ADVERTISEMENT

bush says to take down the flag,

jenkinscreekdawg

Diehard supporter
Gold Member
Jun 22, 2001
6,246
7,221
197
being the confederate flag, on the grounds of the capital in Columbia,sc . this is a state issue and I didn't know bush lives in south Carolina . I know it is just his opinion, but wouldn't you think he would avoid that fight , being a former governor and claims to be for states rights .
 
being the confederate flag, on the grounds of the capital in Columbia,sc . this is a state issue and I didn't know bush lives in south Carolina . I know it is just his opinion, but wouldn't you think he would avoid that fight , being a former governor and claims to be for states rights .
How is it a states' rights issue? Did he say the Federal gov't should pass a law forcing SC to take it down or that SC should take it down of its own accord?
 
How is it a states' rights issue? Did he say the Federal gov't should pass a law forcing SC to take it down or that SC should take it down of its own accord?

my point is, that it should be up to the people of south Carolina where or if it flies at all . I would think there are more important things for him to take a position on than a historical flag . evidently the people of south Carolina want it there !
 
being the confederate flag, on the grounds of the capital in Columbia,sc . this is a state issue and I didn't know bush lives in south Carolina . I know it is just his opinion, but wouldn't you think he would avoid that fight , being a former governor and claims to be for states rights .
Pandering to the African-American vote
 
my point is, that it should be up to the people of south Carolina where or if it flies at all . I would think there are more important things for him to take a position on than a historical flag . evidently the people of south Carolina want it there !
I'm sorry to say it, but this is one of the dumbest things to say in response to a person stating an opinion about something. Is there some issue he isn't taking a position on because he's commenting on the SC flag instead?

I agree that he should have just said that it's an issue for the people of SC to decide, but plenty people outside of SC are talking about it. Of course that in itself is ridiculous because it implies that somehow the flag is related to that attack in particular or racism in general.

I've always said that if a state wants to honor its Southern heritage while blunting charges of racism, it should use the original Stars and Bars and not the Confederate battle flag.
 
I'm sorry to say it, but this is one of the dumbest things to say in response to a person stating an opinion about something. Is there some issue he isn't taking a position on because he's commenting on the SC flag instead?

I agree that he should have just said that it's an issue for the people of SC to decide, but plenty people outside of SC are talking about it. Of course that in itself is ridiculous because it implies that somehow the flag is related to that attack in particular or racism in general.

I've always said that if a state wants to honor its Southern heritage while blunting charges of racism, it should use the original Stars and Bars and not the Confederate battle flag.

ok tom, that's your opinion and I stated mine, and the bottom line is, we basically agree . the only difference is , I didn't call your opinion " dumb ". my point is to mention this now will not endear him to many folks in that state and the liberal press loves it !
 
I've always said that if a state wants to honor its Southern heritage while blunting charges of racism, it should use the original Stars and Bars and not the Confederate battle flag.

I agree wtih you about Stars and Bars. Unfortunately, when the hate groups like KKK and other white supremacist groups took the Confederate flag over as THEIR symbol, it DID become a flag of hate and racism.
 
I agree wtih you about Stars and Bars. Unfortunately, when the hate groups like KKK and other white supremacist groups took the Confederate flag over as THEIR symbol, it DID become a flag of hate and racism.
Exactly. What I meant to say is that the flag doesn't cause racism, but bringing it up after the church shooting because the shooter had it on a plate on his car implies that. One day the flag is there and no one makes a big deal about it; the next day, it has to come down.
 
Didn't the federal government pass a rule once for them to take it down already?
How is it a states' rights issue? Did he say the Federal gov't should pass a law forcing SC to take it down or that SC should take it down of its own accord?
 
being the confederate flag, on the grounds of the capital in Columbia,sc . this is a state issue and I didn't know bush lives in south Carolina . I know it is just his opinion, but wouldn't you think he would avoid that fight , being a former governor and claims to be for states rights .

Keep the traitor flag up there, just be honest and fly this...

MY5XEdT.png
 
Keep the traitor flag up there, just be honest and fly this...

MY5XEdT.png
Ok stop it. You're playing ugly. I admire South Carolina for not bowing down to the PC crowd and the Yankee transplants. Personally, it doesn't matter to me either way. We all know how it will eventually end anyway. If the protesters would expend their energy on something that would actually help people then that would be noteworthy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jenkinscreekdawg
I agree wtih you about Stars and Bars. Unfortunately, when the hate groups like KKK and other white supremacist groups took the Confederate flag over as THEIR symbol, it DID become a flag of hate and racism.
To who? The ignorant? The professional victim class? The permanent offended class? Who?
 
And that would make a difference how?
Because it would be disassociating from what the KKK used the Battle Flag to represent while not surrendering the right to promote Southern heritage.
 
How? Slave ship flew under the US Flag? Were sold in Northern US ports?
Yes, and the same flag fought a war which ended slavery. You can talk about all kinds of reasons why the South seceded, but for all intents and purposes, the Confederacy and its flag stood for the preservation of slavery when the United States was in the process of ending it.
 
Because it would be disassociating from what the KKK used the Battle Flag to represent while not surrendering the right to promote Southern heritage.

Would it matter? You think the race pimps know the difference? I mean the think this is the Flag of the South.
 
Yes, and the same flag fought a war which ended slavery. You can talk about all kinds of reasons why the South seceded, but for all intents and purposes, the Confederacy and its flag stood for the preservation of slavery when the United States was in the process of ending it.

Lincoln didn't want to end slavery, his wife was a slave owner. He wanted to send them all back to Africa. If it were about just slavery, then how do you explain that? There were slaves in the North too you know. Its the complete ignorance of our education system that gets us to these points. These race pimps didn't GAS about the flag until they saw it could be a political issue to rev up the moonbats and white liberal guilt.
 
Would it matter? You think the race pimps know the difference? I mean the think this is the Flag of the South.
It's not about appeasing race pimps. It's about making a compromise that most reasonable people would see as fair to both sides.
 
Lincoln didn't want to end slavery, his wife was a slave owner. He wanted to send them all back to Africa. If it were about just slavery, then how do you explain that? There were slaves in the North too you know. Its the complete ignorance of our education system that gets us to these points. These race pimps didn't GAS about the flag until they saw it could be a political issue to rev up the moonbats and white liberal guilt.
The South was much more heavily invested in slavery than the North. The North may not have fought the WBTS to end slavery, but the South absolutely fought it to preserve slavery.
 
It's not about appeasing race pimps. It's about making a compromise that most reasonable people would see as fair to both sides.

You think theh race pimps are reasonable? Seriously? These slugs haven't thought about a Flag for years and years. They are only trying to take advantage of a savage murder. They DGAS about the flag, its about power and politics plain and simple.
 
The South was much more heavily invested in slavery than the North. The North may not have fought the WBTS to end slavery, but the South absolutely fought it to preserve slavery.

Sure, but it was more than that, there were tariffs on cotton, most of the ports were in the North it was about votes ....The north didn't want Blacks to have a vote, that's where the 2/3rds a person came from.

Its truly all based on ignorance. The fact of the matter was slavery was on the way out on its own. It was getting to expensive. It was done away with in South American in the 1870s without war. The victors write the history. But if ppl take the time to educate themselves they'd have a different POV if they're intellectually honest.
 
You think theh race pimps are reasonable? Seriously? These slugs haven't thought about a Flag for years and years. They are only trying to take advantage of a savage murder. They DGAS about the flag, its about power and politics plain and simple.
It should have been obvious that I was making a distinction between race pimps and reasonable people.

Of course the race pimps think about the flag all the time. They just know, like gun-control advocates, that their argument doesn't have much traction unless there's some horrific incident to which they can link it. Unlike gun-control advocates, thanks to the KKK, they actually have a point. So people who claim to want to promote Southern heritage should take the argument away from them. There's nothing sacred about the Battle Flag - just change to the Stars and Bars. It really shouldn't be a big deal.
 
Sure, but it was more than that, there were tariffs on cotton, most of the ports were in the North it was about votes ....The north didn't want Blacks to have a vote, that's where the 2/3rds a person came from.

Its truly all based on ignorance. The fact of the matter was slavery was on the way out on its own. It was getting to expensive. It was done away with in South American in the 1870s without war. The victors write the history. But if ppl take the time to educate themselves they'd have a different POV if they're intellectually honest.
As I said, there were various reasons for why the South seceded, but the main reason was slavery, but trying to diminish slavery's role by lumping it in with tariffs is certainly not being intellectually honest.. Just letting slavery die on its own wasn't an acceptable course of action. Plenty of people knew then, as they do now, that it was an abominable institution. The North tried to hasten its end without forcing the issue, but the South couldn't even accept that.
 
As I said, there were various reasons for why the South seceded, but the main reason was slavery, but trying to diminish slavery's role by lumping it in with tariffs is certainly not being intellectually honest.. Just letting slavery die on its own wasn't an acceptable course of action. Plenty of people knew then, as they do now, that it was an abominable institution. The North tried to hasten its end without forcing the issue, but the South couldn't even accept that.


The North DGAS about slavery. it was a hammer to hit the South with based purely on economics, You're using today's logic for the reality of the 1800s. To end slavery was to put an end to the Souths way of making a living. It would be like POSOTUS banning farm equip today because of global warming hoax.

Of course it was an abomidable institution ....today....But not to their thinking then. You keep ignoring the facts, it if were about Slavery why didn't Abe run on it? His wife owned slaves, he didn't free the slaves, why did blacks fight in Confederate units...not in units where it was just blacks and used for cannon fodder as it was in the North, but side by side with white soldiers. Why was there not a single slave rebellion in the South during the war?

But back to the issue, this isn't about the Flag, its about politics
 
The North DGAS about slavery. it was a hammer to hit the South with based purely on economics, You're using today's logic for the reality of the 1800s. To end slavery was to put an end to the Souths way of making a living. It would be like POSOTUS banning farm equip today because of global warming hoax.
That is complete crap. Plenty of people in the North wanted to end slavery because they realized it was an abominable institution. There was no reason to want to hammer the South purely as an economic matter. The South was hammered as part of an ongoing effort to end slavery.

Of course it was an abomidable institution ....today....But not to their thinking then. You keep ignoring the facts, it if were about Slavery why didn't Abe run on it? His wife owned slaves, he didn't free the slaves, why did blacks fight in Confederate units...not in units where it was just blacks and used for cannon fodder as it was in the North, but side by side with white soldiers. Why was there not a single slave rebellion in the South during the war?
You keep ignoring the fact that I already said the North did not fight TWBTS primarily to end slavery. Even so, that doesn't somehow mitigate the fact that the South fought the war primarily to preserve it. Also, there were slave rebellions during the war. The slaves of Jefferson Davis brother rebelled against him. Hundreds of thousands of slaves left their owners as soon as they could, and many of those enlisted with Northern units. The insinuation that vast majority of slaves felt comfortable in that role is ridiculous.
But back to the issue, this isn't about the Flag, its about politics
The flag is a political issue. It has been for a long time. You can thank the KKK and the 1956 Georgia legislature, among others, for that.
 
That is complete crap. Plenty of people in the North wanted to end slavery because they realized it was an abominable institution. There was no reason to want to hammer the South purely as an economic matter. The South was hammered as part of an ongoing effort to end slavery..

There were riots and gun battles in the North because of Lincolns positions. So there's that. And it was clearly and economic matter

Mississippi

We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property.

Georgia

But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere.

You keep ignoring the fact that I already said the North did not fight TWBTS primarily to end slavery. Even so, that doesn't somehow mitigate the fact that the South fought the war primarily to preserve it. Also, there were slave rebellions during the war. The slaves of Jefferson Davis brother rebelled against him. Hundreds of thousands of slaves left their owners as soon as they could, and many of those enlisted with Northern units. The insinuation that vast majority of slaves felt comfortable in that role is ridiculous.

The flag is a political issue. It has been for a long time. You can thank the KKK and the 1956 Georgia legislature, among others, for that.

Only to the ignorant,...which the KKK and the 1956 GL were. And again, why now? Simple, racial division benefits DemocRATS.

And if ppl allow it, well its just another nail in the coffin of These once Great United States, killed by the cancer of PC Liberalism.
 
That is complete crap. Plenty of people in the North wanted to end slavery because they realized it was an abominable institution. There was no reason to want to hammer the South purely as an economic matter. The South was hammered as part of an ongoing effort to end slavery.


You keep ignoring the fact that I already said the North did not fight TWBTS primarily to end slavery. Even so, that doesn't somehow mitigate the fact that the South fought the war primarily to preserve it. Also, there were slave rebellions during the war. The slaves of Jefferson Davis brother rebelled against him. Hundreds of thousands of slaves left their owners as soon as they could, and many of those enlisted with Northern units. The insinuation that vast majority of slaves felt comfortable in that role is ridiculous.

The flag is a political issue. It has been for a long time. You can thank the KKK and the 1956 Georgia legislature, among others, for that.
First, the main opposition to slavery in the North was economic, not moral. The working man in the North feared the expansion of slavery not because of moral misgivings, but because they feared the depressive effect of slavery on wages. The expansion of slavery, geographically as well as the perceived future demand from industry is what fueled Northern opposition to slavery and even that was not deemed sufficient to start a war (Remember, the North invaded). Second, the vast majority of those that fought and died for the South never owned slaves. The notion that they fought and died for something in which they had no ability to participate is a bit far fetched. While the high level politics and rhetoric supports such, the grass roots did not and, as with most things, quite often one has to look past the people making the most noise to find the real drivers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rolodawg2011
First, the main opposition to slavery in the North was economic, not moral. The working man in the North feared the expansion of slavery not because of moral misgivings, but because they feared the depressive effect of slavery on wages. The expansion of slavery, geographically as well as the perceived future demand from industry is what fueled Northern opposition to slavery and even that was not deemed sufficient to start a war (Remember, the North invaded). Second, the vast majority of those that fought and died for the South never owned slaves. The notion that they fought and died for something in which they had no ability to participate is a bit far fetched. While the high level politics and rhetoric supports such, the grass roots did not and, as with most things, quite often one has to look past the people making the most noise to find the real drivers.
The opposition to slavery was in part economic, but mostly moral. The seeds to curb slavery were planted in the Constitution when Congress was given the power to ban the importation of slaves. That was before the cotton gin and before the South became an economic powerhouse fueled by slavery. Why would the North feared the expansion of slavery outside of the North? Economies were much more localized, so it's doubtful that Northerners believed expanding slavery into the territories would have had an impact on their wages. The abolition movement was built on opposition to slavery as an evil institution, not as an economic threat. It really is amazing the straws some people will grasp at to try to make the opposition to slavery into something it wasn't.
 
The opposition to slavery was in part economic, but mostly moral. The seeds to curb slavery were planted in the Constitution when Congress was given the power to ban the importation of slaves. That was before the cotton gin and before the South became an economic powerhouse fueled by slavery. Why would the North feared the expansion of slavery outside of the North? Economies were much more localized, so it's doubtful that Northerners believed expanding slavery into the territories would have had an impact on their wages. The abolition movement was built on opposition to slavery as an evil institution, not as an economic threat. It really is amazing the straws some people will grasp at to try to make the opposition to slavery into something it wasn't.

The moral opposition was lead by John Brown........The Union Army killed him. Again, you're using todays logic based on yesterdays reality. Slaves were like John Deere today. It was farm equipment to the South. The ppl of the North for the most part had no sympathy for the Slaves or even concern for them. They rioted and killed to try and stop the war.
 
There were riots and gun battles in the North because of Lincolns positions. So there's that. And it was clearly and economic matter

Mississippi

We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property.

Georgia

But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere.


Of course it was a huge economic issue for Southerners. It was far less so in the North. As I pointed out in another post, there was clearly a desire to curb slavery when the Constitution was written. There was no economic reason to do that at the time. In one sense, it benefited the North to have slavery legalized in the South because it encouraged the South to maintain an agrarian economy instead of challenging Northern industrial production. The reason why secession didn't happen sooner is that the North wasn't in a hurry to force the South's hand on the economic issue.

Only to the ignorant,...which the KKK and the 1956 GL were. And again, why now? Simple, racial division benefits DemocRATS.

And if ppl allow it, well its just another nail in the coffin of These once Great United States, killed by the cancer of PC Liberalism.
Wait a minute...a white kid shoots up a black church and you blame Dems for exploiting it for the purpose of racial division? You can't be serious.
 
Of course it was a huge economic issue for Southerners. It was far less so in the North. As I pointed out in another post, there was clearly a desire to curb slavery when the Constitution was written. There was no economic reason to do that at the time. In one sense, it benefited the North to have slavery legalized in the South because it encouraged the South to maintain an agrarian economy instead of challenging Northern industrial production. The reason why secession didn't happen sooner is that the North wasn't in a hurry to force the South's hand on the economic issue.


Wait a minute...a white kid shoots up a black church and you blame Dems for exploiting it for the purpose of racial division? You can't be serious.


Oh yea, because it was about a rare and lone act. The ppl of Charleston didn't make it a racist thing (no doubt it was) it was POSOTUS , Hillary, Al and the rest of the "never let a crisis go to waste' crowd.

There is no overwhelming racism in this Country any longer. Racists yes,...see above. And those are the ppl who look for any reason to cause a rift.....like with a Flag.....Its all about stirring up the black vote because Hillary isn't doing well with them.
 
The moral opposition was lead by John Brown........The Union Army killed him. Again, you're using todays logic based on yesterdays reality. Slaves were like John Deere today. It was farm equipment to the South. The ppl of the North for the most part had no sympathy for the Slaves or even concern for them. They rioted and killed to try and stop the war.
You do realize that John Brown raided a federal armory, right? You think that might have had something to do with why he was killed?

