Her record of lies is known. What I call for there is what I call for here. Investigations. Those who support her say there is nothing more to investigate since investigations have been done. Yes they were done before much of the stuff we continue to find out was known.
Please substantiate her "record of lies." There's far too much political infighting and far too acrimonious a history between the Clintons and the Right to rely on anything other than factual verification of such statements.
Certainly, she has lied, as has any politician you can name. Hell, you've lied repeatedly in your life, as have I, as has everyone else here. It's a matter of degree. If she has, say, obstructed justice or caused avoidable harm (just two examples, supply your own additions), then burn the witch.
Just accord her, or JEB, or Christie, or anyone else the minimal courtesy of not pre-convicting until the facts, whatever they may be, are in.
This is not a politically-motivated response here, you know. It's simply my disgust at watching the usual suspects here apply ideological double-standards that just don't stand up to thoughtful examination.
Beliefs are one thing, and there's no censoring or controlling them; bald accusations based on nothing but those beliefs is not only unintelligent, but dangerous.
That was a side comment to my actual reply to what you said but it is tiresome to again and again go over what I have said here over and over beginning over 10 years ago. All politicians lie. Not all politicians are pathological liars like Hillary. I remember once i mentioned here some lie she made about some inconsequential matter. Possibly her being a Yankee fan. I was told it was no big deal that she lied about something inconsequential. However that was my point. There is no need to lie about inconsequential things. That is the sign of the pathological liar. I am sure others here have known people like that from experience. We know you cannot believe anything they say. It is a sign of a lack of any integrity. An example. Why did she need to say that she was under fire when getting off that helicopter? Most politicians lie because they must. It is part of the game.There was no reason or need for her to lie but she did. That is not part of the game People like Hillary lie because that is what she is.
Sorry, Al, but you're running on emotion, not reason. If it's HRC, you see it only one way, and that's blinkered thinking. And if you think that she's the only political pathological liar, or even in the minority, I just don't know what to say.
I cite all the fools over the years who would have suffered in the very short term by admitting to a fault, rather than denying it, trying to cover it up, and then being politically cooked because of it.
Further, you simply either missed or ignored the whole point of my statements. Proof ids required, no matter the history, innuendo, suppositions, or ideology. If you disagree with this, we're even further apart than I could have imagined.
I keep replying very directly to the questions you asked and then you veer off on tangents. Your original point when you brought Hillary onto this thread was about inconsistency between my position on Hillary and the churches. I directly showed my consistency. You then veered away. I go back to what I said originally on this thread. Let's wait and see what the investigations say about the churches.
No, Al, you just continuede using the "I know she's a liar" screed; not much about waiting for the facts.
Two different issues but let's move on from Hillary on this thread.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: That last reply got messed up. It should say. Â
Her record of lies is known. What I call for there is what I call for here. Investigations. Those who support her say there is nothing more to investigate since investigations have been done. Yes they were done before much of the stuff we continue to find out was known.
Please substantiate her "record of lies." There's far too much political infighting and far too acrimonious a history between the Clintons and the Right to rely on anything other than factual verification of such statements.
Certainly, she has lied, as has any politician you can name. Hell, you've lied repeatedly in your life, as have I, as has everyone else here. It's a matter of degree. If she has, say, obstructed justice or caused avoidable harm (just two examples, supply your own additions), then burn the witch.
Just accord her, or JEB, or Christie, or anyone else the minimal courtesy of not pre-convicting until the facts, whatever they may be, are in.
This is not a politically-motivated response here, you know. It's simply my disgust at watching the usual suspects here apply ideological double-standards that just don't stand up to thoughtful examination.
Beliefs are one thing, and there's no censoring or controlling them; bald accusations based on nothing but those beliefs is not only unintelligent, but dangerous.
That was a side comment to my actual reply to what you said but it is tiresome to again and again go over what I have said here over and over beginning over 10 years ago. All politicians lie. Not all politicians are pathological liars like Hillary. I remember once i mentioned here some lie she made about some inconsequential matter. Possibly her being a Yankee fan. I was told it was no big deal that she lied about something inconsequential. However that was my point. There is no need to lie about inconsequential things. That is the sign of the pathological liar. I am sure others here have known people like that from experience. We know you cannot believe anything they say. It is a sign of a lack of any integrity. An example. Why did she need to say that she was under fire when getting off that helicopter? Most politicians lie because they must. It is part of the game.There was no reason or need for her to lie but she did. That is not part of the game People like Hillary lie because that is what she is.
Sorry, Al, but you're running on emotion, not reason. If it's HRC, you see it only one way, and that's blinkered thinking. And if you think that she's the only political pathological liar, or even in the minority, I just don't know what to say.
I cite all the fools over the years who would have suffered in the very short term by admitting to a fault, rather than denying it, trying to cover it up, and then being politically cooked because of it.
Further, you simply either missed or ignored the whole point of my statements. Proof ids required, no matter the history, innuendo, suppositions, or ideology. If you disagree with this, we're even further apart than I could have imagined.
I keep replying very directly to the questions you asked and then you veer off on tangents. Your original point when you brought Hillary onto this thread was about inconsistency between my position on Hillary and the churches. I directly showed my consistency. You then veered away. I go back to what I said originally on this thread. Let's wait and see what the investigations say about the churches.
No, Al, you just continuede using the "I know she's a liar" screed; not much about waiting for the facts.
Two different issues but let's move on from Hillary on this thread.
Non-sequitur torpedoing a relatively decent and important discussion.
If you'd bother to actually read it, you'd see as direct disconnect between the "wait for the facts" sentiment here from the very same people who don't need facts when ideologies are in play. If that offends you, well, there's really nothing I care to do about it.
Hillary is about whether someone has stepped into ethical gray areas so many times that people think that maybe, just maybe she ought not be President. This is about whether crimes have been committed, whether they're linked, and whether they're racially motivated. In the former instance you would not expect to find a smoking gun, because you're not talking about criminal conduct. You're talking about behavior that is unethical and beneath what you'd expect of someone who knows she wants to run for President. In the latter one you would expect that in time we will have an answer, perhaps a suspect, and enough to send him or them to prison for a long, long time.
RE: RE: RE: WTF does Hillary have to do with this? Â
Non-sequitur torpedoing a relatively decent and important discussion.
If you'd bother to actually read it, you'd see as direct disconnect between the "wait for the facts" sentiment here from the very same people who don't need facts when ideologies are in play. If that offends you, well, there's really nothing I care to do about it.
Hillary is about whether someone has stepped into ethical gray areas so many times that people think that maybe, just maybe she ought not be President. This is about whether crimes have been committed, whether they're linked, and whether they're racially motivated. In the former instance you would not expect to find a smoking gun, because you're not talking about criminal conduct. You're talking about behavior that is unethical and beneath what you'd expect of someone who knows she wants to run for President. In the latter one you would expect that in time we will have an answer, perhaps a suspect, and enough to send him or them to prison for a long, long time.
People from a particular ideological viewpoint, and therein lies the difference. I expect proof before conviction, regardless of parsing the level of conjectured wrongdoing. That isn't happening in the discussion above. The difference is stark.
Welcome to the playground, Junior. First learn what words mean, then try to use them correctly. Then pull the ramrod out and try to grow a sense of humor. Maybe when you get some life experience you'll understand.
Welcome to the playground, Junior. First learn what words mean, then try to use them correctly. Then pull the ramrod out and try to grow a sense of humor. Maybe when you get some life experience you'll understand.
I don't need to speak for him, but omg, he's experienced a lot. I think that the even you would respect that.
Welcome to the playground, Junior. First learn what words mean, then try to use them correctly. Then pull the ramrod out and try to grow a sense of humor. Maybe when you get some life experience you'll understand.
Generally speaking a sycophant is a flatterer. I don't have a horse in the raise, not yet, so merely being anti-someone would make the opposite of a flatterer, no? And let's not start talking about life experience, I have plenty.
and a blind follower, but I realized at the age of 6 I hate people so there went that
Yeah my faith teaches me to not judge people, or at least to not judge them harshly, but I struggle with that. All kidding aside though there are few things more pathetic than a toady.
Toady is bad but the front runner is the worst. You know the guy that latches on to someone in the lead and swears allegiance to them then jumps ship when someone else takes the lead
Toady is bad but the front runner is the worst. You know the guy that latches on to someone in the lead and swears allegiance to them then jumps ship when someone else takes the lead
Yeah, I fucking hate that guy [frantically scraping off my Trump '16 sticker].
the flag isn't about hate? Nooooooo of course not.
Oh give it a break. Because of my father’s job I lived a good portion of my youth in the south, and can tell you from firsthand experience that the confederate flag has different meaning to different people. For most people from the south it is a symbol of southern pride and heritage, for many in the African American community it is understandably a symbol of oppression, discrimination and slavery, and for a very small minority it is a symbol of their hate (KKK, Neo-Nazis, Skinheads, etc…). The haters don’t need a flag to hate.
Are people still defending the flag? It's a flag that was used during a war that was based on slavery & then re-appeared during the '50s & '60s during the Civil Rights Movement.
It's a symbol of racism and hatred.
There are a lot of myths and hateful rhetoric... Â
about the Confederate flag. As a 'symbol' it becomes and object of feelings over facts. The idea that the current Confederate flag re-appeared is a false narrative...
The Confederacy created several battle flags to differentiate the "Stars and Bars" flag of the Confederacy from the U.S. flag. So, there were actually a variety of battle flags used by the Confederacy but the one we all know as the "Confederate flag" was carried by the Army of Northern Virginia and a few other isolated Confederate armies. By far, it was not the most prolific of the Confederate battle flags.
•The flag didn't become a symbol of the South as a whole during the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's. It became a symbol in the years following the end of the war. For the most part, older veterans of the Confederacy adopted it as their symbol and it was used in Confederate monuments throughout the South (starting in the 1880s).
Unfortunately, the "Confederate Flag" first became used as a symbol of resistance to the civil rights movement in the late 1940s. It was used as a symbol for the extremist wing of the Southern Democrat party called the "Dixiecrat Party" They broke away from the Democratic Party over segregation and a national effort to repeal Jim Crow laws. It was after that it began to be used by segregationist groups and as a symbol against the civil rights movement.
I know people have a lot of feelings about the Confederate Flag, but it's important that some understanding of the facts behind the 'symbol' before you go blathering about your moral superiority. Hating has many forms... ignorance is the common theme of haters.
RE: There are a lot of myths and hateful rhetoric... Â
about the Confederate flag. As a 'symbol' it becomes and object of feelings over facts. The idea that the current Confederate flag re-appeared is a false narrative...
The Confederacy created several battle flags to differentiate the "Stars and Bars" flag of the Confederacy from the U.S. flag. So, there were actually a variety of battle flags used by the Confederacy but the one we all know as the "Confederate flag" was carried by the Army of Northern Virginia and a few other isolated Confederate armies. By far, it was not the most prolific of the Confederate battle flags.
•The flag didn't become a symbol of the South as a whole during the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's. It became a symbol in the years following the end of the war. For the most part, older veterans of the Confederacy adopted it as their symbol and it was used in Confederate monuments throughout the South (starting in the 1880s).
Unfortunately, the "Confederate Flag" first became used as a symbol of resistance to the civil rights movement in the late 1940s. It was used as a symbol for the extremist wing of the Southern Democrat party called the "Dixiecrat Party" They broke away from the Democratic Party over segregation and a national effort to repeal Jim Crow laws. It was after that it began to be used by segregationist groups and as a symbol against the civil rights movement.
I know people have a lot of feelings about the Confederate Flag, but it's important that some understanding of the facts behind the 'symbol' before you go blathering about your moral superiority. Hating has many forms... ignorance is the common theme of haters.
Regardless of any and all of that - ALL Confederate flags/symbology should have been deemed illegal immediately after the Civil War, just as Nazi symbology was banned in Germany after WW2.
ALL Confederate Flags, battle or otherwise ARE FLAGS OF TREASON. More Federal American troops killed by these most despicable of ALL Americans in our history than by ANY other army, including Germany or Japan in WW2.
Think about that.
This IS a teachable moment. Americans who are so quick to throw the word 'TREASON' around need to really take a look at what the Civil War truly represented - a literal, bloody, murderous, treasonous rebellion that killed over 600,000 troops AND an iconic President - for people so freaked out over Al Queda and ISIS, I find it amazing how willingly Americans trivialize the Civil War.
Southern Pride kiss my ass. Stars and Bars had no business ever flying in this country after 1865.
Also, this just in: "Pastors receive threatening letters"... Â
Female AME Pastors In South Carolina Receive Threatening Letters
Two Clarendon County, South Carolina pastors say they have been targeted with threats of violence just because they are women. The writer identified him or herself as Apostle Prophet Harry Leon Fleming, and said in the letter "the woman cannot be head of the man in church, home and the world."
"The Devil always use a woman to bring down a good man," the letter states.
In one section of the letter it states, "…you and your children will die."
about the Confederate flag. As a 'symbol' it becomes and object of feelings over facts. The idea that the current Confederate flag re-appeared is a false narrative...
The Confederacy created several battle flags to differentiate the "Stars and Bars" flag of the Confederacy from the U.S. flag. So, there were actually a variety of battle flags used by the Confederacy but the one we all know as the "Confederate flag" was carried by the Army of Northern Virginia and a few other isolated Confederate armies. By far, it was not the most prolific of the Confederate battle flags.
•The flag didn't become a symbol of the South as a whole during the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's. It became a symbol in the years following the end of the war. For the most part, older veterans of the Confederacy adopted it as their symbol and it was used in Confederate monuments throughout the South (starting in the 1880s).
Unfortunately, the "Confederate Flag" first became used as a symbol of resistance to the civil rights movement in the late 1940s. It was used as a symbol for the extremist wing of the Southern Democrat party called the "Dixiecrat Party" They broke away from the Democratic Party over segregation and a national effort to repeal Jim Crow laws. It was after that it began to be used by segregationist groups and as a symbol against the civil rights movement.
I know people have a lot of feelings about the Confederate Flag, but it's important that some understanding of the facts behind the 'symbol' before you go blathering about your moral superiority. Hating has many forms... ignorance is the common theme of haters.
Regardless of any and all of that - ALL Confederate flags/symbology should have been deemed illegal immediately after the Civil War, just as Nazi symbology was banned in Germany after WW2.
ALL Confederate Flags, battle or otherwise ARE FLAGS OF TREASON. More Federal American troops killed by these most despicable of ALL Americans in our history than by ANY other army, including Germany or Japan in WW2.
Think about that.
This IS a teachable moment. Americans who are so quick to throw the word 'TREASON' around need to really take a look at what the Civil War truly represented - a literal, bloody, murderous, treasonous rebellion that killed over 600,000 troops AND an iconic President - for people so freaked out over Al Queda and ISIS, I find it amazing how willingly Americans trivialize the Civil War.
Southern Pride kiss my ass. Stars and Bars had no business ever flying in this country after 1865.
In America, the default is to protect liberty. I'd be happy to never see that flag again, and as I've said elsewhere, I'm averse to it, but to make it *illegal* seems a dangerous precedent. We aren't Germany.
Shall we also make illegal Swastikas, Iron Crosses, etc.?
The point of it being a symbol for treason seems to have merit Â
at least, to me. I don't think you can make it illegal, but to have the flag of a treasonous state flying on government buildings, that absolutely can be forbidden.
people will object to the Confederate flag flying on Gov't building, but it is going a little far when people call for banning the General Lee and any general merchandise.
Gov't shouldn't validate the flag, but don't censor it for the populace.
the flag of the confederacy is the "Stars and Bars." The current flag is a battle flag. If you're about banning flags of treason, you'll have to include the most iconic flag of the revolutionary war, the Gasdsen Flag.
The flag of the confederacy (the Confederate States of America)
It's fine to be offended by whatever you choose. It's not my place to tell you what you should be offended by. At least know a little about what you're offended by.
RE: RE: RE: There are a lot of myths and hateful rhetoric... Â
Shall we also make illegal Swastikas, Iron Crosses, etc.?
Hell no. No symbol should be made illegal. BUT, we should all agree to make fun of the douchebags displaying all those symbols, and the government should definitelt not be issuing license plates with them on there, or flying those flags in public buildings.
RE: The point of it being a symbol for treason seems to have merit Â
at least, to me. I don't think you can make it illegal, but to have the flag of a treasonous state flying on government buildings, that absolutely can be forbidden.
I'm still unclear as to whether it actually was treason. Someone tried to explain it to me here but it seemed like there is ambiguity about the answer.
at least, to me. I don't think you can make it illegal, but to have the flag of a treasonous state flying on government buildings, that absolutely can be forbidden.
I'm still unclear as to whether it actually was treason. Someone tried to explain it to me here but it seemed like there is ambiguity about the answer.
Seem's like they nailed it to me.
"Treason: the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government"
RE: RE: RE: The point of it being a symbol for treason seems to have merit Â
at least, to me. I don't think you can make it illegal, but to have the flag of a treasonous state flying on government buildings, that absolutely can be forbidden.
I'm still unclear as to whether it actually was treason. Someone tried to explain it to me here but it seemed like there is ambiguity about the answer.
Seem's like they nailed it to me.
"Treason: the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government"
They did none of those things.
This idea that you can boil the Civil War down... Â
to something so simplistic troubles me. It was the defining event in the history of the South, still referred to as "The War" long after WWI and II (which most of the rest of the country referred to as The War). Viewed objectively the war was fought over slavery, even if some of its Southern participants felt otherwise. And certainly the treatment of Southern blacks for a century plus after the war was tragic. But the conflation of secession with treason is something that came after that. The country had seen several secessionist movements prior to the Civil War, it took the war to finally determine that the Union was indissoluble. To reach back through history and to effectively impose our view of it 150 years on, to turn the flag into something that can only symbolize hatred, to airbrush out monuments to war dead, to valor and sacrifice, and to do so motivated at least in part by modern-day grievances, just looks Orwellian.
(maybe tomorrow for the lucky people who don't happen to work for Dictator Andy...sigh, no holiday for us) we celebrate America's ultimate treason. Maybe make the stars and stripes illegal?
why were none of the South's generals tried for and executed for treason?
Well first and foremost most of them were dead. But they also understood the need for reconciliation, not necessarily for moral reasons but because they didn't want to chase holdouts the length of Appalachia for 20 years.
the flag of the confederacy is the "Stars and Bars." The current flag is a battle flag. If you're about banning flags of treason, you'll have to include the most iconic flag of the revolutionary war, the Gasdsen Flag.
The flag of the confederacy (the Confederate States of America)
It's fine to be offended by whatever you choose. It's not my place to tell you what you should be offended by. At least know a little about what you're offended by.
I don't see why the flag of the army of the confederacy should change anyone's stance.
So, instead of it being the official flag of the illegitimate government, it's the flag of the army that killed Americans trying to uphold and defend the US government.
If it was treason
buford : 1:46 pm : link : reply
why were none of the South's generals tried for and executed for treason?
I read things like this and the next day I wonder why both my palm and my forehead are bruised.
I get a mental image of "Glory, Glory Allelujah" being sung while Stork from Animal House is stuttering through a speech to the Dean why they didn't deserve double secret probation.
Also, a church about an hour outside of Charleston burned after a clear lightning strike and a tree falling on it.
I hope the media does their homework before inciting things here.
Why start now? Perfect time wind up the race baiters.
Quote:
In comment 12350855 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12350730 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 12350667 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12350631 Big Al said:
Quote:
Her record of lies is known. What I call for there is what I call for here. Investigations. Those who support her say there is nothing more to investigate since investigations have been done. Yes they were done before much of the stuff we continue to find out was known.
Please substantiate her "record of lies." There's far too much political infighting and far too acrimonious a history between the Clintons and the Right to rely on anything other than factual verification of such statements.
Certainly, she has lied, as has any politician you can name. Hell, you've lied repeatedly in your life, as have I, as has everyone else here. It's a matter of degree. If she has, say, obstructed justice or caused avoidable harm (just two examples, supply your own additions), then burn the witch.
Just accord her, or JEB, or Christie, or anyone else the minimal courtesy of not pre-convicting until the facts, whatever they may be, are in.
This is not a politically-motivated response here, you know. It's simply my disgust at watching the usual suspects here apply ideological double-standards that just don't stand up to thoughtful examination.
Beliefs are one thing, and there's no censoring or controlling them; bald accusations based on nothing but those beliefs is not only unintelligent, but dangerous.
That was a side comment to my actual reply to what you said but it is tiresome to again and again go over what I have said here over and over beginning over 10 years ago. All politicians lie. Not all politicians are pathological liars like Hillary. I remember once i mentioned here some lie she made about some inconsequential matter. Possibly her being a Yankee fan. I was told it was no big deal that she lied about something inconsequential. However that was my point. There is no need to lie about inconsequential things. That is the sign of the pathological liar. I am sure others here have known people like that from experience. We know you cannot believe anything they say. It is a sign of a lack of any integrity. An example. Why did she need to say that she was under fire when getting off that helicopter? Most politicians lie because they must. It is part of the game.There was no reason or need for her to lie but she did. That is not part of the game People like Hillary lie because that is what she is.
Sorry, Al, but you're running on emotion, not reason. If it's HRC, you see it only one way, and that's blinkered thinking. And if you think that she's the only political pathological liar, or even in the minority, I just don't know what to say.
I cite all the fools over the years who would have suffered in the very short term by admitting to a fault, rather than denying it, trying to cover it up, and then being politically cooked because of it.
Further, you simply either missed or ignored the whole point of my statements. Proof ids required, no matter the history, innuendo, suppositions, or ideology. If you disagree with this, we're even further apart than I could have imagined.
I keep replying very directly to the questions you asked and then you veer off on tangents. Your original point when you brought Hillary onto this thread was about inconsistency between my position on Hillary and the churches. I directly showed my consistency. You then veered away. I go back to what I said originally on this thread. Let's wait and see what the investigations say about the churches.
No, Al, you just continuede using the "I know she's a liar" screed; not much about waiting for the facts.
Quote:
In comment 12350908 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 12350855 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12350730 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 12350667 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12350631 Big Al said:
Quote:
Her record of lies is known. What I call for there is what I call for here. Investigations. Those who support her say there is nothing more to investigate since investigations have been done. Yes they were done before much of the stuff we continue to find out was known.
Please substantiate her "record of lies." There's far too much political infighting and far too acrimonious a history between the Clintons and the Right to rely on anything other than factual verification of such statements.
Certainly, she has lied, as has any politician you can name. Hell, you've lied repeatedly in your life, as have I, as has everyone else here. It's a matter of degree. If she has, say, obstructed justice or caused avoidable harm (just two examples, supply your own additions), then burn the witch.
Just accord her, or JEB, or Christie, or anyone else the minimal courtesy of not pre-convicting until the facts, whatever they may be, are in.
