• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Perry once defended Confederate symbols

Live Free said:
People have every right to fly the Confederate flag if they wish to do so. Over time the flag has been demonized and the people who wish to fly it called racists or ignorant. People often forget that Abraham Lincoln ran a tyranny that suspended freedoms such as Habeas Corpus that should never have been suspended. The Southern states had a right to secession according to the US Constitution (remember that thing?). He invaded a country that had been sovereign since before he was even inaugurated and is responsible for the bloodiest war in American history with over 600,000 killed and countless wounded and with their lives destroyed.

And even in 2011 people are frowned upon and attacked for flying a flag representing that sovereign country.
Click to expand...

California flies the flag of the Bear Flag Republic every day. It represents a foreign nation that voluntarily gave up its independence to join the union.

The Confederate Flag represents the old ante bellum south, and all that it stood for. It came to represent the resistance to civil rights. It is a symbol, yes, but of what? Small government?

or a state government that wanted to take away all of the rights of certain people?
 
While I support the rights of citizens to do whatever they want with the Confederate flag, it really shouldn't be hung in government buildings.
 
Jerry said:
When the war began, the north had slaves. It was legal.

The war was about trade.

Freeing slaves was just a political tool for victory, not the product of some ethical/spiritual/moral evolutionary leap.
Click to expand...


DING! DING! DING!.........no more calls please we have a winner!
 
Dittohead not! said:
California flies the flag of the Bear Flag Republic every day. It represents a foreign nation that voluntarily gave up its independence to join the union.

The Confederate Flag represents the old ante bellum south, and all that it stood for. It came to represent the resistance to civil rights. It is a symbol, yes, but of what? Small government?

or a state government that wanted to take away all of the rights of certain people?
Click to expand...

It's not the same flag. The flag flown today is not the flag of the Bear State Rebellion; it's the State Flag of CA
 
. It is well established that the North and the South would have ended slavery...as all slave trading nations had before them.
Click to expand...

Please provide some form of justification. Also...slavery was ended everywhere with the 13th Amendment....I think you're alluding to the Emancipation Proclamation which was basically an executive order and only applied to occupied territorries.
To say that the South fought for the primary purpose of enslavement of Africans is at best the opinion of the uninformed.
Click to expand...

Yes, i know, tariffs, agrarian society, states rights. The fact is, confederate leaders stated the reason for seccession as being slavery. It's been this revisionist softer southern history that's created this states rights movement.

Texas declaration of Secession
that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator,

Mississippi declaration of Secession
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.

South Carolina
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.


......you get the point.
 
sangha said:
That's a religious vow, not a legal one
Click to expand...

I was legally married by a Justice of the Peace in a CA court house for $70. I wouldn't become a Christian or even somewhat religious for another 5-6 years. I had to recite the vows given by the Justice of the Peace (not a religious official), and that vow said in part "till death do us part". We both said it, and it was not religious.

Even similar vows said in churches with marriages solemnized by religious officials, the terms of the vow are still legally binding and can be enforced; especially if you're Catholic.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
I was legally married by a Justice of the Peace in a CA court house for $70. I wouldn't become a Christian or even somewhat religious for another 5-6 years. I had to recite the vows given by the Justice of the Peace (not a religious official), and that vow said in part "till death do us part". We both said it, and it was not religious.
Click to expand...

Your marriage was a legal marriage. The vow is not a legal vow.
 
sangha said:
Your marriage was a legal marriage. The vow is not a legal vow.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.

The vow is the core of solemnizing the marriage, and the vow can define terms and conditions of the marriage. The vow is legally binding.
 
Jerry said:
Yes, it is.

The vow is the core of solemnizing the marriage, and the vow can define terms and conditions of the marriage. The vow is legally binding.
Click to expand...

this is new to me

would you please offer us a cite to establish your assertion
 
Jerry said:
Yes, it is.

The vow is the core of solemnizing the marriage, and the vow can define terms and conditions of the marriage. The vow is legally binding.
Click to expand...


pointing out that you pretend to know that such vow is legally binding
but you are unable to defend such bogus assertion when called upon to do so
 
Jerry said:
Yes, it is.

The vow is the core of solemnizing the marriage, and the vow can define terms and conditions of the marriage. The vow is legally binding.
Click to expand...

No, vows do not define the terms and conditions of marriage. The law does
 
Jerry said:
Yes, it is.

The vow is the core of solemnizing the marriage, and the vow can define terms and conditions of the marriage. The vow is legally binding.
Click to expand...

You don't really break a law by breaking the vow, especially since people can write their own vows. Frankly, your marriage, your vows both are only worth what you and your spouse put into them. No more. No less.
 
Jerry said:
Yes, it is.

The vow is the core of solemnizing the marriage, and the vow can define terms and conditions of the marriage. The vow is legally binding.
Click to expand...

I vow to give Jerry $1,000,000.

I'd like to see him take me to court and try to enforce that vow
 
sangha said:
I vow to give Jerry $1,000,000.

I'd like to see him take me to court and try to enforce that vow
Click to expand...

with a really good, really shady lawyer, I could get that to hold up in court as a "verbal contract" pay up sucka ;)
 
I went to a country concert in Athens (Luke Bryan) last weekend and there were soooo many confederate flags it was hilarious. And one guy having a massive one on the end of a large bamboo pole sticking up from the crowd.
I like the flag, I understand the full meaning, it also has a lot to do with lifestyle too and southern heritage. But, my family is from the North, so I don't really participate in it; even though I like it.

Those that use it 99.9% of the time are not doing it for racist reason, but for drastically different ones... the thought doesn't even come to mind.
 
celticwar17 said:
Those that use it 99.9% of the time are not doing it for racist reason, but for drastically different ones... the thought doesn't even come to mind.
Click to expand...

That's probably true, but then the people flying the flag (a vast majority anyway) are not descended from slaves. I'm sure jews feel differently about the Nazi flag than say, someone who's proud of their German ancestry. Not that I've ever seen anyone fly a Nazi flag for any reason other than being a Neo-Nazi.

Perry's past defense of these symbols is just smart politics in Texas. You don't say you don't like it, just like politicians in Wisconsin don't go around saying they don't like the Packers.
 
nijato said:
I'm not saying he's a rascist or not. I'm only asserting that being associated with these two racially charged stories will be enough to drag him down and out. Call me a cynic, but the truth of these matters doesn't really count one way or the other, perception does. His campaign has been sliding for weeks now, and this might just be the swan song into irrelevancy.
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know that you're a cynic. But I do wonder how much respect you have for the majority of your fellow citizens if you think the majority is going to buy sound-byte accusations of racism such as the ones being leveled against Perry. Even YouTube clips of Jeremiah Wright shouting "God damn America" and his lunatic accusations that the federal government exposed the black community to HIV in the hope of genocide didn't have much impact on Obama's candidacy. Why would a stupid rock have an impact on Perry's?
 
nota bene said:
Oh, I don't know that you're a cynic. But I do wonder how much respect you have for the majority of your fellow citizens if you think the majority is going to buy sound-byte accusations of racism such as the ones being leveled against Perry. Even YouTube clips of Jeremiah Wright shouting "God damn America" and his lunatic accusations that the federal government exposed the black community to HIV in the hope of genocide didn't have much impact on Obama's candidacy. Why would a stupid rock have an impact on Perry's?
Click to expand...

Well, for one (and correct me if my memory is faulty) I think the Rev. Wright controversy first surfaced after the dem primary, in the run up to the general. I think primary voters pay a lot more attention than general voters. Also, this was very much a guilt by association play - whereas the Perry race gaffes involve him directly.

As for my respect for fellow citizens... well, I respect them, but I think most of them are tragically uninformed, uninterested, and easily misled. I don't think badly of the masses, but I do think only about 50% of them could accurately identify the vice president, for example. Doesn't make them bad or stupid, just unengaged.
 
The fact that Perry is the target of a viscious smear campaign and character assasination by the Marxist left and the establishment Bush Republicans (who hate him) make me more inclined to vote for him. They are obviously taking him seriously and afraid of him or you wouldnt see all this crap. Heck doesnt anyone even know what Perry really stands for on the issues? Not really because there too busy trying to discredit him with overblown & meaningless bull****.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom