• 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!

Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?


  • Total voters
    82
Status
Not open for further replies.
nor will he ever be able to prove such an alleged "explicit prohibition"... because one does not exist.
he can, however, argue about implied prohibition, but not explicit.

it's rather humorous to me that folks think the Confederate states should have followed the Constitution.. a document they just separated themselves from.
it's akin to saying an immigrant from Zimbabwe should adhere to Zimbabwe's laws after he dissolved his Zimbabwean citizenship.
"hey!.. you guys can't leave... the Constitution says you can't"
"umm bro.. the Constitution doesn't count for us.. we got our own now... those are your laws, these are ours"
"the Constitution says you can't though"
"having a comprehension problem today?... the Constitution doesn't govern us anymore.. we bailed on it"
"we'll take it to the supreme court then"
" oh that's awesome... let's take it to a court who is mandated to judge us by a set of laws that do not pertain to us.. i'm sure we'll get a fair trial there!"
" but they are the grand arbiter of the supreme law of the land..."
" yeah.. the supreme law of the land that we just removed ourselves from..."
" but you can't remove yourself from it.."
"why?"
"cuz the Constitution says you can't"
" <facepalm>"

makes me giggle just thinking about it....

What makes me giggle is rednecks thinking that claiming federal property as their own is legal. The pro slavery insurgents had no right to claim sovereign american land as their own.
 
What makes me giggle is rednecks thinking that claiming federal property as their own is legal. The pro slavery insurgents had no right to claim sovereign american land as their own.

its cute how supporters of the CSA claim it was a war to protect property rights, and yet the property rights of the Union in regards to Ft. Sumter are totally disregarded.

"Do as I say...not as I do".
 
its cute how supporters of the CSA claim it was a war to protect property rights, and yet the property rights of the Union in regards to Ft. Sumter are totally disregarded.

"Do as I say...not as I do".

I don't think anyone has really touched on the property rights involved with Fort Sumter...but don't let that stop you from building a strawman.
 
I don't think anyone has really touched on the property rights involved with Fort Sumter...but don't let that stop you from building a strawman.

actually, folks have. some here have claimed that as South Carolina was suddenly a part of a seperate nation, the Federal occupation of Ft. Sumter was illegal, and a provocation deserving violence.

such logic of course, 100% counters the concept of respecting property rights.
 
I don't think anyone has really touched on the property rights involved with Fort Sumter...but don't let that stop you from building a strawman.

Then you haven't read all the pages of this thread. Any claim by hicks that the rebels had a right to secede or the civil war wasn't about slavery was thoroughly debunked.
 
Then you haven't read all the pages of this thread. Any claim by hicks that the rebels had a right to secede or the civil war wasn't about slavery was thoroughly debunked.

until you mature past the point of needing to use epithets, consider yourself dismissed.... i'm not interested in the opinions of bigots.
 
until you mature past the point of needing to use epithets, consider yourself dismissed.... i'm not interested in the opinions of bigots.
Well "hick" isn't a epithet but I'm going to guess that you won't dismiss the arguments made by people who call the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act "obamacare" as a pejorative to the president. Heck i bet you are willing to listen to people who call the president kenyan, marxist, ect... It works both ways.
 
actually, folks have. some here have claimed that as South Carolina was suddenly a part of a seperate nation, the Federal occupation of Ft. Sumter was illegal, and a provocation deserving violence.

such logic of course, 100% counters the concept of respecting property rights.

i've seen a few round about claims.. but no actual arguments over the property rights issue.

as with everything surrounding the war, there are arguments and precedents that support both sides.
to claim that CSA "supporters" disregard property rights is really a false claim... and what you are really trying to do here is pulling the usual " hypocrite" card.. and certainly not debate the issue.

a CSA "supporter" can argue that property rights granted and/or protected by Union law are irrelevant.. as the laws of the Union were done away with by the CSA.
they can simply argue that the property inherently changed hands when a new sovereign was appointed over the geographical boundaries.

you know.. just like we did when we seceded from the UK.
unless you are going to argue that our land is still the property of the UK, you would have to assign validity to that view.
 
Well "hick" isn't a epithet but I'm going to guess that you won't dismiss the arguments made by people who call the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act "obamacare" as a pejorative to the president. Heck i bet you are willing to listen to people who call the president kenyan, marxist, ect... It works both ways.

are you confused by the definition of 'dismissed"?...it means go away, we're done,don't waste your time responding to me.
 
are you confused by the definition of 'dismissed"?...it means go away, we're done,don't waste your time responding to me.

I'll keep responding to any post I like. You are well within your right to not offer a rebuttal. Usually happens when you can't make arguments based on facts instead of emotion.
 
I'll keep responding to any post I like. You are well within your right to not offer a rebuttal.
yes, i suppose you are correct on both accounts

Usually happens when you can't make arguments based on facts instead of emotion.
utilizing epithets is emotional in nature, not factual.
 
it can be displayed by individual citizens, yes. just as the Nazi flag can be displayed by individual citizens on public grounds.

however, schools and other govt. entities should NOT be displaying the Rebel flag, the Nazi flag, the Soviet flag, etc.
Bravo! You conveniently danced around the part of apdst's question which pointed out that slavery existed legally for over 80 years under the Stars and Stripes..........so should we ban its display as well? Are you going to answer?

By the way, somewhere earlier in this thread I saw someone make reference to the KKK. Anyone know which state officially had the largest # of registred KKK members(prior to the modern civil rights movement)? I'll give you a hint..........it wasn't a Southern state, nor former Confederate state. :thinking
 
What makes me giggle is rednecks thinking that claiming federal property as their own is legal. The pro slavery insurgents had no right to claim sovereign american land as their own.

That's racism. I would report it, but the last I heard racism isn't a rule violation.
 
Bravo! You conveniently danced around the part of apdst's question which pointed out that slavery existed legally for over 80 years under the Stars and Stripes..........so should we ban its display as well? Are you going to answer?...

was the USA formed out of a political movement that sought to protect the right to own human beings?
 
yeah... come after me and stay silent while he calls people rednecks and hicks..... you tacit approval of his bigotry is unsurprising.

calling people rednecks & hicks is not bigotry, as it is an attack based on people's views & agenda.
 
no, it is not racism.

Calling an entire white culture a, "buncha rednecks", isn't racism? Oh, wait, were you calling Southern blacks rednecks, too? :lamo
 
What makes me giggle is rednecks thinking that claiming federal property as their own is legal. The pro slavery insurgents had no right to claim sovereign american land as their own.
Real men don't "giggle". This one statement speaks volumes regarding you sonny boy. :lol:
 
calling people rednecks & hicks is not bigotry, as it is an attack based on people's views & agenda.

So, you're basically saying that there is a difference between black people and niggers. :lamo
 
... yeah.. it's not racism... it just a historically derogatory name for southern poor white people... and we all know calling white people names isn't racism.

he wasn't using the term to describe poor white people.

he was using the term to describe white racists who apologize for slavery.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom