• 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!

Gov. Haley to call for removal of Confederate flag from Capitol grounds [W:154]

Should the flag be moved-removed from all State Buildings?


  • Total voters
    70
so it should come down too?...

Yes. But in the end it is up to the residents of the respective states. But I can certainly criticize their choice.
 
Lincoln knew it would lead to war, preparing Ft. Sumter for war...
How does "being helpless" prepare you for war? The Fort was out of supplies. That's like saying the starving children of Somalia are trying to bait diseases into attacking their immune system.
 
So you deny that he was on a drug which sometimes has a side effect of psychotic breaks and that he was on that drug due to mental health issues?
I haven't done blood tests on him yet, if you care to share your tests, by all means...do so.



So you don't think that we should do 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6? Why? Why are you against not giving mental patients drugs which can cause psychotic breaks? Why are you against expanding our mental health capabilities? Why are you against getting people pro-active in reporting people that they know with mental health issues? Why are you against educating the people to help them recognize those with mental health issues? And why are you against getting rid of the stigma associated with getting mental health treatment?
I'm still intrigued by the level of diagnosis you are offering and am very interested in your qualifications to determine your suppositions.



So you want to limit free speech and blame inanimate objects instead of actually addressing the real ****ing problem. Gotcha.
No, you have not got a thing I have said....because I never said that, in fact today I have already said:

Inanimate objects do not, but the people who use this symbol representing institutional slavery and subjugation of Blacks do use it to legitimize their view....which a US state is still flying, legitimizing it further......but then you already knew that.


But I will agree with you if you want to argue that holding to racist ideology, to extreme conservative authoritarian views just might be an indicator of mental illness.
 
I would try to explain it, but it would be pointless for me to waste my time doing so. If you are really interested you can review my posts from today where that very topic has been addressed.

So....you are 'stangs puppet?

Oh, man!! You must really hate some people here if you suggest people read the drivel you've been posting all day. That's torture, dude!!

Moderator's Warning:
Knock it off, both of you. Any more posts like these that do not discuss the topic will meet with an infraction. Stick to the topic.
 
True. The people of South Carolina have deemed their flag should look like this

View attachment 67186054

...as to the matter of the Confederate Battle Flag flying over the war memorial there, that is also being handled at the state level.

That does not remove, however, our right as people to suggest to the citizens of South Carolina, what they should do in the circumstance. The state has the ultimate to chose; but we retain the right to critique.
Ask me if I care?
 
Of course it matters what Lincoln was fighting for - it was his war.

The South was fighting to keep the union troops from burning and destroying everything in sight. They failed, but that doesn't mean they did not honor their states. Less than 5% of the people ever owned slaves of benefited from the slave trade. The vast, vast majority fought to survive. The union was ruthless in battle and in the Reconstruction that followed.

Originally Lincoln fought to keep the union together but that all changed with the signing of the emancipation proclamation two years before the war ended. The slash and burn tactics employed by Sherman and Grant was intended to finally put an end to the war ...which it did. The South probably would've surrendered sooner were it not for Southern white women slave owners appealing to the men's honor and family duty and publically shaming men who didn't enlist or support the cause for secession. Poor southern women on the other hand by 1862 were starving and resorted to rioting and looting just to get food and appealing to their men to desert and come home.
 
Well, they might, if they weren't feeling that they're the aggrieved party.

So it's all the fault of those who object for not asking nicely enough?

What you're doing here is making the mistake that that wasn't the common belief (inferiority, not slavery) held by almost ALL (including Lincoln himself) as it regards black people. You're only putting that line of thought on the Southerners.

I can't point to evidence either way on how whites in NYC regarded blacks as people, but the "not slavery" exception is a sort of gigantic one. I think in 1863, if I'm black I'm Ok with whites thinking I'm inferior so long as I'm free and treated somewhat at least equally under the law, and not raped, beaten, killed, my kids sold out from under me, whatever, at my owner's discretion.

This goes past the issue at hand. The issue of slavery actually was settled, or if the South hadn't seceded would have been settled with the Corwin Amendment which Lincoln signed and is still awaiting ratification. Also what people don't seem to realize was that Jim Crow laws were a response to Reconstruction and its excesses which added insult to injury.

Sheesh, is there anything a racist, white supremacist can do that you're not going to excuse? First of all I imagine the Jim Crow laws were primarily response to a deeply held belief in white supremacy and racists' attempt to keep blacks subjugated despite their "freedom." But if that wasn't the primary motivation, and if they were in response to reconstruction in 1900, what the hell is your excuse for them being in place and vehemently defended by the southern states in 1960? Still holding a grudge and taking it out on blacks a century later?

We look at these issues through today's eyes without seeing the other side at that time. People think its cut and dry, slavery is evil, it had always been evil. It might have been, but that doesn't mean that was the case, or the view for everyone. And when you tell someone that not only is the property you owned yesterday no longer yours but instead a fully recognized man who is gonna get a piece of your property for retribution and the Yankee gun is gonna back his play and place this uneducated individual who has decades of righteous rage in a position of local power and you can just sit there and take it or be dead, that there is gonna stick in your craw.

I don't even know how to respond to that. Yes, it would stick in the craw of white men who were up to that point quite able to beat, rape, buy, sell, etc. human beings at their whim. And I imagine that being owned by a white master stuck in the craw of black slaves.

But, yes, I get we can't use the lens of 2015 to judge those in 1865. But what most of us are focusing on is more recent history in my lifetime when, for example, S.C. decided to fly the Confederate flag as a protest for the Feds forcing civil rights on reluctant white racists throughout the South. Did it stick in the craw of whites (poor things) that whites in S.C. had to share restaurants with blacks? And blacks got to go to decent schools? Attend state colleges? Play sports with fellow whites?
 
This new "state shaming" tactic seems to be the new liberal move. if any state makes a religious law or flies a flag they don't like, get ready to get bad mouthed and threatened with economic collapse if the behavior isn't QUICKLY corrected.

oh, these are such fun times

In another setting that would be praised as markets working, which is the preferred alternative (I assume) to the Feds directing S.C. to take down the offensive flag.

And FWIW, there has been a boycott of S.C. by at least some black organizations for years. Neither the flag controversy or attempts to use economic pressure are at all new.
 
Just take it down and be done with it.
 
As many people have pointed out, the flag itself is not the problem. It is, however, a symptom of the problem, and that problem is societal, systemic racism.

I may have an underlying disease that has no immediate cure, but hope for a future cure. One symptom of my disease is an itchy rash, that is there for everyone to see and be aware of my disease. There is a treatment for my itchy rash, and when I use that treatment, one of the symptoms of my disease becomes less noticeable. People around me are more comfortable.

Will removing the flag from public facilities cure the problem if pervasive societal racism? No. But it may help with some of the symptoms, and make people more comfortable.
 
I voted to remove. It is long overdue. Evenso, I keep hearing those in position of authority predicted "to call for removal," instead of it already being said or done.
 
Gov. Haley continues to be the adult in the room, both sides of the aisle.
Sen. Graham didn't change his position on the flag until Gov. Haley gave him cover.
And Sen. Scott had nothing to say until Gov. Haley spoke.

Yet it wasn't long ago when she ran against the establishment wing in SC to get the GOP nomination to be governor.
I doubt if my conservative/GOP friends need to be reminded of the racial slurs thrown her way due to her heritage.
Not to mention the same slurs thrown at Gov. Jindal--such as "we don't need another ******* as governor in the GOP" .
 
We continue to see leading GOP contenders for POTUS hide behind state's rights on the Confederate flag.

What is not being addressed by everyone is the battle between state's rights and a strong central government.
The overriding issue of our Nation since it was first formed--the tenth/civil war amendment.

What I do see is Roof succeeding in his attempt to divide America--as evidenced on this board with the nonsensical back-and-forth posting .
 
It is a part of our PAST American culture. That said it's amazing to me as a 27 year old white guy that it would still be flying ANYWHERE on state or Federal property. That's just insane. Some Southern states truly need to think about the actual modern country they live in.


Honestly it's just a bunch of fat redneck guys that truly support the flag being flown. They're mad they they aren't getting any so they latch onto issues that in their minds empower them. These are the same types that stereotypically drunk punch people in bars over a woman that isn't even into them and then that very woman calls cops on em.

Crazy stuff.
 
I explained in another thread why I believe the flag should be taken down, and that just because the flag is a symbol doesn't mean that it does not have actual consequences:

It does belong in a museum. It may be symbolic on the face of it, but symbolism has real life consequences. As long as states like South Carolina continue to fly confederate flags on official government property and name streets after confederate generals and such, it is going to keep the issue of racial tension at the forefront of people's minds. The presence of remnants of institutionalized racism such as these symbols only encourage heinous and racist acts such as the Charleston shooting. Black people in South Carolina are literally driving down streets named after generals that fought to keep their ancestors enslaved, and their very state government flies the flag of a rogue nation whose primary purpose for existing was to preserve slavery. That is going to bring racial tensions to the forefront of people's minds. If people want to actually display confederate flags, that free speech and their right, albeit in very poor taste, but this active government endorsement of these symbols is clearly hurting the state of race relations, and if a clear proportion of the population wants a flag that brings no obvious benefits taken down, then by all means it should be.


And this is 100% utter crap.

Symbolism is protected by the 1st Amendment.

Btw, How about the Federal Government change the names of many of it's military bases and those street names on those military bases of Confederate Soldiers? See how that works out.. first.
 
The "Stars & Bars" (Confederate) flag in question is not the South Carolina state flag.

The "Stars & Bars" do not appear, in any way, on the SC State flag.

The flag that is under debate here is a "Confederate" flag that hangs in front of the SC state building along with the State flag.

No the issue is a bigger then that. You have 9 states that issues Sons of the Confederacy Vehicle plates which has Sons of Confederate Veterans logo. You also have Mississippi and Georgia which have "star and bars" features. Then you Six flags over Texas.
 
Quick question: If a German decided to fly the Nazi flag under the premise that their ancestors did so, and they want to honor those ancestors and what they fought for, not necessarily the whole burning Jews in gas ovens part, would anybody buy it?

When it comes to our "Ukrainian" allies. By allies, the ones we installed into power.
 
The average southerner was a poor white man who owned no slaves. While govt's certainly went to war over economic issues, I have read many journals from the people who actually fought, and why they fought.

I get the impression (though Im not southern) that much of the pride comes from this. To this day I still hear southerners proudly mention individual family members that fought in the war.

There is this book by Mark Nesbitt .
 
And this is 100% utter crap.

Symbolism is protected by the 1st Amendment.

Please explain to me how removal of the confederate flag from public property prevents private (i.e. non-governmental) expression using said flag.


Government owned streets and military bases named after people who literally fought to preserve slavery should obviously be renamed as well.
 
Please explain to me how removal of the confederate flag from public property prevents private (i.e. non-governmental) expression using said flag.

Government can't censor speech or symbolism. Removal would be censorship. 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I know what you are thinking.. that says Congress.. well there is this amendment called the 14th amendment which also says this.. : Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So an Amendment as the result of winning the Civil War (14th) states States have to provide equal protection. So under the equal protection clause 1st Amendment would apply to 1st Amendment rights of flying the flag as form of free speech..

I know it's a bitch.. but that's reality.


Government owned streets and military bases named after people who literally fought to preserve slavery should obviously be renamed as well.

Which is my point, US Government can't do it. These names are there because of the 14th Amendment.

Btw, I don't think most of them fought to preserve slavery. It's well known Robert E. Lee fought to protect Virginia. Same with Stonewall Jackson. Prior to the end of the Civil War, people (citizens) owed allegiances to their home States. I also think if compensation was offered, South would have been more willing to listen, like they did in the United Kingdom. As freeing a slave which is "property" destroys net worth. Now I want to say I do not justify slavery.

But we still have loyalty to our "state" on both sides of the Mason Dixon line. I grew up on the Mason Dixon line, near Gettysburg and I was a child of an immigrant but to this very day I am loyal to PA, my town, Penn State, and my local sports teams. Just as the my friends in Ohio are loyal as hell to Ohio, their towns, Ohio State and their sports teams. Just as a person from South Carolina, 'Bama, Texas or so on. It's just who we are as animals. The pack mentality. We stick together.
 
Ask me if I care?

You are a Conservative, of course you do not care about too many things that do not directly affect American. Neither of us needed to articulate the obvious.
 
Government can't censor speech or symbolism. Removal would be censorship. 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I know what you are thinking.. that says Congress.. well there is this amendment called the 14th amendment which also says this.. : Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So an Amendment as the result of winning the Civil War (14th) states States have to provide equal protection. So under the equal protection clause 1st Amendment would apply to 1st Amendment rights of flying the flag as form of free speech..

I know it's a bitch.. but that's reality.

That's certainly a bizarre interpretation of the 1st Amendment. If the South Carolinian government decided to stop displaying the confederate flag, every citizen would still have the right to fly the flag themselves, and thus their 1st Amendment rights are still protected.

Which is my point, US Government can't do it. These names are there because of the 14th Amendment.

Btw, I don't think most of them fought to preserve slavery. It's well known Robert E. Lee fought to protect Virginia. Same with Stonewall Jackson. Prior to the end of the Civil War, people (citizens) owed allegiances to their home States. I also think if compensation was offered, South would have been more willing to listen, like they did in the United Kingdom. As freeing a slave which is "property" destroys net worth. Now I want to say I do not justify slavery.

But we still have loyalty to our "state" on both sides of the Mason Dixon line. I grew up on the Mason Dixon line, near Gettysburg and I was a child of an immigrant but to this very day I am loyal to PA, my town, Penn State, and my local sports teams. Just as the my friends in Ohio are loyal as hell to Ohio, their towns, Ohio State and their sports teams. Just as a person from South Carolina, 'Bama, Texas or so on. It's just who we are as animals. The pack mentality. We stick together.

Monetary compensation for people who actually chose to own other people in exchange for freeing them is morally reprehensible. If anything, they deserved a loss in net worth for owning slaves in the first place.

I couldn't care less about the personal motivations of any confederate generals. They willingly fought to preserve the slave power; whether or not they believed in what they were doing is irrelevant.
 
That's certainly a bizarre interpretation of the 1st Amendment. If the South Carolinian government decided to stop displaying the confederate flag, every citizen would still have the right to fly the flag themselves, and thus their 1st Amendment rights are still protected.

No State can refuse or Government in general can refuse the right of the people to fly a flag on public grounds.



Monetary compensation for people who actually chose to own other people in exchange for freeing them is morally reprehensible. If anything, they deserved a loss in net worth for owning slaves in the first place.

Must be nice living in the 21st century before Karl Marx.


I couldn't care less about the personal motivations of any confederate generals. They willingly fought to preserve the slave power; whether or not they believed in what they were doing is irrelevant.

They fought for their own reasons, doesn't mean they have to agree with the State reasoning. Just like today in current wars.
 
Back
Top Bottom