The North may not have cared about the slaves, but they clearly didn't want slavery to expand. Plenty of people in the North saw slavery for what it was.
 
Oh yea, because it was about a rare and lone act. The ppl of Charleston didn't make it a racist thing (no doubt it was) it was POSOTUS , Hillary, Al and the rest of the "never let a crisis go to waste' crowd.

There is no overwhelming racism in this Country any longer. Racists yes,...see above. And those are the ppl who look for any reason to cause a rift.....like with a Flag.....Its all about stirring up the black vote because Hillary isn't doing well with them.
There may be no overwhelming institutional racism in this country, but that doesn't say anything about how much there is on an individual level. The church shooting was an extreme manifestation of it. I'm sure there's a lot more, it just doesn't rise anywhere near that level.
 
The opposition to slavery was in part economic, but mostly moral. The seeds to curb slavery were planted in the Constitution when Congress was given the power to ban the importation of slaves. That was before the cotton gin and before the South became an economic powerhouse fueled by slavery. Why would the North feared the expansion of slavery outside of the North? Economies were much more localized, so it's doubtful that Northerners believed expanding slavery into the territories would have had an impact on their wages. The abolition movement was built on opposition to slavery as an evil institution, not as an economic threat. It really is amazing the straws some people will grasp at to try to make the opposition to slavery into something it wasn't.
I disagree only with your assertion that moral opposition as a major dynamic in public opinion at the time was not borne of economic interest that shaped such opinions. The moralists definitely made the most noise, but a different hand was pulling the strings. ROLO is absolutely correct that the Northern abolitionist cause, while on solid moral ground, was a minor movement that garnered very little political support. The industrialists of the North used slavery as a subterfuge to mold public opinion.
 
There may be no overwhelming institutional racism in this country, but that doesn't say anything about how much there is on an individual level. The church shooting was an extreme manifestation of it. I'm sure there's a lot more, it just doesn't rise anywhere near that level.

of course there is. You have to look, but blacks kill whites everyday because they're white., there are white racist pukes but for the most part their just ignorant mouthy nobodys. Rarely do you see white on black crime.

This whole thing is manufactured. The only reason....well the main reason ppl are lining up to condemn this flag is because they don't want to be called racist. Thats it. Why no calls before this slaughter????? Hmmm?
 
I disagree only with your assertion that moral opposition as a major dynamic in public opinion at the time was not borne of economic interest that shaped such opinions. The moralists definitely made the most noise, but a different hand was pulling the strings. ROLO is absolutely correct that the Northern abolitionist cause, while on solid moral ground, was a minor movement that garnered very little political support. The industrialists of the North used slavery as a subterfuge to mold public opinion.
Nothing that happened politically regarding slavery would have had an economic impact on the North. The driving force behind trying to limit its expansion was due to opposition to the institution. The South saw this as a future threat to its economy, which it was. The abolition movement drew the ire of Southern states, so clearly it carried some political weight in their minds.
 
Nothing that happened politically regarding slavery would have had an economic impact on the North. The driving force behind trying to limit its expansion was due to opposition to the institution. The South saw this as a future threat to its economy, which it was. The abolition movement drew the ire of Southern states, so clearly it carried some political weight in their minds.


So according to the Constitution of the United States. South Carolina followed by others followed their rights and left the Union. Lincoln went to war to keep them from doing so, not because of Slavery, proven by his own words. Slavery was a moral way to justify his Tyrany
 
of course there is. You have to look, but blacks kill whites everyday because they're white., there are white racist pukes but for the most part their just ignorant mouthy nobodys. Rarely do you see white on black crime.

This whole thing is manufactured. The only reason....well the main reason ppl are lining up to condemn this flag is because they don't want to be called racist. Thats it. Why no calls before this slaughter????? Hmmm?
I doubt you can support the "because they're white" claim. Sure, it happens, but not every day. I hate to point out the obvious, but there are a lot more white people than black people. Not surprisingly, there's more white-on-white crime than black-on-black crime. It also wouldn't be surprising if there were more black-on-white crime than white-on-black crime. That's not an indication of more racial violence on the part of blacks.

Nothing is manufactured. If a white kid shoots up a black church and a picture is floated showing a Confederate flag on the kid's car, it's going to trigger the association that the KKK and others created a long time ago in some people who wouldn't normally give it any thought. If the flag's not on the kid's car, no uproar. Pretty simple.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT