• 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!

The Confederate Flag

JasperL said:
Yes, Democrats BAD!!! We got it. It's why I love you using "Democrat" party.
Click to expand...

I see you have totally avoided the point made and would rather harp on semantics. How "Democrat" of you.:lol:
 
Mr Person said:
How can they not know that the heritage is racist because the heritage is "we fought to defend our decision to secede, which we did because we wanted to preserve slavery so our economy still functioned as well as possible for the well-off amongst us."

They can wrap it in "the north wanted to burn our homes" and the like, but you cannot honestly sever the why from that. Just as much as the fact that if a person claims a general heritage, they can't simply jettison the unsavory bits and consider themselves honest.



Note the kind of evasive BS:



Only the parts you're willing to openly admit liking, of course...

But just as much as you cannot fly a nazi flag only for celebrating the "heritage" of an industrious people, you cannot fly a confederate flag only for celebrating the "heritage" of banjo playing and cotton farming....
Click to expand...

It’s about identity- personal and cultural. It’s kind of like how you would still continue to identify with your family and family name, even after people point out that you may have some drunks, bums, and no good people in it
 
veritas1 said:
I see you have totally avoided the point made and would rather harp on semantics. How "Democrat" of you.:lol:
Click to expand...

You're just spewing mindless partisan hackery. DEMOCRATS BAD!!! HERE'S ONE EXAMPLE THAT I WILL EXTRAPOLATE TO THE ENTIRE COUNTRY!!! WHY WON'T YOU ADDRESS THIS POINT??!!!
 
ataraxia said:
It’s about identity- personal and cultural. It’s kind of like how you would still continue to identify with your family and family name, even after people point out that you may have some drunks, bums, and no good people in it
Click to expand...

Sounds like it's time to change your name. Kinda like the Drumpfs did.
 
JasperL said:
You're just spewing mindless partisan hackery. DEMOCRATS BAD!!! HERE'S ONE EXAMPLE THAT I WILL EXTRAPOLATE TO THE ENTIRE COUNTRY!!! WHY WON'T YOU ADDRESS THIS POINT??!!!
Click to expand...

You won't address the point of long term Democrat control of many of these failing cities. Why is it so hard to admit this fact?
 
veritas1 said:
You won't address the point of long term Democrat control of many of these failing cities. Why is it so hard to admit this fact?
Click to expand...

Democrat-controlled cities:

chicago.jpghonolulu1.jpgmanhattan.jpgchicago1.jpgdiversity2.jpg
 
Republican controlled cities:

nazi.jpgmassacre1.jpgopencarry.jpgsnakehandler.jpgfyourfeelings.jpg
 
veritas1 said:
You won't address the point of long term Democrat control of many of these failing cities. Why is it so hard to admit this fact?
Click to expand...

Oh, well, so Democrats control "many" "failing" cities!! I don't know why I don't address a point that cites no data, and makes no discernible objective point that one can challenge. Truly a mystery!!

The proper response to your claim at this point is "NUH UHH!!!! Knoxville is booming under 'Democrat' [sic] control!! 'Democrat' [sic] leadership is AWESOME!!!" which cites the same amount of evidence and includes just as coherent an argument as you're making.
 
bongsaway said:
I was born and raised in a large northeastern city where I lived for thirty six years. I now live in florida for over thirty years. Yesterday at a pizza place I spoke to a man with confederate flags on his truck. I asked him what does the confederate flag mean to him? He told me he was born in alabama and it was his heritage, not a racist thing like most people think. He said he was proud of his southern heritage. Unless I'm mistaken birmingham was once called bombingham for a reason and it wasn't for southern hospitality. I wondered to myself how he could he be proud of his heritage when his heritage was lynching and blowing up black folks?

When you see someone flying or displaying a confederate flag, what thoughts come to your mind?
Click to expand...

That's not his heritage. That's just what you choose to see in his heritage.
 
JasperL said:
Oh, well, so Democrats control "many" "failing" cities!! I don't know why I don't address a point that cites no data, and makes no discernible objective point that one can challenge. Truly a mystery!!

The proper response to your claim at this point is "NUH UHH!!!! Knoxville is booming under 'Democrat' [sic] control!! 'Democrat' [sic] leadership is AWESOME!!!" which cites the same amount of evidence and includes just as coherent an argument as you're making.
Click to expand...

You simply won't admit that places like Baltimore, St. Louis, Detroit and other cities have been dysfunctional for decades and have been run by Democrats for decades. If they have such great policies and ideas, why is this so? NYC was run by them and was the murder capital of America. When Dinkins was there, murders approached 3,000 a year. Giuliani got serious about crime, and when he left, murders were down to 300. Policy matters yet a lot of these places have been monopolized by one party and it's not working.
 
veritas1 said:
Show me the section of the Constitution banning it. There isn't any. I find it funny that you insist the thing nowhere specified to be illegal is somehow illegal.
Click to expand...
I find it sad that a grown man, who purports himself to be knowledgeable of our Constitution, is, in actuality, ignorant of one it’s greatest challenges, Texas v White.

Taken from the court’s decision; “ The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law.”
Texas v. White | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

veritas1 said:
However, as I said, that has nothing whatever to do with whether the South actually left the union. They clearly did and Lincoln fought a four year war to bring them back in. What the SC said after the fact can't change the prior history.
Click to expand...
Again, you are 100% wrong. The states declarations of secession and subsequent actions are no more proof of actually seceding than when the unhappy offspring of a couple declares his/her “disowning” of their place in the family. Sure, they can pack up their belongings and move away, change their name even, but none of those things erases their blood bond to that family, same as states cannot remove themselves at will from the “perpetual” union described in our Constitution.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
I find it sad that a grown man, who purports himself to be knowledgeable of our Constitution, is, in actuality, ignorant of one it’s greatest challenges, Texas v White...
Click to expand...

Which came in 1865 and epitomizes the aphorism "To the Victor belong the spoils".
 
veritas1 said:
You simply won't admit that places like Baltimore, St. Louis, Detroit and other cities have been dysfunctional for decades and have been run by Democrats for decades. If they have such great policies and ideas, why is this so?
Click to expand...

Your trolling is off-topic and boring. ANECDOTE = DATA!!! CORRELATION = CAUSATION!!! IF TRUE THEN I CAN GENERALIZE THIS EXAMPLE TO EVERYTHING===> DEMOCRATS BAD!! Q.E.D. MIC DROP!

:2rofll:
 
Rising Sun said:
Which came in 1865 and epitomizes the aphorism "To the Victor belong the spoils".
Click to expand...

Well, at a minimum you need to make an argument that secession is 'constitutional' and you cannot. It's unthinkable that Tennessee, for example, could just declare itself independent without negotiating its independence with the U.S. as a whole, and the U.S. agreeing to those terms. What to do with ORNL, Y12 and the entire nuclear energy and weapons campus down the road from me, the roads, the national parks, the rivers, navigation rights, interstates, etc. Had the founders contemplated 'secession' they'd have outlined the terms. They didn't contemplate it so the terms do not exist, and you can't read a document that makes no provision for secession as allowing for it at the whim of each of the 50 states.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
I find it sad that a grown man, who purports himself to be knowledgeable of our Constitution, is, in actuality, ignorant of one it’s greatest challenges, Texas v White.

Taken from the court’s decision; “ The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law.”
Texas v. White | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute


Again, you are 100% wrong. The states declarations of secession and subsequent actions are no more proof of actually seceding than when the unhappy offspring of a couple declares his/her “disowning” of their place in the family. Sure, they can pack up their belongings and move away, change their name even, but none of those things erases their blood bond to that family, same as states cannot remove themselves at will from the “perpetual” union described in our Constitution.
Click to expand...

If those states never left, why go to war with them? Also, that SC decision says the acts of secession were nil in law. That may be but it is a technical argument. They were not nil in fact. Those states were no longer proclaiming allegiance to the Federal government nor paying revenues to it. That is an act of breaking the bonds between them. You can argue all day after the fact that it wasn't sanctioned by law. That is wholly different from whether it was being practiced in fact. The Confederacy elected its own President and legislature and wrote its own laws. That would have continued had the Federal government not fought to bring them back. Then, they stipulated rules for readmission. You don't need to readmit states that never left.
 
JasperL said:
Well, at a minimum you need to make an argument that secession is 'constitutional' and you cannot. It's unthinkable that Tennessee, for example, could just declare itself independent without negotiating its independence with the U.S. as a whole, and the U.S. agreeing to those terms. What to do with ORNL, Y12 and the entire nuclear energy and weapons campus down the road from me, the roads, the national parks, the rivers, navigation rights, interstates, etc. Had the founders contemplated 'secession' they'd have outlined the terms. They didn't contemplate it so the terms do not exist, and you can't read a document that makes no provision for secession as allowing for it at the whim of each of the 50 states.
Click to expand...

I, along with others, have. This is the big difference between Left and Right: The Left believes the Constitution gives us our rights meaning if the Constitution doesn't say you can do it, you can't. The Right believes, rightly!, that the Constitution limits the Federal government and if it doesn't say you can't do it, you can.
 
CLAX1911 said:
That's not his heritage. That's just what you choose to see in his heritage.
Click to expand...

Not entirely accurate.

That may not be his heritage, per se, but its almost impossible to separate the racist undertones of the Confederate Flag from anything else. He could choose to fly the Alabama flag as a sign of his heritage, but instead chooses to fly the flag of those who wished to keep people in bondage. That brings with it a few questions that I find to be acceptable.

It never ceases to amaze me how people who would openly admit that anyone flying the Nazi flag would be justifiably open to criticism manage to continually defend those who would fly the Confederate flag, as if it was somehow better. Its not.
 
Rising Sun said:
I, along with others, have. This is the big difference between Left and Right: The Left believes the Constitution gives us our rights meaning if the Constitution doesn't say you can do it, you can't. The Right believes, rightly!, that the Constitution limits the Federal government and if it doesn't say you can't do it, you can.
Click to expand...

OK, so Tennessee secedes and just keeps the nuclear arsenal, all the equipment, $10s of billions worth?
 
JasperL said:
Well, at a minimum you need to make an argument that secession is 'constitutional' and you cannot. It's unthinkable that Tennessee, for example, could just declare itself independent without negotiating its independence with the U.S. as a whole, and the U.S. agreeing to those terms. What to do with ORNL, Y12 and the entire nuclear energy and weapons campus down the road from me, the roads, the national parks, the rivers, navigation rights, interstates, etc. Had the founders contemplated 'secession' they'd have outlined the terms. They didn't contemplate it so the terms do not exist, and you can't read a document that makes no provision for secession as allowing for it at the whim of each of the 50 states.
Click to expand...

The Constitution wasn't designed with secession in mind . It simply ignores it. Certainly the Federal government will not want a state or group of states to simply leave the union. However, that is different from whether or not those states consider themselves to have left, which is the crucial point. Once they have reached that understanding, the Federal government is forced to consider them on the same terms upon which they consider themselves.
 
Rising Sun said:
I, along with others, have. This is the big difference between Left and Right: The Left believes the Constitution gives us our rights meaning if the Constitution doesn't say you can do it, you can't. The Right believes, rightly!, that the Constitution limits the Federal government and if it doesn't say you can't do it, you can.
Click to expand...

The Constitution doesn't preclude me from owning a nuke, either. When can I expect someone to drop mine off on the front lawn? And before you go there, if there is a law that prevents it after the fact, wouldn't that law then be unconstitutional, as the Constitution doesn't stop me from doing it, so there shouldn't be a law that comes along and abridges my right to do whatever the **** I want because they didn't list EVERYTHING that one can and can't do in the document itself?
 
JasperL said:
Your trolling is off-topic and boring. ANECDOTE = DATA!!! CORRELATION = CAUSATION!!! IF TRUE THEN I CAN GENERALIZE THIS EXAMPLE TO EVERYTHING===> DEMOCRATS BAD!! Q.E.D. MIC DROP!

:2rofll:
Click to expand...

I see you are either unwilling or incapable of addressing the question in any way. I guess the truth is too uncomfortable for you to grapple with.
 
veritas1 said:
If those states never left, why go to war with them? Also, that SC decision says the acts of secession were nil in law. That may be but it is a technical argument. They were not nil in fact. Those states were no longer proclaiming allegiance to the Federal government nor paying revenues to it. That is an act of breaking the bonds between them. You can argue all day after the fact that it wasn't sanctioned by law. That is wholly different from whether it was being practiced in fact. The Confederacy elected its own President and legislature and wrote its own laws. That would have continued had the Federal government not fought to bring them back. Then, they stipulated rules for readmission. You don't need to readmit states that never left.
Click to expand...

Well, one could say it would be to prevent the actual leaving from happening. We can quibble over whether or not they did or didn't, but it was most definitely not a legal thing either way. Sure, you are correct about practice and principle....that, however, is the only thing you got right here.

As for your question about stipulations for readmission.....what you call stipulations, I would call reaffirmations that they were indeed not a separate entity, and as such would go back to paying into the federal coffers and that thier independently elected government would neither be recognized nor hold any actual power in the Union.

Its kinda like catching your kid trying to sneak out at night.......when you tell them they are grounded for a month, lose car privileges, and will be wearing an ankle monitor for some duration, it didn't require them actually getting out to warrant the new stipulations, as you called them.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
Well, one could say it would be to prevent the actual leaving from happening. We can quibble over whether or not they did or didn't, but it was most definitely not a legal thing either way. Sure, you are correct about practice and principle....that, however, is the only thing you got right here.

As for your question about stipulations for readmission.....what you call stipulations, I would call reaffirmations that they were indeed not a separate entity, and as such would go back to paying into the federal coffers and that thier independently elected government would neither be recognized nor hold any actual power in the Union.

Its kinda like catching your kid trying to sneak out at night.......when you tell them they are grounded for a month, lose car privileges, and will be wearing an ankle monitor for some duration, it didn't require them actually getting out to warrant the new stipulations, as you called them.
Click to expand...

The point about practice and principle is the only one that actually matters. Whether the South left in theory doesn't matter a bit if they left in fact, which is what they considered themselves to have done. As for re-admission, those states would not regain representation in Congress until they ratified the 13th Amendment.

Oh, and the better analogy is to be out and about and see your kid when you thought he was home in bed.;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom