Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dear Heart, I wasn't responding to that point. Furthermore you have already made claim that anything that happens before you were born, is irrelevant, so you contradict yourself.
That doesn't matter, since you decided to make that claim in a prior post.
Quote:
It's [confederate flag] been made in to a symbol of racism over the last couple of decades by the same cadre who now wish to turn the word Thug into an unacceptable word.
Wise Wino (and myself before the discussion of the Civil War) countered the above point, and you've yet to respond. Care to defend your claim or is there some sort of message board Statute of limitations on C-D posts that I'm not aware of?
Also, you have made yet another false claim. I did not say anything before the late 80s was irrelevant, I said I'm not sure what relevance a fictional television show has on the meaning of the confederate flag.
Not sure why you would try to lie and distort someone's words when it's printed for everyone on these forums to see.
Dear Heart, I wasn't responding to that point. Furthermore you have already made claim that anything that happens before you were born, is irrelevant, so you contradict yourself.
Wise Wino (and myself before the discussion of the Civil War) countered the above point, and you've yet to respond. Care to defend your claim or is there some sort of message board Statute of limitations on C-D posts that I'm not aware of?
Again you make the mistake of thinking that I follow what you post in this topic. I don't and I've not seen the post you are referring to. I only respond to your constant attacks against me.
Stop the insults, trolling, one liners, and attempts to discredit because you don't like something and I might consider taking your posts more seriously. Until then, don't expect me to respond just because you posted something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATG5
Oh, a personal attack. That usually happens when the poster is incapable of discussing the message and then in-turn attacks the messenger.I suggest sticking to the topic and refrain from personal attacks.
Dear Heart = term of endearment.
Rest = You already stated it.
I had a Pol Sci professor who said that he believes that anything named after someone who served the Confederacy should be renamed. The simple fact is that they rebelled in order to keep something repressive in power.
Again you make the mistake of thinking that I follow what you post in this topic. I don't and I've not seen the post you are referring to. I only respond to your constant attacks against me.
This is the 3rd or 4th post asking you to respond a claim you made, and you still won't. It would just be easier to say you can't. We know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Stop the insults, trolling, one liners, and attempts to discredit because you don't like something and I might consider taking your posts more seriously. Until then, don't expect me to respond just because you posted something.
Interesting. This is a discussion board, correct?
You make a claim, and multiple posters counter it, yet you don't feel the need to respond to it. Very interesting. Instead, once again, you attempt to deflect and make wild accusations against the poster, instead of addressing the content of their posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Dear Heart = term of endearment.
Rest = You already stated it.
Above would fall under a personal attack. The light-hearted "smile" at the end of the post is just a means to soften the blow of the intended attack, so it doesn't get reported to the moderators.
However, I will leave you alone, as it's quite clear you are incapable of actually addressing my post. I'm used to it at this point.
I had a Pol Sci professor who said that he believes that anything named after someone who served the Confederacy should be renamed. The simple fact is that they rebelled in order to keep something repressive in power.
If you mean slavery then you have it wrong. Slavery was an institution of the USA, not just the South.
When the confederate states seceded from the USA, slavery was still legal in the USA. Furthermore Lincoln didn't issue the emancipation proclamation until 3 years after the war started and only did so for slaves in the rebelling states in the South. Slaves under the Lincoln government and the USA were still legal until the war concluded.
i.e. The simple fact you state isn't simple at all. The Southern states didn't secede for this reason.
I grew up in the South, still live here in Georgia, and the folks that think this is just "goofy" are the trashy rednecks. They are also the ones freely using the N word, and throw their beer cans and cigarette butts out of their car windows, too. I am white and never thought this was cool.
Yep.... fooled into them fighting and dying for a Rich Mans Luxuries and one that was actually harmful
" To The Working Class" .. Go Figure.. Some are even proud of that kind of mentality..
Quote:
Originally Posted by HOSS429
dozens of my relatives had no problem dying for the rebel flag and not a single one of them owned a slave .. they dont know who won the war and dont care ...
If you mean slavery then you have it wrong. Slavery was an institution of the USA, not just the South.
When the confederate states seceded from the USA, slavery was still legal in the USA. Furthermore Lincoln didn't issue the emancipation proclamation until 3 years after the war started and only did so for slaves in the rebelling states in the South. Slaves under the Lincoln government and the USA were still legal until the war concluded.
i.e. The simple fact you state isn't simple at all. The Southern states didn't secede for this reason.
The secessionists themselves seem to disagree with you. They were 100% clear that they were fighting a war to protect the institution of slavery. You are spouting revisionist history BS.
Texas - She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery–the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits–a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time
Mississippi -Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
If you mean slavery then you have it wrong. Slavery was an institution of the USA, not just the South.
As, I've pointed out the north was indeed complicit in the establishment of slavery and profited well from it. However, that is the most simplistic view one which I didn't think need being expanded upon until now.
The slave trade was outlawed in 1808 which effectively shut down northern participation in the north Atlantic slave trade.
By 1803, less than a decade after the ratification of the Constitution New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Ohio had outlawed slavery. Indiana, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, Oregon and Kansas entered into the Union as free states. So it is a bit disingenuous to claim that slavery was universal aspect of the United States prior to the Civil War.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
