Flag burners and unregistered protestors, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 17-9-2004 @ 09:16 AM by SkipShipman
Originally posted by Jazzerman
Originally posted by Intelearthling
Let's don't get started on the Confederate flag. It's just as big a part of American history as the Stars and Stripes! There is nothing wrong with displaying the Conferate flag, but that's not what this thread's about , now is it!

Hey, you got that all wrong. The reason that the Confederate flag ever came into existance, was the Federal Government prohibiting states to tend to their own affairs! The whole thing (the Civil War) boils down to the rights of each state! Nothing more!


Ok, first off don't fool yourself into believing in the whole "poor southern states and their fight for states rights." No matter what you believe the Civil War started over slavery, and yes, states rights were a key issue. However, it was over the states rights to own slaves. Now, how should that be considered right? You can skirt around the issue all you want, but history clearly records that slavery was the main issue. Therefore, that Confederate flag that you say should be a part of American history is nothing more than a symbol of slavery and hatred.



Lincoln did not want to do away with slavery, until he could recruit some warm bodies for soldiering towards the end of the war.

The real issues as people saw them in that day are most likely about tarriffs, and the blockade of trade from the Southern States. This brought them to escalate into a Confederation separate from the North, since they could not attain representation on the tax issues. Slavery issue was of course integral to the elite control of labor, but there were few people who fought for the south who owned slaves. These things were the province of large plantations and big money. Those practices continued under the US flag after the cival war, when many blacks were arrested and convicted in Kangaroo courts, to make more prison fodder at hard labor. Something worse than slavery contiinued after that war, so it is illogical to assume finality in that history as to why the war was fought and what it attained.

To center the discusion solely upon slavery as to the history of the United States, is to ignore many other issues that were concurrent with those times. If we have a picture of it, we are best able to deal with similar circumstances. A confederate flag is a symbol only of what exists in the mind of the perceiver, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If we are to make a case for racism in flags, look at some Klan rallies in the early 1900s, they are all US flags there, without a single confederate flag. So my argument is that flags have nothing to do with issues other than some paired association reflex.

The case is too thin about the confederate symbol, while flags are far more trivial than how people actually behave, whether in courtesy, kindness and civility, or in desperate measures on every weak argument that results in more government, higher taxes, and remedies from the next flag tzar.

[edit on 17-9-2004 by SkipShipman]


reply posted on 17-9-2004 @ 09:29 AM by Jonna
Originally posted by Intelearthling
Originally posted by Jonna
Either all of us have free speach or none of us do. It is as simple as that!


What I'm trying to say is, burning the flag is an act of defiance and disrespect to all Americans as a whole.


I could tell 'John Doe' that I hate him and it would be a sign of disrespect. Should I go to jail for that? There is no law that states you can not disrespect someone. If you physically harm them or their property there are laws against that, but not for disrespecting someone.


So what you're saying is that Timothy McVeigh should not have been executed for his crimes. He was just protesting the government. We should have told the families of the victims in OK, that he was exercizing his free speech. The victims was collateral damage.


Are you serious!?! Whose post are you reading? Can you differenciate between calling someone an A-hole when they cut you off in traffic and putting a bullet in their head?


You've got to be for real, anyone who can burn the U.S. flag is capable of blowing-up a building with innocent people inside and then hiding behind the the first amendment.


I am beginning to doubt you have any concept of what reality is. That is the most #ed up logic that I have ever heard. I tore up a piece of paper yesterday just because I felt like it...which means I should be arrested before I burn down a forest.



reply posted on 17-9-2004 @ 06:11 PM by oppodeldoc
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I'm not sure the Bush administration had anything to do with that gesture. I rather doubt it, as the administration has stayed out of the veteran status melee and have said nothing but good things about Kerry's service.


This is obviously a pointless conversation, but what the hey, I've got time.

To say first of all that Bush had nothing to do with the Swift Boat Veterans, who have been discredited and have told incosistent stories left and right, is to basically admit your own ignorance to anything that goes against your own views. Do you believe the New York Times? If not, there's no point, but here:


www.newsmax.com...



If the bandaids had borne an image of the Purple Heart award, it would have been indefensible. As it was, it was in a league with most political jabs taken at opponents during the campaigns. Only Kerry has to live with the manner in which his medals were awarded.


Do you know something I don't? Why don't you produce some evidence that John Kerry's medals weren't merited. These are the same medals you got, and yet all of a sudden they are meaningless. The man obviously fought in the war, and I can't understand your constant questioning of his service.

How is it any less offensive to you that the bandaids didn't have the actual award on them? It represents the same thing. If Kerry had done something like that, this race would be over from the backlash.


In my units, Purple Hearts would not have been awarded for the wounds he received. I had to wait until I got back to the States and Headquarters Marine Corps verified the circumstances under which I was wounded before my medal was forthcoming. My hospital transfers and convalescence might have slowed things down, as I was informed when I was in Japan that I would be receiving the award.


I appreciate your service, I really do. I just mystifies me that you can't see what is right there, that Kerry served honorably, as did John McCain, and both were smeared in similar fashion by the Bush Campaign. Please tell me what leads you to believe otherwise.


These are certainly not in a league with the efforts to besmirch GWs service, which was honorable if not distinguished.

Where did W serve, exactly? How can you stand to support someone who didn't even GO to Vietnam over someone who did? I just don't understand.


reply posted on 17-9-2004 @ 07:00 PM by Jazzerman
Originally posted by SkipShipman
The real issues as people saw them in that day are most likely about tarriffs, and the blockade of trade from the Southern States. This brought them to escalate into a Confederation separate from the North, since they could not attain representation on the tax issues. Slavery issue was of course integral to the elite control of labor, but there were few people who fought for the south who owned slaves. These things were the province of large plantations and big money. Those practices continued under the US flag after the cival war, when many blacks were arrested and convicted in Kangaroo courts, to make more prison fodder at hard labor. Something worse than slavery contiinued after that war, so it is illogical to assume finality in that history as to why the war was fought and what it attained.

To center the discusion solely upon slavery as to the history of the United States, is to ignore many other issues that were concurrent with those times. If we have a picture of it, we are best able to deal with similar circumstances. A confederate flag is a symbol only of what exists in the mind of the perceiver, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If we are to make a case for racism in flags, look at some Klan rallies in the early 1900s, they are all US flags there, without a single confederate flag. So my argument is that flags have nothing to do with issues other than some paired association reflex.
[edit on 17-9-2004 by SkipShipman]


I agree with you to an extent...that most southerners did not own slaves, etc., but the moral issue of the Civil War was slavery as an institution. Political leaders of the South such as Rabert Barnwell, William Yancey, and others knew that if the south gave up slavery the whole socio-economic structure would collapse as the slaves provided most of the labor for the large plantations that made most of the money for the south. Slavery was looked as an an economic issue in the 19th century. Actions by the north such as the Missouri Compromise of 1820 effectively were trying to dampen the further spread of slavery into areas outside of the south, and because the south had an economic interest to spread slavery it looked unfavorably on such dealings.

In 1854 Stephen Douglas sponsored the Kansas-Nebraska Act which would put an end to the Missouri Compromise and allow the spread of slavery into any new territory that was willing to accept it. This Popular Sovereignty rule woke up the people of the north to the fact that slavery could now be spread again. Many of the people including Lincoln were content to let Slavery die a slow death, but with the onslaught of people like Yancey who were willing to go to war over the issue of slavery it effectively became a huge issue. Southern leaders tried to convince their fellow brothers and sisters to go to war by using words like "states rights" that indirectly referred to the right to own slaves.

Southerners were told that the north was threatening their culture and their way of life, and the north believed that if they were allowed secede from the Union it would be detremental for Democracy in the US of A.

To sum it up...Was Slavery the main issue? Yes. Why? If their was no disagreements on slavery the Civil War would never have started. The South would have found no reason to declare their Independance from the Union if this would not have affected their economy and lifestyle. Thus, the main issue during the Civil War WAS slavery.

This both directly and indirectly shows exactly what the Confederate flag stands for, and why if Flag Burning is deemed wrong, then it should also be wrong to display the Confederate flag.

PS- To Grady and Intelearthling...If your so proud to display this flag then I should also be proud to display a English flag, a Welsh flag, and a Scottish flag because that is my heritage. Funny that not many display English Union Jacks or St. George flags here in America below the US flag, since the US defeated the English. The US also defeated the Southerners in case you were wondering. I bet you two would be incensed if I proudly displayed a St. George below the US flag, yet you proudly display the Confederate flag. I guess the old saying "you cant teach an old dog new tricks" is true of some people!

[edit on 17-9-2004 by Jazzerman]



reply posted on 17-9-2004 @ 09:01 PM by GradyPhilpott
Originally posted by oppodeldoc Do you know something I don't?


I know a lot you don't know.

Why don't you produce some evidence that John Kerry's medals weren't merited.


Why? Because you said so?

These are the same medals you got, and yet all of a sudden they are meaningless.


Did I say that?

The man obviously fought in the war, and I can't understand your constant questioning of his service.


Constant? How long have you been on this board? Have you ever seen me denigrate Kerry's service.? Quite the contrary. Riverine duty was among the most dangerous duty around--good duty, but dangerous.

How is it any less offensive to you that the bandaids didn't have the actual award on them? It represents the same thing. If Kerry had done something like that, this race would be over from the backlash.


I said, in effect, that, because it did not bear the image of the medal or the ribbon, that it was in the same league with "Saturday Night Live" actors portraying Robert Dole wearing a full size ribbon on his lapel. In this case the actors did use an actual regulation ribbon. I said that I would rather not see these things happen, but they do. I personally would not have worn one.

I appreciate your service, I really do.


I don't believe you.

I just mystifies me that you can't see what is right there, that Kerry served honorably, as did John McCain, and both were smeared in similar fashion by the Bush Campaign. Please tell me what leads you to believe otherwise.


Did I ever say that Kerry did not serve honorably?

Where did W serve, exactly?


Bush served in the AirNG in Texas. He was a fighter pilot and served about two years active service with the Air Force, as an Air National Guardsman. He was honorably discharged.

How can you stand to support someone who didn't even GO to Vietnam over someone who did? I just don't understand.


I supported and voted for Clinton in 1992. Until this year, being a Vietnam veteran was good for only one thing, clearing a room full of liberals. Why, suddenly, is it the sine qua non of the Presidency?

Have you ever talked to your MD about a prescription for an anxiolytic?


reply posted on 18-9-2004 @ 05:14 AM by PublicGadfly
Originally posted by Jazzerman
Thus, the main issue during the Civil War WAS slavery.

This both directly and indirectly shows exactly what the Confederate flag stands for, and why if Flag Burning is deemed wrong, then it should also be wrong to display the Confederate flag.

PS- To Grady and Intelearthling...If your so proud to display this flag then I should also be proud to display a English flag, a Welsh flag, and a Scottish flag because that is my heritage. Funny that not many display English Union Jacks or St. George flags here in America below the US flag, since the US defeated the English. The US also defeated the Southerners in case you were wondering. I bet you two would be incensed if I proudly displayed a St. George below the US flag, yet you proudly display the Confederate flag. I guess the old saying "you cant teach an old dog new tricks" is true of some people!



-butt in-

I disagree that slavery was the main issue.

It was high, real high for the southern plantation owners but profit was the main issue. The southerners had no fear of losing the institution even with Lincoln as president. The existing plantations would have run as before. Slave import had declined as breeding was producing near what was required.

South Carolina caused the Civil War, and a small group in Charleston led that charge.

This group (linked to the Golden Circle) wanted to increase their profits and become a new royalty. Expansion of the slavery backed economy was vital to their goals but profits were paramount.

The North had no cause, per se, until Lincoln emancipated the slaves. Lincoln violated many laws early on and was perceived by many in the North as a tyrant. Had the South not destroyed Federal property Lincoln would have been hard pressed to raise any army or develop a viable ability to attack the South.

The South, through the arrogance of its top leadership, caused its own demise.

I see nothing wrong with displaying any flag you choose. I'm a battle-field Vet and that's one of the rights I believed in then and still believe in.

I'm an old dog- I hope to never quit learning. Woof, woof


reply posted on 18-9-2004 @ 05:57 AM by GradyPhilpott
Originally posted by Jazzerman
PS- To Grady and Intelearthling...If your so proud to display this flag then I should also be proud to display a English flag, a Welsh flag, and a Scottish flag because that is my heritage. Funny that not many display English Union Jacks or St. George flags here in America below the US flag, since the US defeated the English. The US also defeated the Southerners in case you were wondering.


I don't know what the heck you're talking about. I think it is fine to display the Stars and Bars and furthermore, I don't care one whit what flag you display, unless you display the flag of the enemy in a time of war.

Besides that I have never displayed the Confederate Battle Flag except as a part of my uniform in the High School JROTC Dixie Drill Platoon at Fair Park High School in Shreveport, LA, in 1965 and 1966. A facsimile of the flag in the form of a patch appeared in our shirts and on our covers and the platoon guide carried a guidon with an ensign with the Stars and Bars.

The uniforms and the images of the Stars and Bars were considered tributes to our heritage and our ancestors who fought boldly against the Northern agressors. But I have never in any other context displayed a Confederate Battle Flag or any other facsimile, such as a license plate. My allegience is to the United States.

I bet you two would be incensed if I proudly displayed a St. George below the US flag, yet you proudly display the Confederate flag. I guess the old saying "you cant teach an old dog new tricks" is true of some people!


Where did you get this nonsense? I am of English, Scottish, Irish and Norwegian descent. What makes you so special? Are you on drugs? I'd like an explanation.


reply posted on 18-9-2004 @ 08:06 AM by Jazzerman
Originally posted by PublicGadfly
I disagree that slavery was the main issue.

It was high, real high for the southern plantation owners but profit was the main issue. The southerners had no fear of losing the institution even with Lincoln as president. The existing plantations would have run as before. Slave import had declined as breeding was producing near what was required.

South Carolina caused the Civil War, and a small group in Charleston led that charge.

I see nothing wrong with displaying any flag you choose. I'm a battle-field Vet and that's one of the rights I believed in then and still believe in.


How was slavery not the main issue? Slavery was the entire socio-economic stronghold of the south and without the institution the big businesses (ie plantations and the like) would fall.

Also, historically speaking, Kansas was the actual birthplace of the Civil War battles. Kansas had a strong dividing line between people that believed in the institution and people that did not, and when small raids, etc. broke out between the northern and southern parts of the state after the passing of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854. From around 1854-1856 Kansas saw the beginning fuel for the Civil War and bloodshed would envelope the state from 1856-1861. Kansas was admitted into the Union as a free-soil state in 1861, after a declining vote against the Lecompton Constitution which was submitted in 1858, which would have made Kansas a slave state.

Interesting point on Lincoln being a Tyrant. In fact here is what he did that made many see him as such:

"Among Lincoln’s unconstitutional acts were launching an invasion without the consent of Congress, blockading Southern ports before formally declaring war, unilaterally suspending the writ of habeas corpus and arresting and imprisoning thousands of Northern citizens without a warrant, censoring telegraph communications, confiscating private property, including firearms, and effectively gutting the Ninth and Tenth Amendments"
www.lewrockwell.com...

Hmm...seems a lot like a recent President? Doesn't it?


reply posted on 18-9-2004 @ 08:24 AM by Jazzerman
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I don't know what the heck you're talking about. I think it is fine to display the Stars and Bars and furthermore, I don't care one whit what flag you display, unless you display the flag of the enemy in a time of war.

The uniforms and the images of the Stars and Bars were considered tributes to our heritage and our ancestors who fought boldly against the Northern agressors. But I have never in any other context displayed a Confederate Battle Flag or any other facsimile, such as a license plate. My allegience is to the United States.

Where did you get this nonsense? I am of English, Scottish, Irish and Norwegian descent. What makes you so special? Are you on drugs? I'd like an explanation.


Ok Grady, maybe I jumped to conclusions early. I pointed out my heritage to make a point, and nothing more. I figured that with you being like you are you would have found it disgusting for me to display a Union Jack or something else. My mistake if I jumped to conclusions there! Also, Grady, I was referring more to Intelearthing about displaying the Confederate flag than to you, so Im sorry if it came across as if I was speaking only to you about that. However, with your harsh view you presented about why the Confederate flag is ok, but flag burning is not, I figured you for someone that would display it.

Then you say, "Where did you get this nonsense? I am of English, Scottish, Irish and Norwegian descent. What makes you so special? Are you on drugs? I'd like an explanation."

Why do you consistently say that anyone that has an opinion that deviates from a point other than yours must be "on drugs" or "a Marxist". So far you have said I am a Marxist Revisionist and "on drugs"...so, what next? If anyone disagree's with you again will you call them "traitors", "cowards", etc. Since I already made my point about telling you my heritage to make a certain point I don't feel the need to rehash it again. Also, whoever said I was "so special"? I sure don't remember saying anything that would lead anyone to believe such a thing. However....
why do you think you are so special? You accuse me of flaunting my heritage, which I clearly did not (other than to make a point), yet you continually hint to others that you are special because you are "wise" and "served in Vietnam". So, I will revert your question back to you. Why are you so special? I know plenty of men who served in both WWII, Korea, and Vietnam and they don't flaunt their military records around even half as much as you do.


reply posted on 18-9-2004 @ 10:08 AM by Jazzerman
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Disagreement is not a sufficient condition to call anyone a marxist. Regurgitating marxist ideology is a sufficient condition. And in so far as your attributing to me behaviors that have no basis in anything real or ever entered by me on this site is reason to question your connection to reality. I would think that drug abuse would better than guessing that you're psychotic.

You, Jazzerman, are, by your own appointment, the moral authority on this site and I would think that your gross stereotyping of me would be beneath your exalted position. If you are to utter my name, you might at least attribute to me something that has some substance.

And for the life of me, I cannot understand why you would think that I would object to your displaying any flag representing your heritage. For myself, the Stars and Stripes is the only flag I need.
[edit on 04/9/18 by GradyPhilpott]


First of all...I clearly apologised for what I said and stereotyping you in such a way so why do you think Im, "by your own appointment, the moral authority on this site...beneath your exalted position." When did I ever proclaim to be a "moral authority". If expressing my views makes me superior to everyone else in your mind then I really need to question you about taking drugs.

You also said, "I would think that drug abuse would better than guessing that you're psychotic." Nope...I have never done drugs or even tasted alcohol, or anything else, so I'm probably just psychotic

As far as myself being a "Marxist" I have no clue where you are getting this from as a Marxist is someone whom follows the teachings of Marx and Engels in believing that the actions and institutions of humans are economically driven and that class seperation and struggle is needed to promote the idea of change. I don't have a clue as to where you got this idea about me or anyone else that you have so blatently called a "Marxist". Oftentimes the word "Marxist" is confused with anyone who has revolutionary ideas, and those people are unfairly deemed as following Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin, or the like. What you are fundamentally proclaiming is that I am a neo-Bolshevik.

Thus, you, by your own admission are passing unfair judgements on me...just as I did with you, and I have since apologised for said statements. Have you ever admitted that you are wrong and apologised to someone? I have read most all of your posts and I have yet to see you ever admit that you are either wrong, that what you said has no substantial evidence, etc. even though there have been plenty of instances of said mistakes. Who knows, maybe I just missed that part?

You then said, "And for the life of me, I cannot understand why you would think that I would object to your displaying any flag representing your heritage. For myself, the Stars and Stripes is the only flag I need." Again, I was talking more to Intelearthling than you, and I am sorry if you were confused about who I was directing my statements torward, but I already apologised for that so no need to re-hash it again! I was questioning why he flies the Confederate flag (which I have historically explained as a representation of the institution of Slavery and ignorance), and yet condemns USA flag burning. I think its quite a legitimate question, and one that he has yet to answer me with contrary evidence to what I presented.



reply posted on 18-9-2004 @ 05:21 PM by Intelearthling
Originally posted by Jazzerman
Originally posted by PublicGadfly
I disagree that slavery was the main issue.

South Carolina caused the Civil War, and a small group in Charleston led that charge.

I see nothing wrong with displaying any flag you choose. I'm a battle-field Vet and that's one of the rights I believed in then and still believe in.


How was slavery not the main issue? Slavery was the entire socio-economic stronghold of the south and without the institution the big businesses (ie plantations and the like) would fall.


Slavery had long been an issue in the South as well as the North. Anti-slavery movements in the South had been making headway prior to the Civil War because of advancements in the way cotton was harvested and processed. Slavery was increasingly becoming unpopular all throughout the South. After secession, black and white plantation owners, had a powerful voice in the government. Did I say black plantation owners? Yes, I did. There existed free blacks in South Carolina and they owned plantations before the Civil War. They to owned a large number of the slaves that lived in the state at that time and was equally opposed of thought of "losing their property." I worked with a man who was doing geneological work on his family. He is a black man and he was telling me that through his research he found out that his great-grandfathers, great-grandfather had owned 5 slaves himself and was a free landowner. This was in North Carolina before the Confederate States existed. He told me that he was quite surprised by this fact. He grew up believing that all blacks in the South were slaves. He was upset because the truth was kept from him. He told me that he was glad he'd come across this information, because now he's got a very different view of what went on during that time period.

Interesting point on Lincoln being a Tyrant. In fact here is what he did that made many see him as such:

"Among Lincoln’s unconstitutional acts were launching an invasion without the consent of Congress, blockading Southern ports before formally declaring war, unilaterally suspending the writ of habeas corpus and arresting and imprisoning thousands of Northern citizens without a warrant, censoring telegraph communications, confiscating private property, including firearms, and effectively gutting the Ninth and Tenth Amendments"


I'm glad that you pointed this fact out first. It was Abraham Lincoln's intention from the start, of provoking a war with the South. History will have everyone to believe the opposite. South Carolina's Citadel Cadets fired upon Fort Sumter only after negotiations with Washington D.C. failed to remove Federal troops from Charleston and cease the naval blockade imposed on Charleston's ports. If anyone caused that bloody war, it was that guy, who's portrait is displayed on the front of the $5 bill. Don't get me wrong. I'll spend them all day long.

[edit on 18/9/04 by Intelearthling]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



DEA is Investigating Montana State Legislators Over State Laws
  Posted 12 days ago with 59 member flags
The CIA in Australia: America\'s Foreign Watergate
  Posted 2 days ago with 19 member flags
Who is really behind the birthers and what is their real motive?
  Posted 11 days ago with 11 member flags
ESF and Black op funding.
  Posted 10 days ago with 11 member flags
There is NO Media Bias in America
  Posted 10 days ago with 10 member flags