'm think Mohammad was "not known to be so" among his Muslim followers.

Anyways, TJ got his grove on with a young girl (not woman) that was his wife's half sister. Pretty gangster. Bill Clinton probably didn't even pull that one. Certainly not Obama. And Obama has more swag to his walk. Although, given the fashion of the time, old TJ did look more like a 1960s Chicago pimp than Obama.

Albion · Jun 30, 2015

The Cadet said:
Spin? There are pages upon pages of quotes from major figures in the Confederacy and influential people in the south in that Atlantic article, offered with very little spin whatsoever. One of the sources is just a straightly-delivered speech from the vice president of the confederacy!

Okay. So why did the union need preserving in the first place? Do you see what the problem is here?

None of this is relevant. The origins of the war are not what a veterans' monument is commemorating. It's the sacrifice of the men, and it's well-known that preserving slavery was the farthest thing from the minds of the footsoldiers who volunteered on both sides of the war.

Albion · Jun 30, 2015

Anyways, TJ got his grove on with a young girl (not woman) that was his wife's half sister.

That sensationalist claim has been disproved. You can give it a rest now.

The Confederate Flag

Sarcasm is kind of an art isn't it?

Facilitator

SO COOL

So is America great again yet?

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Sarcasm is kind of an art isn't it?

Newbie

So is America great again yet?

Newbie

So is America great again yet?

SO COOL

Regular Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Newbie

Facilitator

SO COOL

Newbie

Facilitator

Facilitator

Similar threads