It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Confederate Flag Sales Up 1,400% to 2,000%

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 06:33 AM
The only people who have a right at all to debate this issue live in the state of SC like I do.

The rest of you are just using this for your own political agendas.

Cut it out and leave us alone.

posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 06:38 AM

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Best way to stick it to the man is buy a flag made in china.

"Brad, meet Mr. Hammer"... I'd type the best way would be to open a flag factory and hire 50-75 to make flags, even the flag that is multi-colored..

But sadly, I think whomever would take the chance of starting a business would then hire "new Americans" (Americans in transit- The new term for "Illegal alien") To make back some of the $$$ Uncle Suga extracted in the obstacles they put up to start said bee's wax...

Who are We (Me and You, the "other Me") kidding? These folks are running down to Walmart™ to buy these flags to save the .88¢. It was saving that .88¢ that ran EVERY Mom/Pop Store into the toilet taking the jobs w/them...

Worship = War Ship


posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 08:29 AM
Me personally? I don't give a damn about the Rebel Flag.

I just hate seeing hen pecking and bullying.

Im not gay, either....but i rocked a gay pride flag for a few days. Just because I like the underdog...and want to protect their right to be that underdog.

posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 08:47 AM
So we can stop hearing the whining that all the toys are being taken away now, right? Or nah?

posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 09:48 AM
They are coming for your guns....they are coming for your ammo....they are coming for your flags...

A fool and his/her money are soon parted.

And then they complain about not having enough money/poor economy. smh

posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 09:58 AM

Why have confederate flag sales across the USA have skyrocketed to epic proportions?

I hope you're right. I have cf belt buckles for sale on a free listing site and none of them have sold, yet. I had them for sale on Ebay and they shut that down after only 4 sales were made....sigh.

posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 10:40 AM

originally posted by: Rocker2013
a reply to: Greathouse

That seems to be because the right wingers on here cannot argue against the fact that this was flying on government grounds, and that is unacceptable for a government serving all their public.
Neither can they argue against the fact that the flag has not actually been banned.
Neither can they argue against the reality that the people made this choice through democratic peaceful protest and the government made that decision.
Neither can they argue against the fact that the businesses can make their own decisions about what they will or will not sell.

The right wing in this debate have nothing to claim, so they rant about "political correctness" in general, as usual.

There also seems to be a lot of people on here with no true understanding of history except what the media in the victorious government tells them .

posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 10:55 AM

How many people who fought and died with the Confederate flag behind believed they were fighting to maintain slave ownership?

LOL what ?

The South was fighting for state rights against the north.

The civil war had nothing to do with slavery, and if one think it did.

Just remember during the same time period that same 'government' freeing the slave's was slaughtering the natives on it's west ward expansion.

posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 11:31 AM
a reply to: neo96

Well it was the states rights to own slaves...

posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 11:37 AM

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: neo96

Well it was the states rights to own slaves...

Only the 1% in the South of the time.

Not everyone in the South was a slave owner.

posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:10 PM

originally posted by: Phage

The store sold 37 Confederate battle flags in 2013. In the last three weeks, Stallings said sales have nearly tripled last year’s totals.

That would be nearly 300%, not 2,000%. Where did the 2,000% come from?

What's 2,000% of 0?
The referenced article first says "The store sold 37 Confederate battle flags in 2013." So, in 2013, the store sold 37 flags for the year, which is 3.2 flags per month. The article then goes on to say "In the last three weeks, Stallings said sales have nearly tripled last year’s totals." "Triple that" does not seem to refer to the rate of sales but rather the absolute number, which would be 37 x 3 = 111 flags, which would be a rate of 160 flags per month. Going from 3.2 flags to 160 flags per month would be an increase of 5,000%, not 2,000%. The 2,000% figure was not really an exact number, but focused on the numbers which were more exact than the Clayton stores numbers.

It seems that the story has actually been edited, because I thought the article did not say "triple that", but rather it said "85 flags".

posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:31 PM
a reply to: neo96

LOL what? is right. Ironic that you're smugly LOL'ing when you're the one who believes a stupid myth.

The South was fighting for state rights against the north.

The civil war had nothing to do with slavery, and if one think it did.

Let's start with South Carolina, which is not only ground zero for the fake flag controversy which has basically overshadowed the mass murder committed by a racist terrorist but was also the first state to secede.

Lincoln and his Republican cohorts were advocates of restricting the expansion of the institution of slavery into the West. Slave owners in the South saw the writing on the wall and following his election win, South Carolina's governor and its state legislature decided a convention was in order. On December 6, 1860, the delegates were elected and the convention itself convened on December 17. December 20, 1860, South Carolina seceded from the Union.

In their Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union, after a lengthy preamble summarizing the formation of the United States, the detailing of grievances begins and these hypocritical assholes actually argued a position against states' rights:

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The gist of the above can be summed up thusly: "We only joined the Union because it was supposed to support slavery and now the Northern states aren't sending us back our escaped slaves so screw it." Now pay close attention to this next part two paragraphs later:

A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This doesn't even require summation, it's pretty concise and to the point. They saw that the election of Lincoln was the beginning of the end for slavery ("the course of ultimate extinction").

There are no non-slavery related grievances mentioned. NONE. ZERO. ZIP. It is a FACT that South Carolina seceded because Lincoln was elected and they were afraid that it was only a matter of time before abolitionists sentiments were manifested in federal law that would bring about the "ultimate extinction" of the institution of slavery.

In short order, six other slave holding states followed South Carolina's lead; Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.

From Georgia's declaration:

The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.

The first paragraph from Mississippi's:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

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. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

Is any of this sinking in? The Civil War was fought over the Confederate states seceding for the express purposes of preserving the institution of chattel slavery of African slaves and the other states responding in kind to preserve the Union itself. The Civil War was fought over slavery. Period.

posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:35 PM
a reply to: theantediluvian

Stupid myth eh?

It's no myth the North slaughtered the native americans while 'freeing' the AA's.

he Civil War was fought over slavery. Period.

No it wasn't.

What it proved that is the states could join of their own free will, but no one can leave of their own free will.

The civil war proved the states are the slaves of the federal state.
edit on 11-7-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:51 PM
Nothing but a last grasp at a dead legacy. The fight is long lost, and now the fight to remind us of it is lost except to those who wish to amuse themselves at their own expense.

Plenty of raw materials to make new ones, it's not like they will ever run out. Buy them up you fools. Masturbate your brain matter with your fecal matter some more.

It is not the flag that is dead, it is the meaning behind it.The idea is dead and done, Cooked.

Your little secret reminder to tell us what you believe in can be done at your own expense on your own time and your own private ground amongst your own compatriots without the rest of our support.
edit on 7/11/15 by verylowfrequency because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:54 PM
The Mississippi State Flag is next.

Get your orders processed early !!

posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:57 PM
a reply to: xuenchen

I thought it was the American flag.

Under that banner it's killed Americans,Mexicans,Chinese,Koreans,Vietnamese,Iraqis,Afghani's,Liybans,Yemenese. Germans,Japanese, Russians, and the list goes on.

And people are whining about the 'rebel' flag.

posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 01:07 PM
a reply to: beezzer

I'm with ya. I made it my FB avatar. I have a tattoo of an eagle with the stars and bars as the background, on my right shoulder. I have NEVER thought of it as a racist symbol. I like Skynyrd, Molly Hatchet, the Outlaws, Allman Brothers, Marshall Tucker. That's why I like the South and display Ol' Dixie!

I'll buy them just to rebel and exercise my 1st amendment right.

I just can't imagine a more concerted effort by anybody, to pit us all against each other. It has to be intentional. Religious freedom is clearly documented in the Constitution and gay marriage isn't. Yet, they sided with the gay nazis and magically found something in the Constitution to grant the Constitutional "right" to gay marriage. I just don't get it. It won't be long before they attach the churches and other religious institutions. That has been the goal all along.

posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 01:11 PM
a reply to: Seeker Mom

Where is it documented that nobody else has the right to debate it? "Debate" doesn't have borders. We debate things happening in other states all the time, like Oregon charging by the mile for electric and hybrid vehicles. Oregon was the first state to implement a gasoline tax for road maintenance. Shortly after, all states followed suit, so yea, we have every right to debate it.

posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 01:21 PM

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe
a reply to: rockintitz

Nothing is more en vogue right now than feigned outrage and hurt feefees.

One does have to keep up with the Jones' after all.

So true, the left talks about manufactured outrage, ........but then you look at this whole flag fiasco and how theyve drummed up so much feigned outrage they had to ban something COMPLETELY irrelevant to what happened in SC and it starts to be glaringly clear which side the manufacturing is coming from

posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 02:11 PM
a reply to: neo96

Stupid myth eh?

It's no myth the North slaughtered the native americans while 'freeing' the AA's.

I didn't say that it was a myth that Americans were slaughtering the indigenous though did I? So why are you trying to put words in my mouth? Also, what are you trying to allude to with the phrasing of that statement?

"the North slaughtered"

I hope you're not implying that slaughtering indigenous tribes was somehow a disproportionately Northern thing? Ever heard of a little thing called the Trail of Tears? The south was literally awash in the blood of Native Americans. The same slave owning southerners who were fighting to preserve slavery were the ones who petitioned the federal government to forcibly relocate tribes from the Southern states two decades earlier. I means seriously, what point could you possibly be trying to make?

Let's take a look at what you said AGAIN.

LOL what ?

The South was fighting for state rights against the north.

The civil war had nothing to do with slavery, and if one think it did.

The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery? It had EVERYTHING to do with slavery. The entire reason for seceded from the Union was TO PRESERVE SLAVERY. It's only apologists and deniers like yourself who obsess with this states' rights nonsense. It's funny that the only time right wingers invoke "States' Rights" is when they want to deprive individuals of their rights and don't want the rest of the country to do a damn thing about it.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in