• 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
The battle flag WAS RESURRECTED by the Dixiecrats and the KKK in the late 40's-60's as a symbol of White dominance to counter civil rights actions.

It's pretty incredible that we're supposed to ignore that easily documented history and pretend that flag, that distinctive one, has some sort of benign modern history.
 
If the Union was so fundamentally opposed to slavery why did they let it persist for nearly 80 years ?

I have no idea what that question has to do with the quote you just read by Stephens.

But it was allowed to exist because if the Founders had insisted on the end of slavery as a condition for the new country, we'd never have had a country, or at least one that included the Southern states. Their economy was based on it and would crater in its then form were the slaves freed. So it was a necessary compromise.

The Stars and Stripes ( Northern Flag ) and legalised slavery co-existed allot longer than the Confederate flag and slavery did.

Yes, I realize that, but have no idea what the point is. You're just frantically shifting the goal posts here. We're not talking 1700s or even 1861 or 1870. The relevant history of the flag in question is in this century, from the 1940s or so through the 1960s when it was raised in defiance of the Feds forcing civil rights on reluctant southern states.
 
I don't know what you mean by that.

I certainly reject the racist part of that heritage, as do all decent Southerners in 2015. But I don't pretend it didn't happen or was reserved for a few bad apples. I'd have to willfully ignore the entire history of this region to believe that. What I also acknowledge is people change and regions change and where I live is not the same place as it was in 1950 or 1960. So why keep a symbol of that era and proudly fly it on the grounds of the State Capitol?
So you are equally in favor of eliminating several state flags, the US Flag, and many others that by some are seen as banners of oppression because some have abused and misused them?
 
I didn't say it was "created" for that purpose. What I said was it enjoyed a massive resurgence in popularity during the period of bitter battles over civil rights and Jim Crow laws, ultimately struck down by Congress and the Courts over the vehement objections of white Southerners.

And, again, that flag was first raised on the Capitol in 1961 as SC and the rest of the South was fighting to maintain Jim Crow and white supremacy, and it stayed there for 37 years before it was moved to its current location. It's part of history. If you think that history is wrong, tell me where.
That some see it as a racist symbol or some use it as a racist symbol is irrelevant.

Do you believe that everyone that disagrees with you about flying the flag is a racist?
 
So you are equally in favor of eliminating several state flags, the US Flag, and many others that by some are seen as banners of oppression because some have abused and misused them?

I guess you don't want to talk about S.C. and their history with the flag in question because the history is so clear, so you're moving the goal posts to some other unidentified flags seen by unidentified persons as banners of oppression because "some" (not sure who they are..) "abused and misused" them in some unidentified way.

If you want to be specific, then by all means we can shift the discussion to something else entirely! But maybe its best if we stick to this topic, at least on this thread.
 
I guess you don't want to talk about S.C. and their history with the flag in question because the history is so clear, so you're moving the goal posts to some other unidentified flags seen by unidentified persons as banners of oppression because "some" (not sure who they are..) "abused and misused" them in some unidentified way.

If you want to be specific, then by all means we can shift the discussion to something else entirely! But maybe its best if we stick to this topic, at least on this thread.
Dood...lets be blunt. I dont give a **** about your 'goalpost'. If we are being honest I barely consider a word you say. This issue isnt about 'South Carolina'. This is just another 'cause'...a celebratory orgy of race and racism. Personally...I dont care what South Carolina does or doesnt do...I'm not a citizen there. If they want to take it down they should. They just shouldnt accept a bunch of bitter angry narrow minded hate filled cause driven assholes from Washington DC's opinions as their reason for taking it down.

Is everyone that disagrees with you about the flag racist? Yes or no.
 
Last edited:
That some see it as a racist symbol or some use it as a racist symbol is irrelevant.

Of course the history of the flag is relevant. And it wasn't some vague "some" who used it as a racist symbol - this was the elected officials of the State of S.C. who rose that flag over their capitol in defiance of the Feds pushing for civil rights for blacks.

Do you believe that everyone that disagrees with you about flying the flag is a racist?

No, if I thought that I'd say that. It's a ridiculous notion.
 
Of course the history of the flag is relevant. And it wasn't some vague "some" who used it as a racist symbol - this was the elected officials of the State of S.C. who rose that flag over their capitol in defiance of the Feds pushing for civil rights for blacks.



No, if I thought that I'd say that. It's a ridiculous notion.
Beautiful. Common ground. People can disagree about this and still not be racist. Phew.
 
Dood...lets be blunt. I dont give a **** about your 'goalpost'. If we are being honest I barely consider a word you say. This issue isnt about 'South Carolina'. This is just another 'cause'...a celebratory orgy of race and racism. Personally...I dont care what South Carolina does or doesnt do...I'm not a citizen there. If they want to take it down they should. They just shouldnt accept a bunch of bitter angry narrow minded hate filled cause driven assholes fro Washington DC's opinions as their reason for taking it down.

Is everyone that disagrees with you about the flag racist? Yes or no.

OK fair enough, you're not interested in an honest discussion. Good to know.

