• 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!

Confederate Flag[W:1518,2230, 2241]

Should the Confederate Flag be abolished?

  • Yes

    Votes: 55 30.2%

  • No

    Votes: 127 69.8%
  • Total voters
    182
Re: Confederate Flag

Excon said:
:doh
Yes it should.
An appropriate place for the Flag is on/at such a memorial.


And neither did the Flag that was part of it.


:doh
No one said it wasn't.
But it's removal was not appropriate. As that was an appropriate place for it. End of story.
Click to expand...

If it was appropriate, it would not have been removed.

End of story.
 
Re: Confederate Flag

Black Dog said:
If it was appropriate, it would not have been removed.

End of story.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
Caving to political correctness has nothing to do with what is actually appropriate or not.
 
Re: Confederate Flag

Excon said:
:naughty
No.
As it is a memorial for US Veterans it should have remained exactly where it was.
Click to expand...

No. They are not "US Veterans."

They were fighting *against* the U.S. They took up arms against the US.

That 1958 Act you cite is falls under under the "VETERANS’ BENEFITS" and is related to US pensions.

Not one Confederate soldier ever received a pension from the Federal government.
 
Re: Confederate Flag

Excon said:
Wrong.
Caving to political correctness has nothing to do with what is actually appropriate or not.
Click to expand...

Not caving to anything. The US government should not be flying the flag of past enemy combatants on it's property. It was not only appropriate but necessary.

Now with that since I don't consider your posts worth much as they are sort of a joke.

Have a good one.

PS:This has nothing to do with confederate veterans. :lamo
 
Re: Confederate Flag

Black Dog said:
Not caving to anything. The US government should not be flying the flag of past enemy combatants on it's property. It was not only appropriate but necessary.
Click to expand...
Yes it was caving as we all saw.
And since it was a Memorial to those citizens it was appropriate for it to be flying.


Black Dog said:
Now with that since I don't consider your posts worth much as they are sort of a joke.
Click to expand...
:doh
I couldn't care less about your hilarious convoluted thoughts in trying to bait. :lamo
 
Re: Confederate Flag

Excon said:
Yes it was caving as we all saw.
And since it was a Memorial to those citizens it was appropriate for it to be flying.
Click to expand...

The Army of Northern Virginia battle flag was not appropriate at all. That is why it was removed. The memorial does not need the flag of an enemy combatant flying. Are we going to start flying the Union Jack to celebrate the fallen soldiers from the revolutionary war?

Excon said:
:doh
I couldn't care less about your hilarious convoluted thoughts in trying to bait. :lamo
Click to expand...

And yet you keep responding. Way too predictable. Just like being burned on your article, lol.
 
Re: Confederate Flag

Excon said:
:doh
Apparently you do not understand what Veteran means.

Anyways.


Confederate Soldiers are American Veterans by Act of Congress | Veterans Today
Click to expand...

I'm quite familiar with what it means.

Perhaps you need to know the difference be U.S. - and American.

The very closest you could come to would be "American veterans." Not US. They fought *against* the US.

Still the silly 1958 law that's being drudged out lately is under the heading of Pensions -- and you best pull up the full exact language of that Pension Act.

It was at best, a symbolic gesture, as, I said no Confederate veteran ever rec'd a Federal pension.
 
Re: Confederate Flag

Black Dog said:
The Army of Northern Virginia battle flag was not appropriate at all.
Click to expand...
:doh
As a universal Symbol of the Rebel soldiers, yes it was.


Black Dog said:
The memorial does not need the flag of an enemy combatant flying.
Click to expand...
As it was a memorial to those Veterans it was appropriate. Nothing you can say changes that.


Black Dog said:
Are we going to start flying the Union Jack to celebrate the fallen soldiers from the revolutionary war?
Click to expand...
Oh look, a lame comparison. :doh
Not the same thing. And stop deflecting.



Black Dog said:
And yet you keep responding. Way too predictable. Just like being burned on your article, lol.
Click to expand...
And yet you keep responding in a predicable manner saying lame things. Go figure.
 
Re: Confederate Flag

Paperview said:
I'm quite familiar with what it means.

Perhaps you need to know the difference be U.S. - and American.

The very closest you could come to would be "American veterans." Not US. They fought *against* the US.

Still the silly 1958 law that's being drudged out lately is under the heading of Pensions -- and you best pull up the full exact language of that Pension Act.

It was at best, a symbolic gesture, as, I said no Confederate veteran ever rec'd a Federal pension.
Click to expand...
As usual you do not know what you are talking about. Obviously you are not.
Do some actual research and get back to us.
 
Re: Confederate Flag

Excon said:
As usual you do not know what you are talking about. Obviously you are not.
Do some actual research and get back to us.
Click to expand...

I've done research -- long, long - years before this little item started waving in the confederate breeze, sista.

What I said was correct.

You cannot refute it.
 
Re: Confederate Flag

Excon said:
:doh
As a universal Symbol of the Rebel soldiers, yes it was.

As it was a memorial to those Veterans it was appropriate. Nothing you can say changes that.

Oh look, a lame comparison. :doh
Not the same thing. And stop deflecting.

And yet you keep responding in a predicable manner saying lame things. Go figure.
Click to expand...

#1 A universal symbol that does not and is no longer on the memorial. :mrgreen:
#2 It is an excellent comparison. Tori's were Americans serving the crown as well. You can however keep your fingers in your ears.
#3 Are you going to keep parroting everything I say? I know coming up with original posts may not be your forte, but damn.

Now since dealing with this is sort of like dealing with children I am going to let you have the last word. I can do this because all you are going to do is...
Repeat what I said or just repeat your tired already shown to be silly argument.

With that I bid you good day.
 
Re: Confederate Flag

[h=1]Did the US recognize Confederate soldiers, and were they “honorable”?[/h]
As I'm tired of repeating myself...let Wayne explain:

"A piece going around on Facebook and elsewhere says the US Government declared long ago by law that Confederate veterans are equivalent to Union veterans in all significant respects. This appears not to be true except for very limited aspects of being supplied government headstones and, long after the fact, receiving government pensions.

Pensions for Confederate veterans apparently started only in 1958 when almost no veterans remained alive; pensions for their widows had started many years earlier.

The piece apparently derives from this “news” item: LIBERALS DON?T WANT YOU TO KNOW THIS ABOUT THE CONFEDERATES | Washington Weekly News
The piece says that Public Law 85-425 of 1958 declared Confederate veterans to be equivalent. But that law actually says that the equivalence is for veterans’ pensions and widows’ pensions, not for any other purpose. See the text of the law appended below.

The piece also says that Public Law 810 of the 17[SUP]th[/SUP] Congress on February 26, 1929 declared the “War Department was directed to erect headstones and recognize Confederate grave sites as U. S. War dead grave sites”. But the actual law referenced seems to be 85-811 of 1958 or its predecessors, which address only headstones and markers for otherwise unmarked graves of military dead from numerous contexts, and do not declare Confederate dead to be “U. S. War dead”. See for example the attached image. I’ve searched high and low and cannot find any references to Public Law 810 in the 17[SUP]th[/SUP] Congress on February 26, 1929. According to Wikipedia the 17[SUP]th[/SUP] Congress started in 1821. The 71[SUP]st[/SUP] started in 1929, and I found no law at all from it related to these matters.

Records of the 70[SUP]th[/SUP] Congress (http://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/70th-congress/c70.pdf) do say this: “Headstones for Confederate soldiers’ graves. An Act Authorizing the Secretary of War to erect headstones over the graves of soldiers who served in the Confederate Army and to direct him to preserve in the records of the War Department the names and places of burial of all soldiers for whom such headstones shall have been erected, and for other purposes. February 26, 1929 1307”. No mention of statues or monuments, only headstones. I have not been able to find anything about those cited “other purposes”, but it seems extremely unlikely that they declared Confederate dead to be US war dead on an equal footing with the non-rebel soldiers of the Union.

Here’s a government-written history of US military headstones, with correct attributions to laws: History of Government Furnished Headstones and Markers - National Cemetery Administration. Note that our country began properly burying Confederate dead as early as 1861. But so far I cannot find any mention, anywhere, of Congress granting Confederate veterans all the honors and benefits extended to Union veterans.

An interesting aside from http://www.defense.gov/pubs/Law-of-War-Manual-June-2015.pdf: ”The Lieber Code reflected rules for ‘regular war’ or what today would be classified as international armed conflict. Such rules were applied to the Confederate forces for humanitarian reasons, even though the United States did not recognize the Confederacy as a legitimate government or State. In this way, the Lieber Code is an example of the application of the doctrine of recognition of belligerency.”


Not one Confederate ever received a US Pension. That should tell you something.
 
Re: Confederate Flag

“An act to increase the monthly rates of pension payable to WIDOWS and FORMER WIDOWS of deceased veterans of the Spanish-American War, Civil War, Indian War, and Mexican War, and provide pensions to WIDOWS of veterans who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Veterans’ Benefits Act of 1957 (Public Law 85-56) is amended:
(3) Section 432 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection: ‘(e) For the PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION, AND SECTION 433, the term “veteran” includes a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, and the term “active, military or naval service” includes active service in such forces.'” (capitalization added)

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/85/hr358/text

"Just the Facts" explains it further:

"This law doesn’t make “all Confederate Veterans equal to U.S. Veterans.” Not at all, no way." It’s interesting that the people pushing this myth don’t quote the actual law. Here’s what it says:

In other words, the term “veteran” includes Confederate veterans ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING WIDOWS’ PENSIONS. It DOES NOT make Confederate veterans the same as U.S. veterans universally.
In fact, the very same law includes the following:

“SEC. 410. The Administrator shall pay to each person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War a monthly pension in the same amounts and subject to the same conditions as would have been applicable to such person under the laws in effect on December 31, 1957, if his service in such forces had been service in the military or naval service of the United States.”

Clearly this language doesn’t make Confederate veterans the same as U.S. veterans. In fact, it differentiates between the two. It says that Confederate veterans get the same monthly pension AS IF their service had been in U.S. forces. if Congress had wanted to say Confederate veterans are the same as U.S. veterans, why didn’t it just use the same language as it did when talking about widows?

On the same note, why didn’t Congress ever pass a standalone law that simply said all Confederate veterans are to be considered U.S. veterans?
 
Re: Confederate Flag

Paperview said:
I've done research -- long, long - years before this little item started waving in the confederate breeze, sista.

What I said was correct.

You cannot refute it.
Click to expand...
Obviously not as you still are making an argument against something I did not say.
:doh

They were conferred Veteran status by the US Government whether you like it or not.

I provided the link for a reason. You should have read it.

U.S. Code Title 38 – Veterans’ Benefits, Part II – General Benefits, Chapter 15 – Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability or Death or for Service, Subchapter I – General, § 1501. Definitions: (3) The term “Civil War veteran” includes a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, and the term “active military or naval service” includes active service in those forces.​

They are US Veterans.
 
Re: Confederate Flag

Excon said:
Obviously not as you still are making an argument against something I did not say.
:doh

They were conferred Veteran status by the US Government whether you like it or not.

I provided the link for a reason. You should have read it.

U.S. Code Title 38 – Veterans’ Benefits, Part II – General Benefits, Chapter 15 – Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability or Death or for Service, Subchapter I – General, § 1501. Definitions: (3) The term “Civil War veteran” includes a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, and the term “active military or naval service” includes active service in those forces.​

They are US Veterans.
Click to expand...
No.

You are wrong.

As usual.
 
Re: Confederate Flag

Paperview said:
No.

You are wrong.

As usual.
Click to expand...
No.

You are wrong, as shown.

As usual.


Obviously you do not understand what "definition" means either.
:doh
 
Re: Confederate Flag

Absentglare said:
I'm sure Zimmerman gave a very convincing account that suggested he had done no wrong.
Click to expand...

Zimmerman's broken nose, black eyes, head lacerations, and the forensic evidence that indicated Martin was on top of him when he was shot might have had something to do with it, too.
 
Re: Confederate Flag

Title of the Act: Public Law 85-425 AN ACT To increase the monthly rates of pension payable to widows and former widows of deceased veterans of the Spanish-American War, Civil War, Indian War, and Mexican War, and provide pensions to widows of veterans who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War."

"For the purposes of this chapter—

(1) The term “Indian Wars” means the campaigns, engagements, and expeditions of the United States military forces against Indian tribes or nations, service in which has been recognized heretofore as pensionable service.
(2) The term “World War I” includes, in the case of any veteran, any period of service performed by such veteran after November 11, 1918, and before July 2, 1921, if such veteran served in the active military, naval, or air service after April 5, 1917, and before November 12, 1918.
(3) The term “Civil War veteran” includes a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, and the term “active military or naval service” includes active service in those forces.
(4) The term “period of war” means the Mexican border period, World War I, World War II, the Korean conflict, the Vietnam era, the Persian Gulf War, and the period beginning on the date of any future declaration of war by the Congress and ending on the date prescribed by Presidential proclamation or concurrent resolution of the Congress."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/1501

That would be the chapter under Pensions.

Of which not one Confederate soldier ever rec'd a Federal Pension.

Legally CSA veterans are not US veterans.

Equating those who fought for this country with those who fought against it - is insane.
 
Last edited:
Re: Confederate Flag

Black Dog said:
Only when it comes to your written nonsense. Gonna tell me I don't know what racism is. :lamo
Click to expand...
Now who needs reading comprehension skills? I said no such thing. Your experience is your experience. Many more black people report quite different experiences. I'm not claiming your experience isn't valid even though you're desperately trying to put those words into my mouth so you can ride your hobby horse.

Then claim blacks who break off the liberal plantation are somehow self hating.
Click to expand...
I was going to ask you if you were one of those blacks who claim that it's still the dem party that's the party of slavery, racism and segregation which is a constant white rightwing refrain these days and that blacks who are now in that party are "still on the plantation," but that's a well worn line and it answers that question. It's a view that ignores all our political history but particularly the last 70 years of it. I don't believe I described your particular situation as self-hating so you either need some reading comprehension skills yourself or it just more straw-man building on your part.

While we're on the subject of reality denial, is this guy one of your heroes: Ben Carson: 'The Whole Purpose' Of Planned Parenthood Is To 'Eliminate Black People' | Right Wing Watch



I said nothing about pity. Reading comprehension is fundamental.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. So is self-awareness.
 
Re: Confederate Flag

There seems to be an echo in this forum.
 
Re: Confederate Flag

Excon said:
Your absurd take on the case has already been shown to be wrong, several times.





:doh
Just stop. You do not know what you are talking about.
1. The Call-taker (a person with no authority) did not ask Zimmerman not to follow. He stated that they did not need him to do that.
1(a). Zimmerman stopped and did not follow from that point on. He went in another direction.

2. There was no stalking. Following to keep eyes on a suspicious person until the police you called arrives, is not staking. It is called Observing.

3. Anyone has a right to ask someone why they are following them. They do not have a right to attack them like Trayvon did.

4. Trayvon had disappeared and only reappeared later when Zimmerman was on his way back to his vehicle.
Either he laid in wait or he made it the short distance home only to return to deliberately place himself in danger and attack him.

5. There was no murder. It was a justifiable killing of an attacker.


You even were speaking of the Brown case and displayed that you also have no idea what you were talking about in regards to that case as well.
Brown was not murdered.
And even though the Chief initially said he wasn't aware of the call about the theft it was later found out that he was.
Most folks understand that when new confirmed information counters the old unconfirmed you dismiss the old as irrelevant.




You know not of what you speak.

The trial showed by the evidence that Zimmerman was defending himself. The Trier of Fact (the Jury) determined that is what was proven and as such, he was found not guilty.

There was no evidence of stalking.
Following to observe someone who was acting suspiciously that he had called the Police on? Yes. But not stalking. And btw, stalkers do not call the Police.
To even suggest he was stalking is lunacy.


False accusations are not an indication of stability or instability. D'oh!


The Matthew Apperson character that fired on Zimmerman is exactly the type of unstable person that others wished call Zimmerman.
He even exemplified the idiocy of the arguments made by folks here that a person could just claim SYG and walk away.
Click to expand...

Thanks for documenting all the racist lies and rationalized post hoc justifications created to justify those two murders. It was a good refresher course.
 
Re: Confederate Flag

Ahlevah said:
Zimmerman's broken nose, black eyes, head lacerations, and the forensic evidence that indicated Martin was on top of him when he was shot might have had something to do with it, too.
Click to expand...

And Zimmerman's story happens to be the only one available for how those injuries occurred (his nose was not broken, by the way---another rightwing murder supporting lie) and there were no black eyes ever mention. You must have invented that one yourself. But that's how this whole thing went after the murder. No effort was spared in making sure "facts" were created to make OJ Zimmerman seem like the victim rather than the perp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom