# Why hasn't the Confederate flag been banned yet?



## Whocares386 (Aug 12, 2017)

Isn't that Confedarate flag supporting racism, white supremecy and another completely different state ?


----------



## S.J. (Aug 12, 2017)

It's protected under the first amendment (something the left hates when it doesn't support their views).


----------



## irosie91 (Aug 12, 2017)

Whocares386 said:


> Isn't that Confedarate flag supporting racism, white supremecy and another completely different state ?



I do not think so.    Secession of southern states was a movement in the mid 19th century over many issues---
one of which was slavery which ----at that time----was a phenomenon acceptable to a whole bunch of
people.     It is still legal in Mauritania.    Decent people in the USA have fully rejected it.      Is the flag of
Mauritania illegal in the USA?       Is the Union Jack illegal in the USA-----some Irish people see it as the flag
of oppressors


----------



## Meathead (Aug 12, 2017)




----------



## irosie91 (Aug 12, 2017)

^^^^^^^
innocuous looking thing


----------



## Pogo (Aug 12, 2017)

Whocares386 said:


> Isn't that Confedarate flag supporting racism, white supremecy and another completely different state ?



Because of that pesky Liberal First Amendment.  But don't worry --- that's under review.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 12, 2017)

irosie91 said:


> ^^^^^^^
> innocuous looking thing



Red is so loud though.


----------



## irosie91 (Aug 12, 2017)

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^^^^^
> ...



I love the color red------and am especially fond of the combination ----red and blue

    of course, it is all a matter of individual taste


----------



## Pogo (Aug 12, 2017)

irosie91 said:


> Whocares386 said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't that Confedarate flag supporting racism, white supremecy and another completely different state ?
> ...



Slavery is not legal in Mauritania.  Or anywhere else.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 12, 2017)

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



It is, yup.  If you like Chinese or fast food restaurants it's something you have to deal with.

Personally I see all flags as mindless mob mentality fetishism.  But some are more tasteful than others.


----------



## Conservative65 (Aug 18, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Whocares386 said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't that Confedarate flag supporting racism, white supremecy and another completely different state ?
> ...



So sad you equate Liberal in the sense it was used when the 1st Amendment was written and the bastardized version of it Leftists have created.  

The leftists meaning of "under review"  means if we don't like it, no one should be able to do it.  I thought you lefties claimed to be for freedom.  I guess that only applies when someone is exercising it in a manner in which you approve.

I fly several flags of the Confederacy.  Interested is trying to take them down?


----------



## Pogo (Aug 18, 2017)

Conservative65 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Whocares386 said:
> ...



No.  I don't believe in fetishes and idolatry.  That shit is for losers.

I use the original-and-still-standing definition of "Liberal".  Interested in trying to take _it_ down?


----------



## Pogo (Aug 18, 2017)

Meathead said:


>




^^ Poster is from --- Philadelphia.  Pennsylvania, not Mississippi.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 18, 2017)

Because too many Americans think that tearing down monuments and banning flags CAN'T ERASE OUR HISTORY.................

So............to those who are so offended by it.


----------



## Conservative65 (Aug 19, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



The modern day use of Liberal isn't anywhere close to the original.  

Interested in trying to take my flags down?  Do you have the guts big mouth?  I've heard more times than I can count that those flags shouldn't be able to fly yet I've had no one attempt to do so.    I'll fly it in the middle of the public street where you live and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.


----------



## baileyn45 (Aug 22, 2017)

Of course technically what is being discussed isn't actually the confederate flag, it's the battle flag of the army of northern virginia. Not that it matters at this point.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 23, 2017)

Conservative65 said:


> The modern day use of Liberal isn't anywhere close to the original.



Your inability to understand basic political science is your problem, not mine.

The lame excuse that "everybody does it" is always amusing --- if 'everybody' stabbed their own left eye out, would you grab an ice pick?  




Conservative65 said:


> Interested in trying to take my flags down? Do you have the guts big mouth? I've heard more times than I can count that those flags shouldn't be able to fly yet I've had no one attempt to do so. I'll fly it in the middle of the public street where you live and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.



I don't give a flying flag what you do.  That's your bidness.  I already posted that, last week.  Go lurn to reed.


----------



## deanrd (Aug 23, 2017)

Whocares386 said:


> Isn't that Confedarate flag supporting racism, white supremecy and another completely different state ?


Seriously, who doesn't understand free speech?


----------



## Conservative65 (Aug 23, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > The modern day use of Liberal isn't anywhere close to the original.
> ...



Your inability to see the difference between the Liberal you are and the Liberals that wrote the Constitution is your problem.  

What it amounts to is you know you can't do anything about it so you act like you don't care.  Your kind are easy to see through.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 23, 2017)

Conservative65 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Then it's funny you can't find any evidence thereof and actually think you can make up an alt-reality, despite my already having taken a position _opposite _that of your ignant self-delusion.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 23, 2017)

deanrd said:


> Whocares386 said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't that Confedarate flag supporting racism, white supremecy and another completely different state ?
> ...



The post immediately after yours it would appear.  For one.


----------



## Conservative65 (Aug 23, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



What you believe is the opposite of what the founders believed and wrote into the Constitution.  That you claim to be what they were proves you haven't a clue.  I can look at what you believe and compare.  It's that easy.  They don't match with the beliefs of the founders.  

Not my fault you make excuses of not wanting to when it means you can't and know it.   Don't feel bad.  You have plenty of company using the same excuse.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 23, 2017)

Conservative65 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



And yet ----- you STILL can't demonstrate it.
Which is what the fuck I just said..... while you were going


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 23, 2017)

Whocares386 said:


> Isn't that Confedarate flag supporting racism, white supremecy and another completely different state ?



Can't ban it- and shouldn't ban it. 

Shouldn't honor it either.


----------



## Conservative65 (Aug 23, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Yet you can't demonstrate how they're the same, as you claim they are.

Can you do it or am I supposed to take your word for it?    You're asking me to disprove something you're never provided.  No wonder you guys lost 1000 seats to Republicans while Obama was President.  The only ones that believe you are you and you're not a credible source.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 24, 2017)

Conservative65 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



No, I'm ordering you to demonstrate your assertion.  And you can't do it, because it's bullshit.



Conservative65 said:


> No wonder you guys lost 1000 seats to Republicans while Obama was President.  The only ones that believe you are you and you're not a credible source.



Independents did not "lose 1000 seats".  Actually we gained a few.  As far as "credible sources" --- which one of us is making ass-ertions he can't back up?


----------



## 12icer (Aug 26, 2017)

Liberal as defined in the 1700's meant almost the same as Anarchist (no government control). Liberal now means using government to liberally enforce the acceptance of THEIR social aberrations.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 27, 2017)

12icer said:


> Liberal as defined in the 1700's meant almost the same as Anarchist (no government control). Liberal now means using government to liberally enforce the acceptance of THEIR social aberrations.



_Liberal_ has never meant "anarchist".  If the political spectrum may be envisioned as a football field with one side moving the ball to the right and the other to the left, the Liberal is the referee.  The ref throws no passes and makes no tackles; he simple ensures that the game is fair for all.  As long as nobody goes against the rules to excess, the left and right make whatever progress they can make.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 28, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Whocares386 said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't that Confedarate flag supporting racism, white supremecy and another completely different state ?
> ...



I don't have a problem with anyone displaying the Stars and Bars of the real Confederate Flag.  That flag means quite a lot and actually had some good points.  As long as you display it on private property and not government sponsored areas.

The same can almost be said about the Stars and Bars that many think is the Confederate Flag.  It's not.  It's the very flag that Lee flew over his army of the Northern Virginian Forces.  It's a battle flag.  Lee surrendered the real Confederate Flag and not the Battle Flag.  The Battle Flag means that the war is still on.   The South ain't never going to "Rise Again".  The South was slowly integrated into the United States of America.  But we have too many still fighting the war.  It's over.  Take you hunting rifles and mounts and go home and start to live.


----------



## Conservative65 (Aug 30, 2017)

12icer said:


> Liberal as defined in the 1700's meant almost the same as Anarchist (no government control). Liberal now means using government to liberally enforce the acceptance of THEIR social aberrations.


Those that call themselves Liberals today aren't anything like the classical Liberals of the late 1700.  Those that call themselves Liberals today are actually Leftists and they're the ones that demand acceptance of their social aberrations.

The difference between a Liberal of today and a classical Liberal is the level of government involvement one thinks should exist.    Leftists aren't about government involvement, they're about government controlling the people.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 30, 2017)

Conservative65 said:


> 12icer said:
> 
> 
> > Liberal as defined in the 1700's meant almost the same as Anarchist (no government control). Liberal now means using government to liberally enforce the acceptance of THEIR social aberrations.
> ...



You have a strange definition of Liberal.  Another word for Liberal might be "Loose".  The problem with all this is the fruitcakes are the ones making the label and anyone not thinking exactly the way they think they should is something bad.  So they have to place a label on it.

More than 2 people that gather together starts to know they need to make rules to get along.  Fist fights might determine it between just 2 people but that will only allow the winner to make the rules.  Even so, with 2 people that just got finished the knock down and dragout, at least one rule will be made and that is that the winner makes all the rules until the next mud and guts blowout.  

These rules can also be called "Regulations".  Or to regulate.  Too few and you have way too many knock down and drag outs.  To many and you end up with too many down in the blood and the guts sooner or later.  The ideal is to find the sweet spot.  But that sweet spot seems to change from time to time and the "Regulations" need to be adjusted to prevent things from getting out of hand one way or the other.

The USA is just too large and complicated to not regulate almost anything that crosses state lines or affects the majority of the population.  We NEED regulations to prevent the knock down and drag outs that would result without them.  Too few and the Biggest and Baddest will pretty much run havoc over the weaker ones.  Too many and the masses start to look for a big and baddy to represent them.  

So, all you fruitcakes, you need to stop with the labeling and get off your dead asses and find that sweet spot.  Your way probably isn't going to prevent too many rough and tumbles.


----------



## Conservative65 (Aug 31, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > 12icer said:
> ...



A liberal of today is someone that wants the government to play a greater role in society.  A leftist is someone that wants to use that government involvement to CONTROL society.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Aug 31, 2017)

Conservative65 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Because you said so?  You sure do like labels.  I am not a label and almost every one I know is also cannot be labeled.  We are incapable of thinking like you do.  We actually think.  We are also scaring the hell out of the "Right" because we are able to vote in the next primaries.  Yes, the Unaffiliated gets to vote on who represents a given party.  Both parties have forsaken the USA.  Beware, there are a hell of a lot more of us than your kind.

I will vote in the Party that I find in the worst shape.  Right now, coming 2018, that would be the GOP.  We need to stop you lever pullers in your tracks and get people in office that actually work for the people instead of the biggest donors.  We need to get people in office that tells it straight even when we find it painful.  We have neither in this part of the state.  One lies but pulls that Red Lever only and the other tells you that he is going to pull that lever no matter what.  

So keep your labels going.  It just gives us unaffiliated voters more resolve to throw the bums out.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 31, 2017)

Conservative65 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Nnnnnnnnnope.  Once again the intellectual sloth is yours.




Conservative65 said:


> 12icer said:
> 
> 
> > Liberal as defined in the 1700's meant almost the same as Anarchist (no government control). Liberal now means using government to liberally enforce the acceptance of THEIR social aberrations.
> ...



Again, there's no such thing as "classical Liberal".  Liberal is Liberal is Liberal.  Appending "classical" is nothing but a bullshit Doublethink adjective strapped on to try to make a term you find inconvenient into the opposite of itself.  You can't do that.  Get off your synaptic ass and quit misusing the term.

You after all are the same wag who keeps dropping the term "NL" can can't explain what it means either.


----------



## Conservative65 (Aug 31, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



I apply labels when they apply.  

It's not because so but because that's how it works.  I didn't create how it works just express it to those that don't understand.  

Everyone can be labeled in some form or fashion.  If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you LABEL it a duck.  Should it be called something other than what it is?  There are members of Congress that call themselves Independent.  They are anything but that especially when their actions say otherwise.  

I don't have a problem with people telling it straight even if I don't like it.  However, if they tell me something then try to tell me they aren't what they just told me presents them to be, they're not really telling me straight.  

As long as someone presents him/herself as something, I'll continue to label them what they present themselves to be.


----------



## Conservative65 (Aug 31, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Ignoring classical makes one think that the view of the level of federal government involvement promoted by the founding fathers is the same as promoted by the Liberals of today.  

I don't need to explain what NL means.  I believe you already know because it's what you are.  I have explained it.  The USMB filter refuses to allow it.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 31, 2017)

Conservative65 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


----------



## frigidweirdo (Sep 20, 2017)

Whocares386 said:


> Isn't that Confedarate flag supporting racism, white supremecy and another completely different state ?



The first thing it supports is treason, and we know how much them there rednecks hate treason.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Sep 20, 2017)

Whocares386 said:


> Isn't that Confedarate flag supporting racism, white supremecy and another completely different state ?



Bottom line it's the Democratic Party that have always promoted slavery and oppression of minorities in America, they should be banned considering all their inner city ghetto plantations and human baby (especially minority) extermination centers across America.


----------



## francoHFW (Sep 20, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Whocares386 said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't that Confedarate flag supporting racism, white supremecy and another completely different state ?
> ...


It is banned from public property. You racists go ahead and fly it...


----------



## frigidweirdo (Sep 20, 2017)

justina0xbb said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Whocares386 said:
> ...



I didn't say I was calling for the banning of the Confederate flag. I think this is the last thing that will solve any problem, and the first thing that will cause problems. 

However I was pointing out that he flag points to treason, now, these rednecks get all hot and steamy when they're talking about treason from a former man, but when it's from people they see as heroes, they're less likely to get sexual about it.


----------



## Pogo (Sep 20, 2017)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Whocares386 said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't that Confedarate flag supporting racism, white supremecy and another completely different state ?
> ...



Slavery and oppression of minorities, being a social construct, never had a political party of course, but for those who wish to identify and slap a label on those who practice it ---- check out my stalker above who's always drooling about "NL".


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Sep 20, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Whocares386 said:
> ...



Right .. the Democratic Party doesn't have social policies or political constructs.

Race as a social and political construct - Anthropology & the Human Condition

I am quite surprised to see Franco hatin on you...


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Sep 21, 2017)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Whocares386 said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't that Confedarate flag supporting racism, white supremecy and another completely different state ?
> ...



It's time for another History Lesson.  My Crap Meter went off scale on this one.

When the Republican party was formed, it was dead set against slavery.  It was also the Progressive Party.  During that time the Dems were the conservatives in the way you use that word now.  But starting in 1932, a shift happened.  The Big Money and Corporations bailed out of the Democratic Party and changed to the Republican Party.  They overthrew the Progressives and changed the party.  That change was not completed until the 1970s.  This should explain the changes that Eisenhower pushed for but Reagan didn't so much.  The Dems gave the Progressives a place which changed the Dem Party since they lost any and all power in the Republican Party.  This also why human rights are not real important to the Reps.  The Republican Party is what the old Democratic Party was and vice versa.  What caused this change was FDRs policies starting in 1929.  The old Democratic Party went out of it's mind.  They couldn't do a thing about FDR.   His WPA and CCC camps were considered treasonous by the powers that thought they controlled the Democratic Party.  What they couldn't fathom was the fact there were over 3 million people out of work, cold and hungry with children and they were ARMED.  The US was very, very close to an armed revolution.

To give you and idea.  If Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower were alive today they would be middle of the pack Democrats.  And not leaning towards the center.  The center has moved to the point that there are now 2 centers and they are far apart.  Neither party represents that dead space but almost all Americans fall securely into that voided area.  The Democratic party leans towards socialism (No, Dorathy, they aren't really socialists) and the Republican party lean towards Corporatocracy (no, cupcake, the Republican party is not really a Corporatocracy).  

The Democrats know that they need to move towards old center but can't quite figure out how to get there with the controlling factions they have now.  The Democrat leaders have more in common with the "Conservatives" than the majority of the Democrats.  That brand of Democratic is a Corporatocracy just controlled by other corporations than the Conservatives.  

On the Republic side, it's made up of not one but two parties.  One calls itself "Conservatives" and the other side calls itself "GOP"  The GOP far outnumbers the "Conservatives" and the "Conservatives call the "GOPers" RINOs (Republican in Name Only).  The "Conservatives" aren't really conservatives.  The GOPers are the real conservatives.  Much like the ruling people in the Democratic party aren't really Democrats.  The "Conservatives (in name only) has been losing power very quickly as the GOP starts to wake up.  The real name for the "Conservatives" would be "The John Birch Society" that was welcomed into the GOP in the 80s.  Really bad choice by the then leader of the Republican Party, George Walker Bush.  Until then, the John Birch Society wasn't invited to ANY GOP ANYTHING.  

Tea Party Patriots Foundation 
Don't confuse the Tea Party with the John Birch Society.  It has a few corresponding points with the John Birch Society.  But it makes a whole lot more sense if the original doctrine for the TeaParty was actually followed.  But it's no longer what it was.  It's doctrine is officially the same on paper as it was when I was once a Tea Party Member.  But the John Birchers jumped into it and it's been a mess every since.  It's become untenable with all the obstructions it now has but has never been actually written down.  Like I said, if the Teaparty were to follow it's own written doctrines it would be the best thing since peanut butter.

Now, let's look at the John Birch Society.  One of the found fathers was the Koch Brothers father but his Sons are members.  Joe McCarthy would have been a member , and so is Ted Cruz.  Cruz claims to be  from the Republicans and Tea Party but his support in Texas is for the John Birch Society.  It isn't a coincidence that the John Birch Society was formed the year AFTER McCarthy died. McCarthy is infamous.  He died in 1957.  In 1958 the John Birch Society was formed and had many of the same ideals that McCarthy had.   It's so right wing, it's off the scale.  In 1860, it would be part of the Democratic Party except it would still be so off the scale that the 1860 Democratic Party wouldn't want it either.  This is partly why the Republicans went from a loose handful of like minded people to a major party.  If John D Rockefeller were alive today, he would be a John Bircher and the KOCH brothers would not have the power they have today but nothing else would change. One of the first things to get thrown out would the Sherman Antitrust act passed by a republican congress and signed into law by President Harris also a Republican in 1890.  That was used to reign in the power grabs and more of Standard Oil and many of the Robber Barons for the railroads and Land Grabbers.  Read up on John D. Rockefeller.  It's an interesting read.  Read up on President Harris as well to see the other side.  If President Harris were alive today he would be a middle of the road Democrat like Teddy R and Eisenhower.

Now, are you really a conservative or a John Birch Society spy?


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Sep 21, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Whocares386 said:
> ...



Nice effort and welcome to the USMB Daryl..

Your revisionist history lesson has failed miserably but luckily your reality based history lesson has arrived.. 

A Short History of Democrats, Republicans, and Racism


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Sep 21, 2017)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...



Your cite is correct.  But it leaves out the whys and the hows.  I filled it in.  Just how did it get where it is now?  History is a wonderful thing and shouldn't be cherry picked.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Sep 21, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



Eh, I'm not really in the mood to do a lot of research on your chosen .. opinion mostly/facts not so much ..

Maybe some other time when I'm not posting on several threads...


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Sep 21, 2017)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...



Then I guess you will just have to take my word on it since I bothered to do the research.  I will admit that what I wrote was from a few years of research.  And I omitted the sites that were pretty well biased or just plain untrue.  When you get the time, take bits of what I wrote and search for it.  As I said, it's taken me a couple of years to get to that point.  Especially with all the garbage that's out there.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Sep 21, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



You seem like a reasonable fellow, I'm thinkin I'll take you up on that.  

The problem with multifaceted posts is that they require too much dedication of time. There are areas around here for that kinda intensity but for most forums it's quick and to the point unless you plan on being disappointed...

Just giving you my opinion and pleased to meet you...


----------



## bodecea (Sep 21, 2017)

Meathead said:


>


However that's not the con-federate flag....this is:


----------



## bodecea (Sep 21, 2017)

Conservative65 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Why do we care if you wave your silly flag around?


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Sep 21, 2017)

Meathead said:


>



If you think that is the Confederate Flag then your History Teacher should be fired.

That is the Flag Robert E. Lee flew and even though it was incorporated into the Confederate Flag it itself is not the actual Confederate Flag!


----------



## bodecea (Sep 21, 2017)

Conservative65 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


You still crying about that?


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Sep 21, 2017)

irosie91 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



Eh, just because...


What Do the Colors of the Confederate Flag Mean?


----------



## Conservative65 (Sep 21, 2017)

bodecea said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



You damn sure whine about THEM being waved around.


----------



## Conservative65 (Sep 21, 2017)

bodecea said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



There's a lot of you dumbasses on the left that claim to be so smart asking what it means.  I'm not the one crying.  I know.  Apparently the self proclaimed smarter people don't.


----------



## Meathead (Sep 21, 2017)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


I am sure all my history teacher are dead by now.


----------



## miketx (Sep 21, 2017)

deanrd said:


> Whocares386 said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't that Confedarate flag supporting racism, white supremecy and another completely different state ?
> ...


You for one.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Sep 21, 2017)

Meathead said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > Meathead said:
> ...



Well then let me say they failed you. Hell you could Google the actual Confederate Flag and learn what you posted was Robert E. Lee battle flag.

That is why the Dukes of Hazzard car is call the General Lee because of the Battle Flag...

I know how dare I correct progressive history seeing most if not all of you believe the Southern Insurrection was fought over slavery only and Lincoln was out to free the slaves...


----------



## Pogo (Sep 21, 2017)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...




In other words Lumpers is not interested in "facts", he just wants "bullshit" short and sweet, like that bullshit post you and I both shot down. And he can't deal with historical context especially when they get in the way of a good butthurt snark post.

Your historical compendium above is admirable, although the dates are somewhat off.  I date the shift of the RP to the wealthy/corporations to the turn of the (19t/20th) century more or less concurrent with the DP absorbing the Populists.

Slavery and racism of course are not political party issues per Lumpster's inane fantasies, but we've already established that.

Guess some people just live to see their name on the internets.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Sep 22, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



I'm interested in facts and have presented them, you're fully gullible to revisionist history written by liberal lying sacks of shit. It's really that simple Pogo. The Democratic Party was formed around maintaining slavery in America, to me that makes it political regardless of your inane excuses and fake/boring revisionist history.

btw. nothing is going to change my point of view or yours on this but you are a Democrat. Truth and Democrats rarely agree.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Sep 22, 2017)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...



One very small factor you have there, cupcake.  I am not a liberal.  I am a true conservative and always have been.  I think the proper term would be "Progressive Conservative" much like Lincoln, Teddy R and Eisenhower.  I suggest you do research on Tory and Labor to see where both parties actually came from.  Democrats and Whigs.  Then do some research on the reason the Republican Party was formed in 1845.  You do have a lot of reading to do.  It's okay to be ignorant but staying that way like you is just stupid.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Sep 22, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Agree with you or you're stupid..   

I've studied plenty and I'm always open to knowledge, work on your insecurities and try bottom line logic over emotion, boredom and now adolescent silliness..


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Sep 22, 2017)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...




Sure am glad that you can paraphrase what your Therapists said.  And thank you for seeking mental help.


----------



## Pogo (Sep 22, 2017)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...



Nope.  And it speaks volumes about your abject disinterest in facts that you just posted "you are a Democrat".  Actually I'm a member of the largest political party faction in this nation which is "None" and I've made that clear on this board from the beginning which is five years now.  Yet you're as oblivious to this as you are to the concept of a history book.

As I've stated the obvious for years to the oblivious here, slavery isn't a political party invention --- it's been a part of human cultures on every continent except Antarctica for millennia, LONG before there were political parties, LONG before there was a country or colonies here, LONG before there was a Western civilization or its kingdoms or religions.  And the guy who formally organized the Jacksonians into the Democratic Party was himself an abolitionist.  So your puerile attemtps to play partisan hack football with racism -- which is a social institution, not a political one --- is transparent as a pane of glass.

Daryl's correct, you don't have a clue about these histories you treat with all the cavalier gravity of whether a ground ball to the shortstop should have been scored an error.

This ain't a game, chump.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Sep 22, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I laid out a factual informative post.  Is it perfect; No.  Is it completely accurate; No.  The information is correct 100% give or take a decade or two.  

I no longer communicate with one of my neighbors.  I got sick and tired of hearing, more or less, "Its Obama's Fault" on everything.  I let them know one day about what I thought about Trump.  They don't even recognize me anymore.  These are not the brightest bulbs as it stands.  They are borderline (or worse) poverty and want to find someone to blame all their pain and suffering on.  In reality, they chose the paths they have taken to get exactly no where.  I used to be a Republican.  I used to be Teaparty.  But both have moved so far away from my core values that they border on domestic terrorism support these days.  I see them in the same lot as the Democrats in that respect.  Our two party system is so broke it can never be repaired.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Sep 22, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



 .. great response.. stick around Daryl Hunt...


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 22, 2017)

Whocares386 said:


> *Why hasn't the Confederate flag been banned yet?*
> 
> Isn't that Confedarate flag supporting racism, white supremecy and another completely different state ?


I love easy questions

We in the blues states support red state economies enough already. We don't want red state economies to totally collapse


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Sep 22, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Sure it's a game, it's an exercise in futility that you take far too seriously when it really comes down to entertainment.

Go ahead and deny the Democratic Parties history and present all you like and deny your allegiance as well if it makes you feel good, I don't care.

It was well written Pogo... a little too long but then I do prefer members just getting to the point without much blah blah..


----------



## Conservative65 (Sep 25, 2017)

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Whocares386 said:
> ...



So no slaves exist anywhere in the world?


----------



## Conservative65 (Sep 25, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Whocares386 said:
> 
> 
> > *Why hasn't the Confederate flag been banned yet?*
> ...



Strange that the Blue portion of my State is the ONLY one where more than 20% use food stamps.  Interestingly enough, it's also the only one with a black majority (60%) and a black representative.    Same things applies to 2 districts to the state to the north and 2 districts to the state to the south.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 25, 2017)

Conservative65 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



slavery is very recently -------FORMALLY illegal in Mauritania----and Saudi Arabia.   I would not
be surprised if     AL BAGHDADDY   made a formal declaration that  "ISLAM OUTLAWS SLAVERY" 
There is lots of slavery in the world------which exists with the full support of government and community


----------



## Conservative65 (Sep 25, 2017)

irosie91 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Since slavery does exist with, as you say, "the full support of the government and community", that makes it legal and refutes Pogo's claim that it's not legal anywhere.


----------



## Conservative65 (Sep 25, 2017)

francoHFW said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Whocares386 said:
> ...



No it's not unless you're claiming the roadways are private property.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Sep 25, 2017)

Conservative65 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



Does that make it right or moral?


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 25, 2017)

Conservative65 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



no-------not exactly------LEGAL means  "LAW ON THE BOOKS"    IMO.      Customary winking is like   "government and community support"


----------



## Conservative65 (Sep 25, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Make what right or moral?


----------



## Conservative65 (Sep 25, 2017)

irosie91 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



Since the government is the one doing the winking, it's legal whether it's on the books or not.  There's nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government has any delegated authority over healthcare, marriage, or lots of other things.    Does that mean they aren't legal since the Constitution doesn't grant that power and the only way they can be upheld if for the Court to "wink"?


----------



## AVISSSER (Sep 25, 2017)

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Whocares386 said:
> ...


True...not technically legal.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Sep 25, 2017)

Conservative65 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



If you have to ask then you neither right nor moral.


----------



## Conservative65 (Sep 26, 2017)

Daryl Hunt said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl Hunt said:
> ...



If you can't answer, your claim is dismissed.  Funny how those that won't answer think what they say means something.    You mean nothing because you are a nothing.


----------