This is not a politically-motivated response here, you know. It's simply my disgust at watching the usual suspects here apply ideological double-standards that just don't stand up to thoughtful examination.
Beliefs are one thing, and there's no censoring or controlling them; bald accusations based on nothing but those beliefs is not only unintelligent, but dangerous.
That was a side comment to my actual reply to what you said but it is tiresome to again and again go over what I have said here over and over beginning over 10 years ago. All politicians lie. Not all politicians are pathological liars like Hillary. I remember once i mentioned here some lie she made about some inconsequential matter. Possibly her being a Yankee fan. I was told it was no big deal that she lied about something inconsequential. However that was my point. There is no need to lie about inconsequential things. That is the sign of the pathological liar. I am sure others here have known people like that from experience. We know you cannot believe anything they say. It is a sign of a lack of any integrity. An example. Why did she need to say that she was under fire when getting off that helicopter? Most politicians lie because they must. It is part of the game.There was no reason or need for her to lie but she did. That is not part of the game People like Hillary lie because that is what she is.
Sorry, Al, but you're running on emotion, not reason. If it's HRC, you see it only one way, and that's blinkered thinking. And if you think that she's the only political pathological liar, or even in the minority, I just don't know what to say.
I cite all the fools over the years who would have suffered in the very short term by admitting to a fault, rather than denying it, trying to cover it up, and then being politically cooked because of it.
Further, you simply either missed or ignored the whole point of my statements. Proof ids required, no matter the history, innuendo, suppositions, or ideology. If you disagree with this, we're even further apart than I could have imagined.
I keep replying very directly to the questions you asked and then you veer off on tangents. Your original point when you brought Hillary onto this thread was about inconsistency between my position on Hillary and the churches. I directly showed my consistency. You then veered away. I go back to what I said originally on this thread. Let's wait and see what the investigations say about the churches.
No, Al, you just continuede using the "I know she's a liar" screed; not much about waiting for the facts.
Two different issues but let's move on from Hillary on this thread.
Agreed.
Quote:
Non-sequitur torpedoing a relatively decent and important discussion.
If you'd bother to actually read it, you'd see as direct disconnect between the "wait for the facts" sentiment here from the very same people who don't need facts when ideologies are in play. If that offends you, well, there's really nothing I care to do about it.
Hillary is about whether someone has stepped into ethical gray areas so many times that people think that maybe, just maybe she ought not be President. This is about whether crimes have been committed, whether they're linked, and whether they're racially motivated. In the former instance you would not expect to find a smoking gun, because you're not talking about criminal conduct. You're talking about behavior that is unethical and beneath what you'd expect of someone who knows she wants to run for President. In the latter one you would expect that in time we will have an answer, perhaps a suspect, and enough to send him or them to prison for a long, long time.
Quote:
In comment 12350875 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
Non-sequitur torpedoing a relatively decent and important discussion.
If you'd bother to actually read it, you'd see as direct disconnect between the "wait for the facts" sentiment here from the very same people who don't need facts when ideologies are in play. If that offends you, well, there's really nothing I care to do about it.
Hillary is about whether someone has stepped into ethical gray areas so many times that people think that maybe, just maybe she ought not be President. This is about whether crimes have been committed, whether they're linked, and whether they're racially motivated. In the former instance you would not expect to find a smoking gun, because you're not talking about criminal conduct. You're talking about behavior that is unethical and beneath what you'd expect of someone who knows she wants to run for President. In the latter one you would expect that in time we will have an answer, perhaps a suspect, and enough to send him or them to prison for a long, long time.
People from a particular ideological viewpoint, and therein lies the difference. I expect proof before conviction, regardless of parsing the level of conjectured wrongdoing. That isn't happening in the discussion above. The difference is stark.
You should know that better than anyone.
Quote:
...
You should know that better than anyone.
I know you are but what am I?
Quote:
In comment 12351594 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
...
You should know that better than anyone.
I know you are but what am I?
Welcome to the playground, Junior. First learn what words mean, then try to use them correctly. Then pull the ramrod out and try to grow a sense of humor. Maybe when you get some life experience you'll understand.
To be fair, it was introduced here by a lefty
Quote:
In comment 12351881 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12351594 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
...
You should know that better than anyone.
I know you are but what am I?
Welcome to the playground, Junior. First learn what words mean, then try to use them correctly. Then pull the ramrod out and try to grow a sense of humor. Maybe when you get some life experience you'll understand.
I don't need to speak for him, but omg, he's experienced a lot. I think that the even you would respect that.
Quote:
In comment 12351881 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12351594 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
...
You should know that better than anyone.
I know you are but what am I?
Welcome to the playground, Junior. First learn what words mean, then try to use them correctly. Then pull the ramrod out and try to grow a sense of humor. Maybe when you get some life experience you'll understand.
Generally speaking a sycophant is a flatterer. I don't have a horse in the raise, not yet, so merely being anti-someone would make the opposite of a flatterer, no? And let's not start talking about life experience, I have plenty.
Yeah my faith teaches me to not judge people, or at least to not judge them harshly, but I struggle with that. All kidding aside though there are few things more pathetic than a toady.
Yeah, I fucking hate that guy [frantically scraping off my Trump '16 sticker].
Ah yes. The poor opressed majority.
Quote:
the flag isn't about hate? Nooooooo of course not.
Oh give it a break. Because of my father’s job I lived a good portion of my youth in the south, and can tell you from firsthand experience that the confederate flag has different meaning to different people. For most people from the south it is a symbol of southern pride and heritage, for many in the African American community it is understandably a symbol of oppression, discrimination and slavery, and for a very small minority it is a symbol of their hate (KKK, Neo-Nazis, Skinheads, etc…). The haters don’t need a flag to hate.
Are people still defending the flag? It's a flag that was used during a war that was based on slavery & then re-appeared during the '50s & '60s during the Civil Rights Movement.
It's a symbol of racism and hatred.
The Confederacy created several battle flags to differentiate the "Stars and Bars" flag of the Confederacy from the U.S. flag. So, there were actually a variety of battle flags used by the Confederacy but the one we all know as the "Confederate flag" was carried by the Army of Northern Virginia and a few other isolated Confederate armies. By far, it was not the most prolific of the Confederate battle flags.
•The flag didn't become a symbol of the South as a whole during the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's. It became a symbol in the years following the end of the war. For the most part, older veterans of the Confederacy adopted it as their symbol and it was used in Confederate monuments throughout the South (starting in the 1880s).
Unfortunately, the "Confederate Flag" first became used as a symbol of resistance to the civil rights movement in the late 1940s. It was used as a symbol for the extremist wing of the Southern Democrat party called the "Dixiecrat Party" They broke away from the Democratic Party over segregation and a national effort to repeal Jim Crow laws. It was after that it began to be used by segregationist groups and as a symbol against the civil rights movement.
I know people have a lot of feelings about the Confederate Flag, but it's important that some understanding of the facts behind the 'symbol' before you go blathering about your moral superiority. Hating has many forms... ignorance is the common theme of haters.
The Confederacy created several battle flags to differentiate the "Stars and Bars" flag of the Confederacy from the U.S. flag. So, there were actually a variety of battle flags used by the Confederacy but the one we all know as the "Confederate flag" was carried by the Army of Northern Virginia and a few other isolated Confederate armies. By far, it was not the most prolific of the Confederate battle flags.
•The flag didn't become a symbol of the South as a whole during the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's. It became a symbol in the years following the end of the war. For the most part, older veterans of the Confederacy adopted it as their symbol and it was used in Confederate monuments throughout the South (starting in the 1880s).
Unfortunately, the "Confederate Flag" first became used as a symbol of resistance to the civil rights movement in the late 1940s. It was used as a symbol for the extremist wing of the Southern Democrat party called the "Dixiecrat Party" They broke away from the Democratic Party over segregation and a national effort to repeal Jim Crow laws. It was after that it began to be used by segregationist groups and as a symbol against the civil rights movement.
I know people have a lot of feelings about the Confederate Flag, but it's important that some understanding of the facts behind the 'symbol' before you go blathering about your moral superiority. Hating has many forms... ignorance is the common theme of haters.
Regardless of any and all of that - ALL Confederate flags/symbology should have been deemed illegal immediately after the Civil War, just as Nazi symbology was banned in Germany after WW2.
ALL Confederate Flags, battle or otherwise ARE FLAGS OF TREASON. More Federal American troops killed by these most despicable of ALL Americans in our history than by ANY other army, including Germany or Japan in WW2.
Think about that.
This IS a teachable moment. Americans who are so quick to throw the word 'TREASON' around need to really take a look at what the Civil War truly represented - a literal, bloody, murderous, treasonous rebellion that killed over 600,000 troops AND an iconic President - for people so freaked out over Al Queda and ISIS, I find it amazing how willingly Americans trivialize the Civil War.
Southern Pride kiss my ass. Stars and Bars had no business ever flying in this country after 1865.
Two Clarendon County, South Carolina pastors say they have been targeted with threats of violence just because they are women. The writer identified him or herself as Apostle Prophet Harry Leon Fleming, and said in the letter "the woman cannot be head of the man in church, home and the world."
"The Devil always use a woman to bring down a good man," the letter states.
In one section of the letter it states, "…you and your children will die."
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
about the Confederate flag. As a 'symbol' it becomes and object of feelings over facts. The idea that the current Confederate flag re-appeared is a false narrative...
The Confederacy created several battle flags to differentiate the "Stars and Bars" flag of the Confederacy from the U.S. flag. So, there were actually a variety of battle flags used by the Confederacy but the one we all know as the "Confederate flag" was carried by the Army of Northern Virginia and a few other isolated Confederate armies. By far, it was not the most prolific of the Confederate battle flags.
•The flag didn't become a symbol of the South as a whole during the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's. It became a symbol in the years following the end of the war. For the most part, older veterans of the Confederacy adopted it as their symbol and it was used in Confederate monuments throughout the South (starting in the 1880s).
Unfortunately, the "Confederate Flag" first became used as a symbol of resistance to the civil rights movement in the late 1940s. It was used as a symbol for the extremist wing of the Southern Democrat party called the "Dixiecrat Party" They broke away from the Democratic Party over segregation and a national effort to repeal Jim Crow laws. It was after that it began to be used by segregationist groups and as a symbol against the civil rights movement.
I know people have a lot of feelings about the Confederate Flag, but it's important that some understanding of the facts behind the 'symbol' before you go blathering about your moral superiority. Hating has many forms... ignorance is the common theme of haters.
Regardless of any and all of that - ALL Confederate flags/symbology should have been deemed illegal immediately after the Civil War, just as Nazi symbology was banned in Germany after WW2.
ALL Confederate Flags, battle or otherwise ARE FLAGS OF TREASON. More Federal American troops killed by these most despicable of ALL Americans in our history than by ANY other army, including Germany or Japan in WW2.
Think about that.
This IS a teachable moment. Americans who are so quick to throw the word 'TREASON' around need to really take a look at what the Civil War truly represented - a literal, bloody, murderous, treasonous rebellion that killed over 600,000 troops AND an iconic President - for people so freaked out over Al Queda and ISIS, I find it amazing how willingly Americans trivialize the Civil War.
Southern Pride kiss my ass. Stars and Bars had no business ever flying in this country after 1865.
In America, the default is to protect liberty. I'd be happy to never see that flag again, and as I've said elsewhere, I'm averse to it, but to make it *illegal* seems a dangerous precedent. We aren't Germany.
Shall we also make illegal Swastikas, Iron Crosses, etc.?
Gov't shouldn't validate the flag, but don't censor it for the populace.
The flag of the confederacy (the Confederate States of America)
It's fine to be offended by whatever you choose. It's not my place to tell you what you should be offended by. At least know a little about what you're offended by.
Quote:
In comment 12352781 BamaBlue said:
Quote:
Shall we also make illegal Swastikas, Iron Crosses, etc.?
Hell no. No symbol should be made illegal. BUT, we should all agree to make fun of the douchebags displaying all those symbols, and the government should definitelt not be issuing license plates with them on there, or flying those flags in public buildings.
I'm still unclear as to whether it actually was treason. Someone tried to explain it to me here but it seemed like there is ambiguity about the answer.
Quote:
at least, to me. I don't think you can make it illegal, but to have the flag of a treasonous state flying on government buildings, that absolutely can be forbidden.
I'm still unclear as to whether it actually was treason. Someone tried to explain it to me here but it seemed like there is ambiguity about the answer.
Seem's like they nailed it to me.
"Treason: the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government"
Quote:
In comment 12353539 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
at least, to me. I don't think you can make it illegal, but to have the flag of a treasonous state flying on government buildings, that absolutely can be forbidden.
I'm still unclear as to whether it actually was treason. Someone tried to explain it to me here but it seemed like there is ambiguity about the answer.
Seem's like they nailed it to me.
"Treason: the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government"
They did none of those things.
Well first and foremost most of them were dead. But they also understood the need for reconciliation, not necessarily for moral reasons but because they didn't want to chase holdouts the length of Appalachia for 20 years.
The flag of the confederacy (the Confederate States of America)
It's fine to be offended by whatever you choose. It's not my place to tell you what you should be offended by. At least know a little about what you're offended by.
I don't see why the flag of the army of the confederacy should change anyone's stance.
So, instead of it being the official flag of the illegitimate government, it's the flag of the army that killed Americans trying to uphold and defend the US government.
buford : 1:46 pm : link : reply
why were none of the South's generals tried for and executed for treason?
I read things like this and the next day I wonder why both my palm and my forehead are bruised.
I get a mental image of "Glory, Glory Allelujah" being sung while Stork from Animal House is stuttering through a speech to the Dean why they didn't deserve double secret probation.
Link - ( New Window )