The Confederate flag - STFU

Labarbapostiza

Mardy Bum wrote: »

There is a good cartoon on the New Yorker at the minute depicting Southern Pride. How would you define SP? I would say that Southern Pride is so intertwined with racism and ignorance that it should be regarded as southern shame.

No... It's more something else. The south is different from the North in lots of ways. And not all of these ways are particularly bad things. There's a lot of racism in the North too.

Culchie pride might be a more appropriate term.

Amerika

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

There hasn't been shift "left" in America. The richest Americans have in fact DOUBLED their wealth in the last 6 years. Quantitative Easing of five TRILLION dollars, was the greatest ever gift from the poor to the rich in world history. How much further right to you think America has to go?

America didn't get the "left", they got gay marriage.

It's a relatively new tactic in politics. Back socially progressive issues, like gay marriage....and then dip your hand in their pockets with economic retrogression. it's actually a political position that has me wanting to slice fat throats open.

The Left here doesn’t really care about 99% of the things it claims to care about. They take on all sorts of social and political battles, not because they believe in them, but rather to agitate and disrupt things in order to take power. They utilize emotional venting because it allows them to exercise power over others. They are a pox on our society.

PopePalpatine

Of course, it's never like the right exercise power over others...

Mardy Bum

Amerika wrote: »

The Left here doesn’t really care about 99% of the things it claims to care about. They take on all sorts of social and political battles, not because they believe in them, but rather to agitate and disrupt things in order to take power. They utilize emotional venting because it allows them to exercise power over others. They are a pox on our society.

I take it you are not too pleased with recent Supreme Court rulings. Damn judges.

Labarbapostiza

Amerika wrote: »

The Left here doesn’t really care about 99% of the things it claims to care about. They take on all sorts of social and political battles, not because they believe in them, but rather to agitate and disrupt things in order to take power. They utilize emotional venting because it allows them to exercise power over others. They are a pox on our society.

Gay marriage is not compulsory. it's not going to change your life....unless you want it too.

Problems America has? Just recently more than 50% of the population of Texas, were in fear they were about to be invaded by the United States of America. Even Chuck Norris was worried.

The right used fear and wedge issues to take over the south. The Republican's Southern Strategy was to win by playing to the south's racists.

The South was once upon a time far more left than the North. The name Red Neck, comes from Kentucky miners who would wear a red bandana around their necks to signal to others they were union men.

Amerika

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Of course, it's never like the right exercise power over others...

The Right can compromise. The US Congress is working again and getting things done because Republicans control it and DO compromise with Democrats for the good of all citizens.

Amerika

Mardy Bum wrote: »

I take it you are not too pleased with recent Supreme Court rulings. Damn judges.

You are correct, but maybe not for the reasons you may think. The Judges seem to forget they are part of the Judicial branch, not the Legislative branch of government.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

The Right can compromise. The US Congress is working again and getting things done because Republicans control it and DO compromise with Democrats for the good of all citizens.

64% disapproval.

Historic lows. And meanwhile Obama's approval is surging.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/congress-job-approval

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

The Judges seem to forget they are part of the Judicial branch, not the Legislative branch of government.

This is a constantly parroted republican talking point.

When judges dont make the decisions republicans want then they accuse the judges of "legislating from the bench".

Which is really Fox news Nonsense speak.

You'll never hear them explain in any more depth because it doesnt make any sense.

The judges job is to rule on whether a lower court made a correct or incorrect decision. How that is considered legislating god alone knows...

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

You are correct, but maybe not for the reasons you may think. The Judges seem to forget they are part of the Judicial branch, not the Legislative branch of government.

This is plainly ridiculous. The Supreme Court either upholds or strikes down laws based on their constitutionality, simple as that. Have you specific examples of them "legislating from the bench"?

InTheTrees

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Problems America has? Just recently more than 50% of the population of Texas, were in fear they were about to be invaded by the United States of America. Even Chuck Norris was worried.

Another problem is that 50% of the population of Texas probably couldnt identify Texas on a map.

I'm being absolutely serious too.

eire4

redstaar wrote: »

I think the flag is rebellish and cool its southern culture and they have a right to fly it. To ban it be wrong by a minority of people who use it as a racist tool.

Nobody has been calling for there to be a ban on it. What is been called for is to stop flying the flag on official government buildings to have the Mississippi state flag changed. Changes of that nature. In short the flag is a symbol of bigotry and it is not acceptable for any part of government to in a sense be endorsing bigotry by flying the confederate flag.

Labarbapostiza

eire4 wrote: »

Nobody has been calling for there to be a ban on it. What is been called for is to stop flying the flag on official government buildings to have the Mississippi state flag changed. Changes of that nature. In short the flag is a symbol of bigotry and it is not acceptable for any part of government to in a sense be endorsing bigotry by flying the confederate flag.

Yes. any state endorsement of the flag is very wrong, and any defenders of the flag do not have a leg to stand on. Because. The flag is not actually the confederate flag, and neither is it a confederate battle flag. it's actually the Dixiecrat flag. an explicitly racist political party. And this "historical" flag actually dates from 1948, and not the 1860s. (It takes a partial emblem from one of the Confederate battle flags. But neither the flag nor emblem were used in the south until 1948 - it's essentially a KKK flag. But. Due to a lot of BS, and fogging history, and the south's need for an actual emblem, the flag was adopted. The true history of the flag is explicitly racist, even more so now than in the recent past. The Russian separatists in Ukraine have adopted the flag, because they are fascists. The flag has to go. I believe the South needs an emblem, but not that one. )

Manic Moran

Brian? wrote: »

This is plainly ridiculous. The Supreme Court either upholds or strikes down laws based on their constitutionality, simple as that. Have you specific examples of them "legislating from the bench"?

No, he's right enough. Look at the number of 5-4 splits the court comes out with on "political" issues, with the same judges generally on each side, Was there ever any doubt which way Scalia, Roberts, Ginsberg or Breyer would rule on gay marriage, for example? It is accepted that there is a "conservative wing" and a "liberal wing" of the court, oddly, generally closely related to whichever president appointed them. It's why liberals are hoping that one of the judges retires in the next year, and conservatives are reverently hoping that they hold on until the next Republican president.

It's pretty much evident that in a lot of cases, the judges decide what they want the outcome to be, and then come up with some legal justification to support it. That's not ruling on the law, that's ruling on conscience. The court polarity has turned Scotus into a mockery of law.

Manic Moran

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Yes. any state endorsement of the flag is very wrong, and any defenders of the flag do not have a leg to stand on. Because. The flag is not actually the confederate flag, and neither is it a confederate battle flag. it's actually the Dixiecrat flag. an explicitly racist political party. And this "historical" flag actually dates from 1948, and not the 1860s. (It takes a partial emblem from one of the Confederate battle flags. But neither the flag nor emblem were used in the south until 1948 - it's essentially a KKK flag. But. Due to a lot of BS, and fogging history, and the south's need for an actual emblem, the flag was adopted. The true history of the flag is explicitly racist, even more so now than in the recent past. The Russian separatists in Ukraine have adopted the flag, because they are fascists. The flag has to go. I believe the South needs an emblem, but not that one. )

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/24/us/confederate-flag-myths-facts/

Not seeing it. CNN is saying that the Dixiecrats used the CBF impromptuly, and I've not been able to find a difference listed easily. Got a link?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Inconclusive evidence as of now. I believe the accepted theory continues to be that the pyramids were built by corvees of native Egyptians and of slaves as well, conscripted into temporary service on the pyramids, probably during the flood season when their labor on the farm could be spared for other things.

Well, the accepted theory for almost 2000 years was that Judas betrayed Jesus. There is now evidence supporting the contrary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas

Faced with new archeological evidence supporting that they were paid laborers it seems to be reasonable to assume they were not slaves. Either way nobody is driving down the road in a coal-stack pluming ford f-350 with a egyptian pyramid decal on their sticker lamenting a simpler time when history was ancienty and scores of slaves built our graves.

Also, a recent CNN/ORC poll shows that 57% of Americans see the that confederate flag more as a symbol of Southern pride than as a symbol of racism.

They can have this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_flag

InTheTrees

Manic Moran wrote: »

It is accepted that there is a "conservative wing" and a "liberal wing" of the court, oddly, generally closely related to whichever president appointed them. It's why liberals are hoping that one of the judges retires in the next year, and conservatives are reverently hoping that they hold on until the next Republican president.

Yes, it is accepted. Its really not unusual or new though; a US presidents lasting legacy are his appointments to the Supreme Court.

Thats where his ideology is extended.

That is how its always been.

It is George Bush's legacy to leave a conservative court in place. We are dealing with his appointments now.

There is a nomination process in which the President's appointees have to have their positions confirmed by Congress. So its not just a rubber stamp appointment.

InTheTrees

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's pretty much evident that in a lot of cases, the judges decide what they want the outcome to be, and then come up with some legal justification to support it. That's not ruling on the law, that's ruling on conscience. The court polarity has turned Scotus into a mockery of law.

Really?

They just come up with "some legal justification" do they?

Yikes.

:eek:

Ed_Stephens

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Yes. any state endorsement of the flag is very wrong, and any defenders of the flag do not have a leg to stand on. Because. The flag is not actually the confederate flag, and neither is it a confederate battle flag. it's actually the Dixiecrat flag. an explicitly racist political party. And this "historical" flag actually dates from 1948, and not the 1860s. (It takes a partial emblem from one of the Confederate battle flags. But neither the flag nor emblem were used in the south until 1948 - it's essentially a KKK flag. But. Due to a lot of BS, and fogging history, and the south's need for an actual emblem, the flag was adopted. The true history of the flag is explicitly racist, even more so now than in the recent past. The Russian separatists in Ukraine have adopted the flag, because they are fascists. The flag has to go. I believe the South needs an emblem, but not that one. )

I've asked this question 4 times and nobody has answered it, if the shamrock or other traditional Irish symbol was used by some hate group would you support its removal as an Irish symbol?

You cannot take the flag on its 20th century history alone.

Mardy Bum

Ed_Stephens wrote: »

I've asked this question 4 times and nobody has answered it, if the shamrock or other traditional Irish symbol was used by some hate group would you support its removal as an Irish symbol?

You cannot take the flag on its 20th century history alone.

If Lindsey Graham can I think that tells you enough. It has no place as an official flag.

Skylinehead

Ed_Stephens wrote: »

I've asked this question 4 times and nobody has answered it, if the shamrock or other traditional Irish symbol was used by some hate group would you support its removal as an Irish symbol?

You cannot take the flag on its 20th century history alone.

But the very reason the Confederate flag is flying above statehouses is based on hate.

Manic Moran

InTheTrees wrote: »

Really?

They just come up with "some legal justification" do they?

Yikes.

:eek:

Look at the high profile cases that have been dealt with in the last ten or fifteen years. Citizens United. Heller. ACA. Gay marriage. Etc. Notice any common groupings? When a member of one wing 'crosses over' and joins with the other side on these major issues it is invariably specifically remarked upon by commentators. There is a single accepted "swing vote."

Inherently, if a case gets to the Supreme Court, the chances are that it is an extremely hazy/questionable matter of law, open to multiple interpretations. Otherwise it likely wouldn't have gotten that far in the first place. Certainly there will be some bloc interpretations due to differing theories of legal analysis. For example, constructionists will often come together on an opinion. But you would think that such a difference, may the chips fall as they may, should result in the blocs ruling on different sides of the political spectrum from time to time. For example, maybe Breyer/Ginsburg might rule in favour of Heller, or Scalia/Roberts in favour or the gay marriage issue. But this does not happen.

For better or worse, that same inherent haziness at the Supreme Court level allows for some selective thinking/analysis. So it's not as if anyone is ignoring the law. All judges on both sides have good argument to back up their position. But the outcomes over time seem to indicate that this supporting analysis is a little convenient to suit personal preference.

InTheTrees

Manic Moran wrote: »

For better or worse, that same inherent haziness at the Supreme Court level allows for some selective thinking/analysis. So it's not as if anyone is ignoring the law. All judges on both sides have good argument to back up their position. But the outcomes over time seem to indicate that this supporting analysis is a little convenient to suit personal preference.

I agree.

I think the organization of it seems very efficient. Presidential appointments with congressional approval seems fair. The voters have picked the president and congress and the appointments reflect that.

So when the judges interpret hazy areas of law then they do so as fairly representative of society as a whole. Hopefully.

eire4

InTheTrees wrote: »

I agree.

I think the organization of it seems very efficient. Presidential appointments with congressional approval seems fair. The voters have picked the president and congress and the appointments reflect that.

So when the judges interpret hazy areas of law then they do so as fairly representative of society as a whole. Hopefully.

Ideally yes that would be the case but the reality is since the 1970's voter turnout has not been far above 50% and that is in presidential election years in midterms its even lower only 34% last Novermber. So no the supreme court does not represent more then the views of a little over 50% of the voting age population at best.

Overheal

eire4 wrote: »

Ideally yes that would be the case but the reality is since the 1970's voter turnout has not been far above 50% and that is in presidential election years in midterms its even lower only 34% last Novermber. So no the supreme court does not represent more then the views of a little over 50% of the voting age population at best.

Some vote, some lobby, others don't give a ****?

AbusesToilets

Not that it would ever pass but terms limits for Congress and Court appointments would be a major improvement. Something in the region of 12yrs for Congress and maybe 20yrs for the SC to allow for the dynamics of the legislative/ judicial process while still ensuring more generational relevancy.

