Buried beneath the sensationalized social media avalanche of panic: the more judicious and careful observations of Los Angeles Times reporter Matt Pearce that the feds have made no official determinations that any hate crimes have taken place and that "it's unclear whether any of the fires are linked."
It was observed that "one of the half-dozen church crimes was most likely "accidental" and had "no element of criminal intent."
Another "was likely touched off by an electrical short" after a tree limb fell on the property, yanking the electrical service line with it.
And yet another alleged "black church arson" actually involved a white church "struck by lightning."
Buried beneath the sensationalized social media avalanche of panic: the more judicious and careful observations of Los Angeles Times reporter Matt Pearce that the feds have made no official determinations that any hate crimes have taken place and that "it's unclear whether any of the fires are linked."
It was observed that "one of the half-dozen church crimes was most likely "accidental" and had "no element of criminal intent."
Another "was likely touched off by an electrical short" after a tree limb fell on the property, yanking the electrical service line with it.
And yet another alleged "black church arson" actually involved a white church "struck by lightning."
Link - ( New Window )
and try to find the retractions.....retractions are bad business, and boring.
each time we have a storm there are usually a few houses or other buildings that burn down. A church near us burned to the ground a few years ago. I wouldn't ignore the lightning factor, especially this time of year. Our house was struck by lightning a few years ago, but luckily there was limited damage.
each time we have a storm there are usually a few houses or other buildings that burn down. A church near us burned to the ground a few years ago. I wouldn't ignore the lightning factor, especially this time of year. Our house was struck by lightning a few years ago, but luckily there was limited damage.
It's nice to have an optimistic view, but given that this is the 7th one since the SC shooting, and this same church was burned before...
of the burnings were the result of lightning and one wasn't even a black church. The FBI and ATF investigate all church burnings so if there is a link, they will find it.
at least 15 to 20 trucks and cars with huge confederate flags driving around the past week or so. I say that's a large number because usually we'd just see the one random redneck doing so every maybe once or twice per year.
They have even infested this tiny quiet beach town I'm in on the NC coast right now.
which you also acknowledged in your original post, I can't figure out if you were being facetious or not in starting this thread.
What "actual reasons" are you referring to Bill? The 3 churches that have already been confirmed as arson, or the other 4 that are still under investigation? Or are you just trolling?
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.
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.
The presence of two posters with Beer in their name, each with very different opinions, confuses the fuck out of me.
In so deep into your head you probably think about me when you do the nasty with your old lady. I take it as a compliment that I mean so much to you. Thank you of always thinking of me
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.
I've spent a lot of time in the South myself - and there's lots of folks that are still fighting the Civil War in their minds, and that are not only in denial that the South lost the war, but to this day think that the outcome was just plain wrong. This is especially true of relatives of Southern Officers that fought in the War.
and fuck your Taylor ham, overrated pizza, and cheesestaks...chicken fried steak, shrimp and grits, ham with red-eye, greens and fried chicken, low country boil...kill them all.
display flags or other memorabilia that could reasonably be interpreted as offensive.
I don't display anything. But so much as displaying a flag sends a poor message, desecrating one also does. So fuck the people in Brooklyn (or wherever it is) this weekend. They're no different in spirit or ethos than the ones who display the Confederate flag with malicious intent.
of idiots with Confederate flags in their trucks up in Dalton Georgia, and a bunch of them got into an accident, LOL. There are videos on You Tube. We saw one in the parking lot of the local supermarket. Most people were making fun of them.
Look, I want the FBI to investigate these church fires and if they catch someone, they should be prosecuted and sent away. But let's not get hysterical until we know it's some kind of racist crime wave.
display flags or other memorabilia that could reasonably be interpreted as offensive.
I don't display anything. But so much as displaying a flag sends a poor message, desecrating one also does. So fuck the people in Brooklyn (or wherever it is) this weekend. They're no different in spirit or ethos than the ones who display the Confederate flag with malicious intent.
I have an American flag in front of the house. Sort of simple, really.
from funerals, graduation, etc but they're either displayed in a case or boxed. I know several neighbors which display what looks to be a marine corps flag. At one point we had a small blue star mothers flag in the window but only for a short while because I thought it was hokey.
My damn neighbor has a Pittsburgh Steelers flag standing on her lawn all autumn.
Personally, I think the American flag and the POW-MIA flag are the only ones people should have and all that should fly on gov't buildings besides the state flags. Nothing else.
and fuck your Taylor ham, overrated pizza, and cheesestaks...chicken fried steak, shrimp and grits, ham with red-eye, greens and fried chicken, low country boil...kill them all.
That's what the South is to me, haters.
I'm equal opportunity. Give me a taylor ham, egg and cheese on an egg bagel any day of the week, but you can pry my barbecue and my shrimp and grits from my cold, dead hands.
Kidding aside though, much of the South is more, and better, integrated than wide swaths (geographic and population) of the North. It may be difficult to wrap your head around someone who flies the Confederate battle flag but manages to live and work in a multi-racial world but it does happen.
this is another hands up don't shoot orgy that we have seen previously here or maybe there is some basis in fact to there being hate groups behind some of these. As aleays, I take the position that we wait until we get some facts from investigations before we reach any conclusions.
RE: We are all allowed to have our own opinions... Â
and fuck your Taylor ham, overrated pizza, and cheesestaks...chicken fried steak, shrimp and grits, ham with red-eye, greens and fried chicken, low country boil...kill them all.
That's what the South is to me, haters.
I'm equal opportunity. Give me a taylor ham, egg and cheese on an egg bagel any day of the week, but you can pry my barbecue and my shrimp and grits from my cold, dead hands.
Kidding aside though, much of the South is more, and better, integrated than wide swaths (geographic and population) of the North. It may be difficult to wrap your head around someone who flies the Confederate battle flag but manages to live and work in a multi-racial world but it does happen.
When we moved to upstate NY from Dallas I was surprised at how much more race was noticed. So many people use "coloreds" as descriptors. I chalked it up to big city versus podunk rather than region but of all the places that I've where I have seen or felt racial animus, it's been the northeast by far where it has been more prevalent.
Long Island, Virginia, California, Arizona, Alabama, Florida. This is, of course, merely anecdotal, but in my experience the races come into contact a helluva lot more in the south than the north. Doesn't mean they always get along, but there's more of a comfort level with intermingling in daily life there.
I also saw more interracial babies in rural Alabama than anywhere else I've been, FWIW. It's an odd dynamic - there are undoubtedly plenty of racists remaining in rural southern societies but they manage to interact on a daily basis much more than in the north.
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.
Truthfully, I agree with this. Millions of non-racist people love the confederate flag out of southern pride.
That is and should be irrelevant though, because the flag not only means something else to others, but it truly is a symbol of racism at it's core.
this is another hands up don't shoot orgy that we have seen previously here or maybe there is some basis in fact to there being hate groups behind some of these. As aleays, I take the position that we wait until we get some facts from investigations before we reach any conclusions.
Would that those attacking HRC on the other thread would take such a viewpoint. Currently, she's been deemed guilty by both association and innuendo, but without, as yet, hard facts.
She may be guilty as hell, innocent as a newborn lamb, or, likely, somewhere in between. But she doesn't get the same level of judicious "let's wait for the facts" consideration.
Pre-suppose all you like, but how do you all reconcile the jarring disconnect? Is it that suspected political misbehavior scores higher on the outrage scale with some of you than the possibility of racially-motivated crime?
This scenario sounded very familiar to me. A Google search brings up an almost identical scenario in 1996. No clear conclusion. Depends on who you choose to believe in the body of articles that followed. A lot of the fires originally blamed on hate groups did turn out after investigation to show otherwise. Some are still unsolved.
Wait a second. I know the South is all backwards and shit, Â
this is another hands up don't shoot orgy that we have seen previously here or maybe there is some basis in fact to there being hate groups behind some of these. As aleays, I take the position that we wait until we get some facts from investigations before we reach any conclusions.
Would that those attacking HRC on the other thread would take such a viewpoint. Currently, she's been deemed guilty by both association and innuendo, but without, as yet, hard facts.
She may be guilty as hell, innocent as a newborn lamb, or, likely, somewhere in between. But she doesn't get the same level of judicious "let's wait for the facts" consideration.
Pre-suppose all you like, but how do you all reconcile the jarring disconnect? Is it that suspected political misbehavior scores higher on the outrage scale with some of you than the possibility of racially-motivated crime?
this is another hands up don't shoot orgy that we have seen previously here or maybe there is some basis in fact to there being hate groups behind some of these. As aleays, I take the position that we wait until we get some facts from investigations before we reach any conclusions.
Would that those attacking HRC on the other thread would take such a viewpoint. Currently, she's been deemed guilty by both association and innuendo, but without, as yet, hard facts.
She may be guilty as hell, innocent as a newborn lamb, or, likely, somewhere in between. But she doesn't get the same level of judicious "let's wait for the facts" consideration.
