Nikki Haley To Call For Confederate Flag To Be Removed From South Carolina Capitol: Reports

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yea, all that federal aide the states receive from the federal government certainly IS a big eff you to the states. Man the NERVE of the federal government, giving the states a bunch of money to implement its local policies!

Who do they steal that money from in the first place in order to "give" it back?

originally posted by: Willtell
If the southerners want to be proud of something look for in your history the many good things you did and put that at the forefront of your history and we’d be glad and proud with you as Americans


Not a symbol of the degradation of a people


There are I'm sure thousands of southerners who were kind to slaves and aided them in their escape or who treated them humanely


My greatest American in History is the great John Brown

A WHITE MAN who was more pro slave freedom than Fredrick Douglas!

Be proud of him

Eff John Brown. he was a murderous bastard. Look up "Bleeding Kansas" to get a glimpse of the hero you revere.

a reply to: Krazysh0t Anyone who thinks that the people are in charge.
When it comes to Government.
Is definitely Fooling Themselves.

originally posted by: 8675309jenny

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: seasoul

Slavery/racism is only one small problem with the flag. The flag also represents a time when the Southern states refused to compromise with the Northern states and decided to settle their differences with bullets instead of words.

One small correction here: The South did not decide to settle anything with bullets. The South CEDED from the Union, and the North refused to recognize their secession. It was in fact the NORTH who went to war against the south. So while the North never acknowledged it, the CSA were a separate country for a time and traded with many nations as such.

Makes you wonder if the current USA birth date should be 1776 or 1865... hmm.

Negative. As a I showed on the first page. The South (namely Charleston) fired the first bullets. I'm pretty sure that the first volley is the starter of the war.

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NthOther

So you think it is a good thing for a state (a local extension of the federal government) should be able to symbolically defy the federal government? Again I said I see no problem with an individual or private company from doing it, but if you can't see the conflict of interest with a state flying it, then I don't know what to say.

Damn straight it's a good thing.

Since when were state governments demoted to mere extensions of Federal Empire?

Since the Constitution was written.

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yea, all that federal aide the states receive from the federal government certainly IS a big eff you to the states. Man the NERVE of the federal government, giving the states a bunch of money to implement its local policies!

Who do they steal that money from in the first place in order to "give" it back?

The morals of taxes aren't pertinent to this discussion.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: seasoul

For a moment take slavery out of the equation

No.
Racism, nationalism and slavery is fundamentally linked to that flag and people need to stop trying to gloss over it because it's inconvenient or uncomfortable.

I know some seem to have an unhealthy attachment to that piece of cloth (I personally cannot understand people putting so much emphasis on a symbol like that) but whether people want to accept it or not it is a symbol of hate.

It belongs in a museum.

This is crazy. Yes slavery sucked, but it's not like white people where growing black people and forcing them to tend the fields. They bought them from other black people that sold out their own people. Slavery was on it's way out back then, anyway. And the notion that slavery was a horrible, horrible thing isn't totally correct. They were treated fairly well. You don't invest in something and then treat it like crap, doesn't make any economical sense.

This is a scary mind control pandemic that's going on right now. Look at all these people focused on racism when they should be focused on the police. Look at all these people focused on racism when they should be focused on the TPP that's literally passing under all our noses because everyone's so strung on racism. This is a test, a test to see what they can take from the people, and by the time most of the idiots finally awake and see how easily and badly their cute fragile, sensitive emotions were played, there will be no defense to fight back against a rogue and tyrannical government.

They're going to line you up for vaccinations and you will take them with a smile because you're scared.
They're going to take your guns and you'll give them away because you're scared.
They're going to make you fear your brothers and sisters of different colors because you're scared.
They're going to turn you against one another to an emotional boiling point that could ignite another civil-war, and this time it won't be about slavery. It'll be fought by one group of idiots against another group of easily led emotional idiots.

Welcome to the New World.

originally posted by: Flesh699
This is crazy. Yes slavery sucked, but it's not like white people where growing black people and forcing them to tend the fields. They bought them from other black people that sold out their own people. Slavery was on it's way out back then, anyway. And the notion that slavery was a horrible, horrible thing isn't totally correct. They were treated fairly well. You don't invest in something and then treat it like crap, doesn't make any economical sense.

This is bullcrap. For one, the slave trade was outlawed in the 1700's. The only way to obtain slaves in the states at that point was to literally breed them or buy them from another domestic seller. Also, I keep seeing this assertion that "slavery was on its way out." That is also nonsense.

WAS SLAVERY ON THE WAY OUT?

The claim that slavery was dying out is a popular misconception. Slavery was healthy and was incredibly profitable.

In the years between 1850 and 1860, in the thirteen slaveholding states (excluding Missouri and Delaware), the total cash value of farms rose from $1,035,544,075 to $2,288,179,125; the average cash value of farms rose from $2,035.75 to $3,438.71; the number of slaveholders grew from 326,054 to 358,728; and the average number of slaves per slaveholders rose from 9.54 to 10.69. [Thomas P. Govan, “Was Plantation Slavery Profitable?” Journal of Southern History, Vol VIII, No. 4, Nov., 1942, p. 518] Does that sound unprofitable? Does it sound as if slavery was dying out?

In perhaps the classic study of the economics of slavery, Alfred Conrad and John Meyer concluded, “Slavery was profitable to the whole South, the continuing demand for labor in the Cotton Belt insuring returns to the breeding operation on the less productive land in the seaboard and border states. The breeding returns were necessary, however, to make the plantation operations on the poorer lands as profitable as alternative contemporary economic activities in the United States. . . . Continued expansion of slave territory was both possible and, to some extent, necessary. The maintenance of profits in the Old South depended upon the expansion, extensive or intensive, of slave agriculture into the Southwest. [Alfred H. Conrad and John R. Meyer, “The Economics of Slavery in the Ante Bellum South,” The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. LXVI, No. 2, April, 1958, p. 121]

“On both large and small estates, none but the most hopelessly inefficient masters failed to profit from the ownership of slaves.” [Kenneth M. Stampp, The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South, p. 414]

Seriously, stop repeating that falsehood... I may actually need to make a thread addressing this...

This is a scary mind control pandemic that's going on right now. Look at all these people focused on racism when they should be focused on the police. Look at all these people focused on racism when they should be focused on the TPP that's literally passing under all our noses because everyone's so strung on racism. This is a test, a test to see what they can take from the people, and by the time most of the idiots finally awake and see how easily and badly their cute fragile, sensitive emotions were played, there will be no defense to fight back against a rogue and tyrannical government.

You do know it is possible to be worried about more than one thing at a time right?

They're going to line you up for vaccinations and you will take them with a smile because you're scared.

No problems there. I don't know about you, but I LIKE being healthy and not dying from exotic diseases. Perhaps you'd like to go back to a time when things like TB were the number one killers in America?

They're going to take your guns and you'll give them away because of you're scared.

The NRA loves it when people free "they are coming for your guns". Lol, every time there is a gun scare, the gun industry makes TONS of money. You might want to check into who is pulling WHOSE strings on these gun scares.

They're going to make you fear your brothers and sisters of different colors because you're scared.

Um... No... This is pure hyperbole. That is unless you are talking about the right wing media always going on and on about race wars.

They're going to turn you against one another to an emotional boiling point that could ignite another civil-war, and this time it won't be about slavery. It'll be fought by one group of idiots against another group of easily led emotional idiots.

Welcome to the New World.

No second Civil Wars will be coming. If they didn't happen after Ferguson or Baltimore and the schmuck in Charleston couldn't pull it off, then this makes this pure hyperbolic rhetoric.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Flesh699
This is crazy. Yes slavery sucked, but it's not like white people where growing black people and forcing them to tend the fields. They bought them from other black people that sold out their own people. Slavery was on it's way out back then, anyway. And the notion that slavery was a horrible, horrible thing isn't totally correct. They were treated fairly well. You don't invest in something and then treat it like crap, doesn't make any economical sense.

This is bullcrap. For one, the slave trade was outlawed in the 1700's. The only way to obtain slaves in the states at that point was to literally breed them or buy them from another domestic seller. Also, I keep seeing this assertion that "slavery was on its way out." That is also nonsense.

WAS SLAVERY ON THE WAY OUT?

The claim that slavery was dying out is a popular misconception. Slavery was healthy and was incredibly profitable.

In the years between 1850 and 1860, in the thirteen slaveholding states (excluding Missouri and Delaware), the total cash value of farms rose from $1,035,544,075 to $2,288,179,125; the average cash value of farms rose from $2,035.75 to $3,438.71; the number of slaveholders grew from 326,054 to 358,728; and the average number of slaves per slaveholders rose from 9.54 to 10.69. [Thomas P. Govan, “Was Plantation Slavery Profitable?” Journal of Southern History, Vol VIII, No. 4, Nov., 1942, p. 518] Does that sound unprofitable? Does it sound as if slavery was dying out?

In perhaps the classic study of the economics of slavery, Alfred Conrad and John Meyer concluded, “Slavery was profitable to the whole South, the continuing demand for labor in the Cotton Belt insuring returns to the breeding operation on the less productive land in the seaboard and border states. The breeding returns were necessary, however, to make the plantation operations on the poorer lands as profitable as alternative contemporary economic activities in the United States. . . . Continued expansion of slave territory was both possible and, to some extent, necessary. The maintenance of profits in the Old South depended upon the expansion, extensive or intensive, of slave agriculture into the Southwest. [Alfred H. Conrad and John R. Meyer, “The Economics of Slavery in the Ante Bellum South,” The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. LXVI, No. 2, April, 1958, p. 121]

“On both large and small estates, none but the most hopelessly inefficient masters failed to profit from the ownership of slaves.” [Kenneth M. Stampp, The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South, p. 414]

Seriously, stop repeating that falsehood... I may actually need to make a thread addressing this...

This is a scary mind control pandemic that's going on right now. Look at all these people focused on racism when they should be focused on the police. Look at all these people focused on racism when they should be focused on the TPP that's literally passing under all our noses because everyone's so strung on racism. This is a test, a test to see what they can take from the people, and by the time most of the idiots finally awake and see how easily and badly their cute fragile, sensitive emotions were played, there will be no defense to fight back against a rogue and tyrannical government.

You do know it is possible to be worried about more than one thing at a time right?

They're going to line you up for vaccinations and you will take them with a smile because you're scared.

No problems there. I don't know about you, but I LIKE being healthy and not dying from exotic diseases. Perhaps you'd like to go back to a time when things like TB were the number one killers in America?

They're going to take your guns and you'll give them away because of you're scared.

The NRA loves it when people free "they are coming for your guns". Lol, every time there is a gun scare, the gun industry makes TONS of money. You might want to check into who is pulling WHOSE strings on these gun scares.

They're going to make you fear your brothers and sisters of different colors because you're scared.

Um... No... This is pure hyperbole. That is unless you are talking about the right wing media always going on and on about race wars.

They're going to turn you against one another to an emotional boiling point that could ignite another civil-war, and this time it won't be about slavery. It'll be fought by one group of idiots against another group of easily led emotional idiots.

Welcome to the New World.

No second Civil Wars will be coming. If they didn't happen after Ferguson or Baltimore and the schmuck in Charleston couldn't pull it off, then this makes this pure hyperbolic rhetoric.

Slavery was abolished throughout the British Empire by the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, with exceptions provided for the East India Company, Ceylon, and Saint Helena. These exceptions were eliminated in 1843. en.wikipedia.org...

Yes. Yes, it was on it's way out.

And I don't really understand what you're saying here, because you're basically saying It was on it's way out it, and contradicting yourself: "This is bullcrap. For one, the slave trade was outlawed in the 1700's. The only way to obtain slaves in the states at that point was to literally breed them or buy them from another domestic seller. Also, I keep seeing this assertion that "slavery was on its way out." That is also nonsense." And yes, it is indeed true, if slaves were not captured they were sold by western Africans to western European slave traders.

I don't understand how it couldn't be on it's way out, if the whole point of outlawing slavery is............certainly not to get MORE slaves, now that doesn't make a lick of sense.

a reply to: Flesh699

The Transatlantic Slave Trade was abolished then. Slavery itself was doing just fine. For instance, Virginia had a surplus of slaves and had built up an economy around exporting slaves to other states. This was as of the 1860's. Here I authored a thread on it that goes into better detail.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now you do know that there were illegally obtained slaves too right? Pay off of people to look th eother way too.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NthOther

So you think it is a good thing for a state (a local extension of the federal government) should be able to symbolically defy the federal government? Again I said I see no problem with an individual or private company from doing it, but if you can't see the conflict of interest with a state flying it, then I don't know what to say.

Damn straight it's a good thing.

Since when were state governments demoted to mere extensions of Federal Empire?

Since the Constitution was written.

Here's an interesting exercise in futility - point out where the Constitution names states as mere extensions of the federal government.

I'll wait while you search that part out.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yea, all that federal aide the states receive from the federal government certainly IS a big eff you to the states. Man the NERVE of the federal government, giving the states a bunch of money to implement its local policies!

Who do they steal that money from in the first place in order to "give" it back?

The morals of taxes aren't pertinent to this discussion.

They are when YOU are the one to introduce the bold claim that the federal government is "giving" something to the states. To "give" something, one must first have that something to give - where do they get it? What are the morals involved in "giving" me something that was first taken away from me?

originally posted by: Flesh699

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: seasoul

For a moment take slavery out of the equation

No.
Racism, nationalism and slavery is fundamentally linked to that flag and people need to stop trying to gloss over it because it's inconvenient or uncomfortable.

I know some seem to have an unhealthy attachment to that piece of cloth (I personally cannot understand people putting so much emphasis on a symbol like that) but whether people want to accept it or not it is a symbol of hate.

It belongs in a museum.

This is crazy. Yes slavery sucked, but it's not like ....

Damn...These threads always bring out the slavery apologists...It's hard to imagine we have made progress reading some of these posts.

FYI..."Slavery sucked" is a phrase that should never be followed with the word "but"...

It should be followed with a period.

The confederate flag has no place flying over any US Government building...PERIOD.

a reply to: nenothtu

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[3]

a reply to: nenothtu

No, it is irrelevant because EVERY government collects taxes. As the saying goes, "the only things certain in life are death and taxes, and science is working on the death part." So discussing the morality of taxes in this topic is useless. Taxes are here regardless if we like them or agree with them.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nenothtu

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[3]

I may have been born with a cheap set of eyes - where in that does it say that states are merely extensions of the Federal government? Maybe highlighting that part would help. Going by your logic, then "the people" are ALSO mere extensions of the federal government - how does it feel to be a mere cog in the machine? Classic unsupportable collectivism. They had that sort of thing going on in the old Soviet Union, too.

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yea, all that federal aide the states receive from the federal government certainly IS a big eff you to the states. Man the NERVE of the federal government, giving the states a bunch of money to implement its local policies!

Who do they steal that money from in the first place in order to "give" it back?

The morals of taxes aren't pertinent to this discussion.

They are when YOU are the one to introduce the bold claim that the federal government is "giving" something to the states. To "give" something, one must first have that something to give - where do they get it?

From the Blue States?...South Carolina for example...

If you look only at the first measure—how much the federal government spends per person in each state compared with the amount its citizens pay in federal income taxes—other states stand out, particularly South Carolina: The Palmetto State receives $7.87 back from Washington for every $1 its citizens pay in federal tax.

www.theatlantic.com...

wallethub.com...-vs-blue

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nenothtu

No, it is irrelevant because EVERY government collects taxes. As the saying goes, "the only things certain in life are death and taxes, and science is working on the death part." So discussing the morality of taxes in this topic is useless. Taxes are here regardless if we like them or agree with them.

Indeed they do. Not all of them claim it is some sort of "favor", however. You made that claim - now support it.

You seem to be big on Constiutional matters. What does your Constitution say taxes are to be used for? Where does it say they are to be "given" back to the subordinates they are collected from? What is the justification for collecting then in the first place if that is to be the final disposition of them?

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yea, all that federal aide the states receive from the federal government certainly IS a big eff you to the states. Man the NERVE of the federal government, giving the states a bunch of money to implement its local policies!

Who do they steal that money from in the first place in order to "give" it back?

The morals of taxes aren't pertinent to this discussion.

They are when YOU are the one to introduce the bold claim that the federal government is "giving" something to the states. To "give" something, one must first have that something to give - where do they get it?

From the Blue States?...South Carolina for example...

If you look only at the first measure—how much the federal government spends per person in each state compared with the amount its citizens pay in federal income taxes—other states stand out, particularly South Carolina: The Palmetto State receives $7.87 back from Washington for every $1 its citizens pay in federal tax.

www.theatlantic.com...

wallethub.com...-vs-blue

So you see the Federal government as a sort of Robin Hood? Careful how you answer - that line of thought is going somewhere.