And I answered your question. I don't make ignorant stereotypes like this, "bitter angry narrow minded hate filled cause driven assholes," about people who have different opinions than I do. It's entirely possible that those who disagree merely disagree but are otherwise good people.
 
LOL, more shifting goal posts.

And you're repeatedly posting in a thread about a subject that is a 'non-issue'........... :roll:

No, thats not shifting goal post, thats adding perspective.

Which is in short supply for skne reason.

And why do I post in a thread about a non issue ? Again, to add perspective and to expose the hypocrisy of those who want to ban a flag.
 
Is every Californian a racist hate mongering bigot because California interred thousands of Japanese people against their will? Is every American a racist because some racist groups gather under the starts and stripes? Was every German citizen a murderous nazi scumbag?

For that matter...wasnt every British subject a 'traitor' when they rebelled against the crown to form the United States?

You are slanted by your own hatred and bigotry.

Uhh, the Confederacy was created by treason. The confederate flag represents that treason. California was. It founded on Japanese internment.

And yes, everyone rebelling against Britain was a traitor to the crown. Are you saying equal justification existed for the confederacy? Fighting a war to maintain slavery was equivalent to the American Revolution?
 
No, thats not shifting goal post, thats adding perspective.

Which is in short supply for skne reason.

And why do I post in a thread about a non issue ? Again, to add perspective and to expose the hypocrisy of those who want to ban a flag.

Who wants to "ban" any flag?

And what is the hypocrisy? We have an opinion about a flag. Others disagree. And expressing our views pro or con on this issue doesn't mean we think it's a critical issue, not even in the top 100. I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think this forum is an actual vehicle for solving the world's problems. It's entertainment and a diversion, and for me is a good way to defend my beliefs against others who are intelligent and disagree.
 
Uhh, the Confederacy was created by treason. The confederate flag represents that treason. California was. It founded on Japanese internment.

And yes, everyone rebelling against Britain was a traitor to the crown. Are you saying equal justification existed for the confederacy? Fighting a war to maintain slavery was equivalent to the American Revolution?
Most in the south didnt fight the war to defend slavery. They fought the war top reject dominance of the north. Right, wrong, or indifferent most of their motives then are no different than the states today that insist on their independence and autonomy from an oppressive federal government.

To them, their cause was as noble and justified as the patriot 'traitors' that rebelled against the crown.

And California certainly has a fairly strong tradition of oppression of Asian people. Is that their lasting legacy? Shall we judge all Californians on their racism and oppression?
 
I did something very unusual for me, NIMBY...I liked a post from you.

But I just want you to be aware that, while I basically agree with your post...especially your last sentence...I am still aware that, even though that last sentence is aimed at both sides of the political spectrum, you took a shot at the right in your first sentence and somehow neglected to take a similar shot at the left.

I've gotten more even-handed with my bashing of each side lately, but acknowledge your last statement.
I simply don't see the same even-handed posting from the far-right GOP conservatives on this board.
When I do bash my own side, and there's plenty to bash, GOPs just move the goal posts.

When I see cons use inner-city crime as a reason not to have gun control, I present a plan.
It's called "targeted martial law" in which "rights" of criminals are suspended to go in and sweep high-crime areas with zero advance notice.
I would use roving bands of Special Forces drawn from any number of police units--National Guards, State Police, City Police, US Soldiers.
This is how a mod/con DEM thinks when he's pissed off--I could give a **** about the Bill of Rights under the extraordinary crime conditions we have.

Obama should never have said the "******" word in a public interview.
He should have said the "n-word".
He changed the focus to him as the messenger and created more division.
Obama and Clinton should have waited to bring up guns--knowing full well the discussion would get divisive right away.
Saying that nothing would get done in DC on guns is true--but they should have waited until well after the burials.

My #1 concern remains the divisiveness WITHIN the GOP in DC which continues to grind just about all legislation to a halt.
I just saw where Rep. Meadows was stripped of his co-chair gavel, which has the Freedom Caucus up in arms.
Also, the conservative Club for Growth is running ads against their own GOPs who support the Ex-Im bank.
I could list another dozen examples of GOP division and indecisiveness preventing them from governing as you know.
This is why it's difficult for me to be even-handed with my criticism of both sides .
 
Of course the history of the flag is relevant. And it wasn't some vague "some" who used it as a racist symbol - this was the elected officials of the State of S.C. who rose that flag over their capitol in defiance of the Feds pushing for civil rights for blacks.

I'm not totally up on the history of that flag in respect to SC, but it seems to me that the elected officials in SC dealt with the pressure from the Feds around 20 years ago. Since then, it hasn't been an issue and still isn't as far as the Feds are concerned.

That kind of makes the point of your post moot...don't you agree?
 
Most in the south didnt fight the war to defend slavery. They fought the war top reject dominance of the north. Right, wrong, or indifferent most of their motives then are no different than the states today that insist on their independence and autonomy from an oppressive federal government.

The state's rights/tenth amendment caused the civil war.
Today, it is just a flimsy excuse for GOPs to rail on the fed and now hide behind Gov. Haley's skirt.

To them, their cause was as noble and justified as the patriot 'traitors' that rebelled against the crown.

Since you've spoken about dominance from the North,
don't you find it odd that the "North" began the rebellion against the crown while the South was quite close to the crown,
from the American Revolution all the way through the civil war?

And California certainly has a fairly strong tradition of oppression of Asian people. Is that their lasting legacy?
Shall we judge all Californians on their racism and oppression?

I think it's high time that each state does have a "discussion" on their racist and oppressive past as part of their State History class .
 
I've gotten more even-handed with my bashing of each side lately, but acknowledge your last statement.
I simply don't see the same even-handed posting from the far-right GOP conservatives on this board.
When I do bash my own side, and there's plenty to bash, GOPs just move the goal posts.

When I see cons use inner-city crime as a reason not to have gun control, I present a plan.
It's called "targeted martial law" in which "rights" of criminals are suspended to go in and sweep high-crime areas with zero advance notice.
I would use roving bands of Special Forces drawn from any number of police units--National Guards, State Police, City Police, US Soldiers.
This is how a mod/con DEM thinks when he's pissed off--I could give a **** about the Bill of Rights under the extraordinary crime conditions we have.

Obama should never have said the "******" word in a public interview.
He should have said the "n-word".
He changed the focus to him as the messenger and created more division.
Obama and Clinton should have waited to bring up guns--knowing full well the discussion would get divisive right away.
Saying that nothing would get done in DC on guns is true--but they should have waited until well after the burials.

My #1 concern remains the divisiveness WITHIN the GOP in DC which continues to grind just about all legislation to a halt.
I just saw where Rep. Meadows was stripped of his co-chair gavel, which has the Freedom Caucus up in arms.
Also, the conservative Club for Growth is running ads against their own GOPs who support the Ex-Im bank.
I could list another dozen examples of GOP division and indecisiveness preventing them from governing as you know.
This is why it's difficult for me to be even-handed with my criticism of both sides .

I liked this post, too, because of your acknowledgement and it actually is pretty even-handed.

But that's not to say I agree with everything you've posted. (where would be the fun in that, LOL!!)

Your solution for inner-city crime would never happen...mostly because liberals would object.

I disagree with your last paragraph...the one about GOP inner-divisiveness. That kind of thing generally gets worked out within the Party. But I have to say that the biggest factor preventing the GOP from governing is opposition from Democrats, in general, and Obama, in particular. If either of them made an effort to work with the GOP, they would be more successful. Of course, that works both ways. Opposition from the GOP has certainly prevented the Democrats from getting their way as well. So it goes in politics.
 
I believe it is a 2/3rds majority. My question is what is the penalty for breaking the law?

I'm not sure. I would have to believe however that violations of the law are grounds for impeachment and likely go against the oath of office. Contrary to what seems to have become the standard mindset of many in America, Executive Branch officers are not Kings that simply can disregard and break the law because they feel like it.
 
The state's rights/tenth amendment caused the civil war.
Today, it is just a flimsy excuse for GOPs to rail on the fed and now hide behind Gov. Haley's skirt.



Since you've spoken about dominance from the North,
don't you find it odd that the "North" began the rebellion against the crown while the South was quite close to the crown,
from the American Revolution all the way through the civil war?



I think it's high time that each state does have a "discussion" on their racist and oppressive past as part of their State History class .

I dont find the link between the south and the crown all that surprising in 1776. It was the greatest concentration of british influence, there was a greater interdependence on textiles and trade...fiscal realities. Not surprising based on the facts of the day. I also dont find the race riots that occurred in the northern cities from 1900-1930 all that surprising. Its just part of history.

And I think its fine to have discussions on race and racism as historical realities. Great opportunities to learn. Sadly...some ****head will seize on the opportunity to try to capitalize today on the fact that in 1850, Asians in California were treated as slaves, not allowed to associate with non-Asians, couldnt marry, couldnt own proeprty, etc. Modern California doesnt own the actions of historical California. But you know...next thing you know people will be demanding the flag of California be changed...
 
This makes me very pleased. I think finally, and I mean finally, the history of the Confederate Flag on public property is coming to an end. The next thing to do is for the President to stop sending memorial bouquets to the Confederate war memorial at Arlington. That will happen in time. Probably within the next 2-3 administrations.
 
This makes me very pleased. I think finally, and I mean finally, the history of the Confederate Flag on public property is coming to an end. The next thing to do is for the President to stop sending memorial bouquets to the Confederate war memorial at Arlington. That will happen in time. Probably within the next 2-3 administrations.

We should also ignore our WWII dead in the cemeteries of Europe considering how many innocent civilians we kill over there.
 
No State can refuse or Government in general can refuse the right of the people to fly a flag on public grounds.

I don't think you understand what I mean by removal of the flag from public land. I'm arguing for an end to state sponsorship of the flag. If some idiot wants to go on public land and wave a confederate flag, that is within their rights. If the government is obligated to sponsor the confederate flag because some citizens believe they should, that means they are obligated to fly any and all flags that any citizen wants recognized by the government, which is clearly not the case.

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


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

Their private motivation doesn't earn them the right to government recognition via being named after streets/military bases etc. They fought to preserve slavery, and that should disqualify them from being honored by the government.
 
Back
Top Bottom