Since the US can no longer offend anyone...

originally posted by: beezzer
Here's my offering. . . .

Lmao.

'Merica, f*** you!

To the OP

The flag definitely can't be white, derp.. White is racist.

Also can't be black, don't wanna seem rebellious.

So a new color is needed. Let's mix the two into harmony.

White+black.

The whack flag

This is actually a great idea, as most of the country has given up on being a free republic a white flag would be appropriate.

a reply to: JRCrowley

But we don't invade for the wrong reasons. You are trying to put us in the same box as Hitler's Nazi Germany or Genghis Khan. Those people were dictators who sought to conquer land and claim it as their own. We invade to correct wrongs by similar dictators and to protect our citizens. Do we always get it right? No. I stood in front of my Commanding Officer on a Navy ship and flat out stated I never took an oath to defend the constitution of Lebanon. This was 1983 when we got involved with that fiasco and so many Marines and Sailors lost their lives.

Iraq? The WMD's were there at one time and everybody believed it at the time. Colan Powell, who famously was critical of the President on that subject went in front of the UN with photos and other intelligence showing they were there. They were moved, most likely to Syria. All the democrats in congress voted to go to war even the ones like Hillary Clinton who became such a critic. (If she gets elected as the next President this country will be in grave danger).

a reply to: reldra

troll

There is nothing wrong with the US flag.

Just like there is nothing wrong with these two. You are free to fly them and everyone is free to say you are an inbred racist redneck because you fly them.



Freedom of expression.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta

originally posted by: beezzer
I'm feeling a little rebellious.

Anyone know of a flag that no-one is using?

This one seems to cover all bases.

Umm may want to put a dead cow to offend the PETA people.

originally posted by: icewater
Iraq? The WMD's were there at one time.

Lol

Tin Foil FTW!

originally posted by: icewater
a reply to: Peekingsquatch

Great point Squach. Lincoln was not that opposed to slavery but capitulated through the politics of ending the war. Of course it was the right thing to do....Even Great Britain had outlawed slavery by then. I have lived in several southern states and while I have seen guys still fly the confederate flag, not once have I heard of anyone regretting they couldn't own slaves or reminiscing about the good ol' days of slave ownership. That flag has always been a symbol of rebellion to those folks. Nothing more. As I posted previously, if the Civil War had been fought over slavery alone it would have been a very different war. Very Different.

But the notion of the U. S. being the evil slave country is a fallacy. Slavery was brought to us by Europeans and black slave marketers in Africa. They all get a pass. It is only the white folks who had nothing to do with slavery that are getting dragged into the controversy and being held responsible because of the color of their skin. Ironic isn't it?

Slavery was almost a dead issue by the Civil War anyway. The economics that supported it was dying at high speed. Owning slaves was a cost intensive effort. You had to house them, feed them, cloth them. Add to this the introduction of new mechanical farming equipment and the system was on its last legs anyway. Free slaves still worked for the same people they did before the war for the most part. Just now the land owners only had to pay them a small paycheck and let them worry about housing, food and cloths.

That was why when the Constitution was written most agreed to the slavery compromise. Most the major businessmen knew that slavery was a dying industry anyway. So instead of losing the whole deal they decided to let die naturally instead of making a big deal.

originally posted by: dismanrc
Slavery was almost a dead issue by the Civil War anyway.

Uh um... how can I tell this to you... nope.

Nothing could be more wrong. It was actually the cornerstone of the confederate government.

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.

This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

Alexander H. Stephens
Vice President of the Confederate States
Savannah, Georgia
March 21, 1861

originally posted by: Orifiel

originally posted by: dismanrc
Slavery was almost a dead issue by the Civil War anyway.

Uh um... how can I tell this to you... nope.

Nothing could be more wrong. It was actually the cornerstone of the confederate government.

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.

This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

Alexander H. Stephens
Vice President of the Confederate States
Savannah, Georgia
March 21, 1861

Umm Politician can state all they want. Economic fact was it was a dying issue.

Many saw the coming trend of mechanization, some did not. Yes the slaves they had where of great value, but fewer and fewer land owners had them. I have a degree in history and spent a semester studying the Civil War and doing research on this very issue. That was almost 20 years ago. Wish I still had my research paper.

This give a short intro to the idea that is close to the research I did:

books.google.gr... KY9u3bSjbZSk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBTgKahUKEwiD9uT31trGAhUEPhQKHXRaACE#v=onepage&q=was%20slavery%20a%20dying%20institution%20by%201860&f=false

Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution outlawed slave trade after Jan 1 1808. Which left only the slaves already here as sources of labor and their children. Combine this with the growing anti-slavery attitude of the US population and you get a smaller and smaller group that where also growing in their instance that slavery stay in place.


abolition.nypl.org...


Slavery was ONE of the reasons that some of the southern states succeed, but not the only reason. Some actually did just to support the states that already had. In the end; it was this act of succession that forced Lincoln to start the Civil War, not slavery.

Slavery would have ended anyway. It probably would have taken 50-75 years before it was completely gone. Of course there was always the chance that during that period there might have been a slave uprising that could have changed the whole course of our history.

Isn't alternative history fun?

Of course this is just my opinion, but its is based on research, even if it is almost 20 out of current fashion.

originally posted by: dismanrc

originally posted by: Orifiel

originally posted by: dismanrc
Slavery was almost a dead issue by the Civil War anyway.

Uh um... how can I tell this to you... nope.

Nothing could be more wrong. It was actually the cornerstone of the confederate government.

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.

This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

Alexander H. Stephens
Vice President of the Confederate States
Savannah, Georgia
March 21, 1861

Umm Politician can state all they want. Economic fact was it was a dying issue.

Many saw the coming trend of mechanization, some did not. Yes the slaves they had where of great value, but fewer and fewer land owners had them. I have a degree in history and spent a semester studying the Civil War and doing research on this very issue. That was almost 20 years ago. Wish I still had my research paper.

This give a short intro to the idea that is close to the research I did:

books.google.gr... KY9u3bSjbZSk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBTgKahUKEwiD9uT31trGAhUEPhQKHXRaACE#v=onepage&q=was%20slavery%20a%20dying%20institution%20by%201860&f=false

Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution outlawed slave trade after Jan 1 1808. Which left only the slaves already here as sources of labor and their children. Combine this with the growing anti-slavery attitude of the US population and you get a smaller and smaller group that where also growing in their instance that slavery stay in place.


abolition.nypl.org...


Slavery was ONE of the reasons that some of the southern states succeed, but not the only reason. Some actually did just to support the states that already had. In the end; it was this act of succession that forced Lincoln to start the Civil War, not slavery.

Slavery would have ended anyway. It probably would have taken 50-75 years before it was completely gone. Of course there was always the chance that during that period there might have been a slave uprising that could have changed the whole course of our history.

Isn't alternative history fun?

Of course this is just my opinion, but its is based on research, even if it is almost 20 out of current fashion.

Dude it was because of slavery get over it stop trying to white wash history.

originally posted by: dismanrc
Economic fact was it was a dying issue.

I don't see how this somehow makes the state's position regarding slavery suddenly irrelevant to the decision of the south to secede.


You can study the economical viability of slavery all you want it doesn't change a damn thing in the fact that the confederate states were built on the very idea that "slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition".


It's like you were trying to say that it's OK that India promotes a caste system because it's not a viable model.


Sorry economy and morality are completely different realms. Economy is amoral. The moral issue of slavery was still very alive as you can see it in my previous quote.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: paradoxious

The US flag doesn't offend me. It's the official flag of the nation. Why do we need to change it?

You realize the makers of that flag supported slavery and many likely owned slaves, right?

I didn't quite envision the myriad directions the topic would go in when I started this topic. But just so you all know...
I agree with everyone.

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: paradoxious

The US flag doesn't offend me. It's the official flag of the nation. Why do we need to change it?

You realize the makers of that flag supported slavery and many likely owned slaves, right?

The United states of America were not created on the philosophical and social cornerstone that the African American man is inferior and his natural state is obedience to the white man, unlike the confederate states, so your point is irrelevant.

The confederate flag does symbolize a state created to support the idea of slavery, unlike the US flag.

Nice fallacy though.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
This flag is a good idea.

Winning.