Pre-suppose all you like, but how do you all reconcile the jarring disconnect? Is it that suspected political misbehavior scores higher on the outrage scale with some of you than the possibility of racially-motivated crime?
Her record of lies is She turned over her work related emails as required by rule. Any allegation that she did not turn over all work related emails is without basis in fact.. 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.
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.
this is another hands up don't shoot orgy that we have seen previously here or maybe there is some basis in fact to there being hate groups behind some of these. As aleays, I take the position that we wait until we get some facts from investigations before we reach any conclusions.
Would that those attacking HRC on the other thread would take such a viewpoint. Currently, she's been deemed guilty by both association and innuendo, but without, as yet, hard facts.
She may be guilty as hell, innocent as a newborn lamb, or, likely, somewhere in between. But she doesn't get the same level of judicious "let's wait for the facts" consideration.
Pre-suppose all you like, but how do you all reconcile the jarring disconnect? Is it that suspected political misbehavior scores higher on the outrage scale with some of you than the possibility of racially-motivated crime?
SO how are we on Tom Brady?
As is your wont, you present non-sequiturs to try to make a point. You really have no talent at discourse. Stick with your ideological rants and your defense of perhaps the only person on here who is even worse than you at firing synapses.
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.
all over the nation. In my experience I've found the racists of the north, including the aforementioned update NYers to be more of the closeted racist variety. They'll keep to themselves and act polite in public, but behind closed doors the N words and racist jokes fly freely. These are not kind the of racists who'll burn your churches down but they'll stereotype and hate you!
Down south the racism seems to be more upfront or in the open. They'll tell you that 'they don't like your kind' to your face and some will do some crazy shit like burn buildings to the ground. Do you prefer your racism veiled or flaming out in the open?
What unites racists from all over is a firm ability to blame their problems on or project their fears onto groups of other people.
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.
RE: There are racists of all shapes, sizes, and characters Â
all over the nation. In my experience I've found the racists of the north, including the aforementioned update NYers to be more of the closeted racist variety. They'll keep to themselves and act polite in public, but behind closed doors the N words and racist jokes fly freely. These are not kind the of racists who'll burn your churches down but they'll stereotype and hate you!
Down south the racism seems to be more upfront or in the open. They'll tell you that 'they don't like your kind' to your face and some will do some crazy shit like burn buildings to the ground. Do you prefer your racism veiled or flaming out in the open?
What unites racists from all over is a firm ability to blame their problems on or project their fears onto groups of other people.
I agree. I would also add that for many it stems from an insecurity of who they are, and that by accepting someone else’s differences they have the false belief they are somehow demeaning who they are.
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.
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.
Lets all jump to conclusions like "Hands Up Dont Shoot" Â
Federal investigators suspect lightning may have caused the fire at Mount Zion African Methodist Episcopal Church in Greeleyville, South Carolina, senior officials in the FBI said Wednesday morning.
June 26: Greater Miracle Apostolic in Tallahassee, Florida. The fire was likely caused by a tree limb falling on power lines.
* June 26: Glover Grovery Baptist in Warrenville, South Carolina. The cause has not been determined, but investigators observed no element of criminal intent.
* June 24: Briar Creek Road Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, which houses both black and Nepalese congregations. Fire investigators ruled that fire an arson, and though they have not seen evidence that hate was a motivation for the crime, they are not ruling it out.
* June 21: College Hill Seventh-day Adventist in Knoxville, Tennessee. Investigators ruled it an arson but they say nothing so far has indicated a hate crime. ATF and other agencies said that it looked like vandalism.
* June 21: God's Power Church of Christ in Macon, Georgia. Investigators believe the blaze might be arson. ATF is investigating but no ruling has been made. The church had recently been broken into and air conditioners and sound systems stolen.
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.
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.
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.
It was observed that "one of the half-dozen church crimes was most likely "accidental" and had "no element of criminal intent."
Another "was likely touched off by an electrical short" after a tree limb fell on the property, yanking the electrical service line with it.
And yet another alleged "black church arson" actually involved a white church "struck by lightning."
Link - ( New Window )
Really? I thought it was the headline this morning on Good Morning America.
Quote:
Buried beneath the sensationalized social media avalanche of panic: the more judicious and careful observations of Los Angeles Times reporter Matt Pearce that the feds have made no official determinations that any hate crimes have taken place and that "it's unclear whether any of the fires are linked."
It was observed that "one of the half-dozen church crimes was most likely "accidental" and had "no element of criminal intent."
Another "was likely touched off by an electrical short" after a tree limb fell on the property, yanking the electrical service line with it.
And yet another alleged "black church arson" actually involved a white church "struck by lightning."
Link - ( New Window )
and try to find the retractions.....retractions are bad business, and boring.
All over the local morning news this morning in Richmond.
This is CNN.
It's nice to have an optimistic view, but given that this is the 7th one since the SC shooting, and this same church was burned before...
They have even infested this tiny quiet beach town I'm in on the NC coast right now.
But even if a couple of these are explained away as lightning or natural causes it's still alarming at its face. One is alarming at its face.
What "actual reasons" are you referring to Bill? The 3 churches that have already been confirmed as arson, or the other 4 that are still under investigation? Or are you just trolling?
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.
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.
The presence of two posters with Beer in their name, each with very different opinions, confuses the fuck out of me.
Quote:
ridiculous....
Really? I thought it was the headline this morning on Good Morning America.
It WAS a lead story in the 7 AM Today Show.
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.
I've spent a lot of time in the South myself - and there's lots of folks that are still fighting the Civil War in their minds, and that are not only in denial that the South lost the war, but to this day think that the outcome was just plain wrong. This is especially true of relatives of Southern Officers that fought in the War.
That's what the South is to me, haters.
I don't display anything. But so much as displaying a flag sends a poor message, desecrating one also does. So fuck the people in Brooklyn (or wherever it is) this weekend. They're no different in spirit or ethos than the ones who display the Confederate flag with malicious intent.
Look, I want the FBI to investigate these church fires and if they catch someone, they should be prosecuted and sent away. But let's not get hysterical until we know it's some kind of racist crime wave.
Quote:
display flags or other memorabilia that could reasonably be interpreted as offensive.
I don't display anything. But so much as displaying a flag sends a poor message, desecrating one also does. So fuck the people in Brooklyn (or wherever it is) this weekend. They're no different in spirit or ethos than the ones who display the Confederate flag with malicious intent.
My damn neighbor has a Pittsburgh Steelers flag standing on her lawn all autumn.
Personally, I think the American flag and the POW-MIA flag are the only ones people should have and all that should fly on gov't buildings besides the state flags. Nothing else.
Read the article, they are already involved. The FBI and ATF investigate all church burnings.
That's what the South is to me, haters.
I'm equal opportunity. Give me a taylor ham, egg and cheese on an egg bagel any day of the week, but you can pry my barbecue and my shrimp and grits from my cold, dead hands.
Kidding aside though, much of the South is more, and better, integrated than wide swaths (geographic and population) of the North. It may be difficult to wrap your head around someone who flies the Confederate battle flag but manages to live and work in a multi-racial world but it does happen.
Hokey is the last thing I would think.
Quote:
At one point we had a small blue star mothers flag in the window but only for a short while because I thought it was hokey.
Hokey is the last thing I would think.
Quote:
and fuck your Taylor ham, overrated pizza, and cheesestaks...chicken fried steak, shrimp and grits, ham with red-eye, greens and fried chicken, low country boil...kill them all.
That's what the South is to me, haters.
I'm equal opportunity. Give me a taylor ham, egg and cheese on an egg bagel any day of the week, but you can pry my barbecue and my shrimp and grits from my cold, dead hands.
Kidding aside though, much of the South is more, and better, integrated than wide swaths (geographic and population) of the North. It may be difficult to wrap your head around someone who flies the Confederate battle flag but manages to live and work in a multi-racial world but it does happen.
When we moved to upstate NY from Dallas I was surprised at how much more race was noticed. So many people use "coloreds" as descriptors. I chalked it up to big city versus podunk rather than region but of all the places that I've where I have seen or felt racial animus, it's been the northeast by far where it has been more prevalent.
I also saw more interracial babies in rural Alabama than anywhere else I've been, FWIW. It's an odd dynamic - there are undoubtedly plenty of racists remaining in rural southern societies but they manage to interact on a daily basis much more than in the north.
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.
Truthfully, I agree with this. Millions of non-racist people love the confederate flag out of southern pride.
That is and should be irrelevant though, because the flag not only means something else to others, but it truly is a symbol of racism at it's core.
What do Florida and New York have in common?
The further north you go the deeper in the south you get.
Quote:
but I have to disagree with this thought...
Quote:
At one point we had a small blue star mothers flag in the window but only for a short while because I thought it was hokey.
Hokey is the last thing I would think.
Probably not the right words and I don't mean to be disrespectful. Just didn't like calling attention to ourselves.
Bill, that certainly makes sense.
Would that those attacking HRC on the other thread would take such a viewpoint. Currently, she's been deemed guilty by both association and innuendo, but without, as yet, hard facts.
She may be guilty as hell, innocent as a newborn lamb, or, likely, somewhere in between. But she doesn't get the same level of judicious "let's wait for the facts" consideration.
Pre-suppose all you like, but how do you all reconcile the jarring disconnect? Is it that suspected political misbehavior scores higher on the outrage scale with some of you than the possibility of racially-motivated crime?
Quote:
this is another hands up don't shoot orgy that we have seen previously here or maybe there is some basis in fact to there being hate groups behind some of these. As aleays, I take the position that we wait until we get some facts from investigations before we reach any conclusions.
Would that those attacking HRC on the other thread would take such a viewpoint. Currently, she's been deemed guilty by both association and innuendo, but without, as yet, hard facts.
She may be guilty as hell, innocent as a newborn lamb, or, likely, somewhere in between. But she doesn't get the same level of judicious "let's wait for the facts" consideration.
Pre-suppose all you like, but how do you all reconcile the jarring disconnect? Is it that suspected political misbehavior scores higher on the outrage scale with some of you than the possibility of racially-motivated crime?
SO how are we on Tom Brady?
Quote:
this is another hands up don't shoot orgy that we have seen previously here or maybe there is some basis in fact to there being hate groups behind some of these. As aleays, I take the position that we wait until we get some facts from investigations before we reach any conclusions.
Would that those attacking HRC on the other thread would take such a viewpoint. Currently, she's been deemed guilty by both association and innuendo, but without, as yet, hard facts.
She may be guilty as hell, innocent as a newborn lamb, or, likely, somewhere in between. But she doesn't get the same level of judicious "let's wait for the facts" consideration.
Pre-suppose all you like, but how do you all reconcile the jarring disconnect? Is it that suspected political misbehavior scores higher on the outrage scale with some of you than the possibility of racially-motivated crime?
Quote:
In comment 12350512 Big Al said:
Quote:
this is another hands up don't shoot orgy that we have seen previously here or maybe there is some basis in fact to there being hate groups behind some of these. As aleays, I take the position that we wait until we get some facts from investigations before we reach any conclusions.
Would that those attacking HRC on the other thread would take such a viewpoint. Currently, she's been deemed guilty by both association and innuendo, but without, as yet, hard facts.
She may be guilty as hell, innocent as a newborn lamb, or, likely, somewhere in between. But she doesn't get the same level of judicious "let's wait for the facts" consideration.
Pre-suppose all you like, but how do you all reconcile the jarring disconnect? Is it that suspected political misbehavior scores higher on the outrage scale with some of you than the possibility of racially-motivated crime?
SO how are we on Tom Brady?
As is your wont, you present non-sequiturs to try to make a point. You really have no talent at discourse. Stick with your ideological rants and your defense of perhaps the only person on here who is even worse than you at firing synapses.
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.
You should.
Down south the racism seems to be more upfront or in the open. They'll tell you that 'they don't like your kind' to your face and some will do some crazy shit like burn buildings to the ground. Do you prefer your racism veiled or flaming out in the open?
What unites racists from all over is a firm ability to blame their problems on or project their fears onto groups of other people.
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.
Down south the racism seems to be more upfront or in the open. They'll tell you that 'they don't like your kind' to your face and some will do some crazy shit like burn buildings to the ground. Do you prefer your racism veiled or flaming out in the open?
What unites racists from all over is a firm ability to blame their problems on or project their fears onto groups of other people.
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.
Of course he does; you're birds of a feather.
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.
Federal investigators suspect lightning may have caused the fire at Mount Zion African Methodist Episcopal Church in Greeleyville, South Carolina, senior officials in the FBI said Wednesday morning.
June 26: Greater Miracle Apostolic in Tallahassee, Florida. The fire was likely caused by a tree limb falling on power lines.
* June 26: Glover Grovery Baptist in Warrenville, South Carolina. The cause has not been determined, but investigators observed no element of criminal intent.
* June 24: Briar Creek Road Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, which houses both black and Nepalese congregations. Fire investigators ruled that fire an arson, and though they have not seen evidence that hate was a motivation for the crime, they are not ruling it out.
* June 21: College Hill Seventh-day Adventist in Knoxville, Tennessee. Investigators ruled it an arson but they say nothing so far has indicated a hate crime. ATF and other agencies said that it looked like vandalism.
* June 21: God's Power Church of Christ in Macon, Georgia. Investigators believe the blaze might be arson. ATF is investigating but no ruling has been made. The church had recently been broken into and air conditioners and sound systems stolen.
Caution on Liveleak - ( New Window )
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.
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.
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 )