FISMA.

It's hard for people to understand that for many, the Confederate flag is not a symbol of hate.

For many, it is a symbol of rebelion and southern pride.

Not everyone who flies the Confederate flag is a hateful bigot, just ask the people of Cork.

UP THE REBELS!

InTheTrees

FISMA. wrote: »

Not everyone who flies the Confederate flag is a hateful bigot, just ask the people of Cork.

UP THE REBELS!

Very odd twist to the whole debacle is Corks attachment to it.

Ed_Stephens

Another great step forward for equality and progressive thinking. Them darn racist, Nascar lovin Dukes of Hazzard.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33393860

Whatever next? All those white cops who shot black people will have to cover up the stars and stripes on their uniforms.

InTheTrees

Absolutely amazing passionate eleventh hour speech by Republican representative Jenny Horne, succeeded in swinging the vote in favour of removing the flag in South Carolina:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZrrvirBjxE

InTheTrees

Ed_Stephens wrote: »

Whatever next? All those white cops who shot black people will have to cover up the stars and stripes on their uniforms.

Why would they? I dont even get the joke you're trying to make...

InTheTrees

Its gone.

South Carolina votes to remove it. The governor signs the bill and it should be gone by Friday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/09/us-usa-confederate-idUSKCN0PG1KQ20150709

Skylinehead

Ed_Stephens wrote: »

Another great step forward for equality and progressive thinking. Them darn racist, Nascar lovin Dukes of Hazzard.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33393860

Whatever next? All those white cops who shot black people will have to cover up the stars and stripes on their uniforms.

It's his car, he can do what he wants with it.

FISMA.

Ed_Stephens wrote: »

Whatever next? All those white cops who shot black people will have to cover up the stars and stripes on their uniforms.

InTheTrees wrote: »

Why would they? I dont even get the joke you're trying to make...

... because the Confederate flag never flew on a slave ships.

... because the first flag the slave saw upon their arrival in to the US was never the Confederate or Southern Nation.

Why do you attack the Confederate flag as a symbol of hate and bigotry, yet give a pass to the Stars and Stripes?

PopePalpatine

You must have missed the bit about various states incorporating the Confederate battle flag into their own state flag as a reactionary response to the civil rights movement.

Maybe you lot can adopt it as a reactionary symbol against marriage equality.

InTheTrees

FISMA. wrote: »

Why do you attack the Confederate flag as a symbol of hate and bigotry, yet give a pass to the Stars and Stripes?

Have you read this thread?

MajorMax

Will they still be able to fly in it Croke park when Cork are playing?

Ed_Stephens

FISMA. wrote: »

... because the Confederate flag never flew on a slave ships.

... because the first flag the slave saw upon their arrival in to the US was never the Confederate or Southern Nation.

Why do you attack the Confederate flag as a symbol of hate and bigotry, yet give a pass to the Stars and Stripes?

I could add a lot more nations to that list, a lot of which would be African. But I've noticed a tendency for the posters on this thread to not answer direct questions so don't get your hopes up of an answer.

Ed_Stephens

InTheTrees wrote: »

Have you read this thread?

I've read it all and think the poster raises a valid point.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

FISMA. wrote: »

It's hard for people to understand that for many, the Confederate flag is not a symbol of hate.

For many, it is a symbol of rebelion and southern pride.

Not everyone who flies the Confederate flag is a hateful bigot, just ask the people of Cork.

UP THE REBELS!

No, they´re not racist, just ignorant.

Mardy Bum

Ed_Stephens wrote: »

I've read it all and think the poster raises a valid point.

Ed you may have a point the stars and stripes is offensive to a lot of people across the world. Indeed it is not looked upon to favourably by the native American population. They have their own flags and don't have the stars and stripes flying. They have also banned companies flying it during construction work on a reserve.

The Confederate flag is deeply offensive to a large minority of the US's own citizens and shouldn't be used to represent a state in any capacity.

Currently there is a push to change the names of a lot of things which were associated with slavery which is a welcome change across the states.

K-9

Mod:

There doesn't seem to be much discussion or debate going, more shouting and sneering. The standard of posting needs to improve on all sides or the thread will be closed.

InTheTrees

Ed_Stephens wrote: »

I've read it all and think the poster raises a valid point.

I was asking why you think the stars and stripes gets a "free pass" as you put it.

The question that you keep asking.

?

InTheTrees

Pretty Comic.

The Removal of the flag:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btJODF-Z1oA