We banned a flag not too long ago...HEY what about this one? A very long rant...

[Rexx Taylor]

when Trump becomes president, we will all be waving our confederate flags again and sexy white women will be wearing their skimpy confederate bikinis in the masses come summer 2017. i will have all of my cameras ready!!

and so will Bill Clinton on the beaches of Virgina, but hiding in the Bushes.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Forgive me for not directly quoting you, Coyote, but the quote system doesn't seem to like you tonight, so in the interests of simplicity, I will tag you instead.

1. Basic math dictates that more whites are on death row than blacks, as seen here:

White 1,334 (43.10%)
Black 1,291 (41.71%)

That makes your premise incorrect. By proportion perhaps, but given the larger white population, there will naturally be more white death row inmates. Math.

2.

"41% are black...yet blacks make up only 14% of our population."

And? Yet, only 1,291 of them are on death row. That's roughly 0.0033% of the entire 38 million black people in America. Let's keep bendingg and twisssting! If you want to be absurdly technical the 1,334 whites on death row amount to 0.00059% of the 223 million white people in America.

If they were disproportionately targeted... why would they be on par with white people on death row in terms of percentage? You are citing the NCAAP (not to be confused with NAACP) study that only showed four states as proof of a race disparity on their death rows, right? Or this Atlantic article perhaps? It's convenient to use the proportional argument to claim how disproportionate the populations are being treated in any negative regard.

2. Something you missed:

The race of the victim and the race of the defendant in capital cases are major factors in determining who is sentenced to die in this country. In 1990 a report from the General Accounting Office concluded that "in 82 percent of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e. those who murdered whites were more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks."

3. "We are not talking about crime (a much more complex problem) - we are talking about police actions and race."

No, your exact words were: "Blacks are more likely to be pulled over, handled aggressively, shot, arrested, incarcerated, and given the death penalty for the same crimes than whites. There is a lot of evidence to support that."

a) Once again, no. Whites are arrested at three times the rate of blacks. Arrested, which was one of the terms you used in your remark. A ratio of 3:1. For every black person arrested, there were three white people arrested.

b) A disproportionate number of whites are shot by cops than blacks, "there is a lot of evidence to support that." Shot, which was one of the terms used in that remark.

c) As for more blacks being "given the death penalty for the same crimes than whites" it seems clear to me looking at the stats you took from my link that there is a roughly equal amount of black and white people on death row. That makes your argument again, incorrect.

d) As for "being handled aggressively" you'll have to refine your terminology.

e) As for "being pulled over," of all the blacks pulled over, a staggering 12.3% were pulled over because of their race in 2008. That leaves a whopping 88.7% of them who were treated lawfully during traffic stops. Yeah. Such a problem.

f) As for incarceration, I have no doubt you are referring to the ACLU report by Ayers and Borowski of the supposed racial profiling of the Los Angeles Area in 2003 and 2004. That report however was soundly debunked, by David Klinger, a professor of criminology at the University of Missouri - St. Louis and former LAPD police officer himself. What Ayers and Borowski did was try to set the benchmark, saying a disproportionate amount of blacks are profiled. But as the LA and National crime statistics show, blacks commit more crimes than whites. Pure and simple.

Two examples , one from that that 28 year study I posted earlier:

And another from a fact check done by a British TV station which is backed up clearly by this FBI report:

FactCheck: do black Americans commit more crime?

Your race argument is bunk. I'm sorry but it is what it is. As I said before, the Black Lives Matter movement is addressing a nonexistent problem. They neglect to mention the astronomically high crime rates by black men in their population. The NCVS survey also debunks the whole idea that arrests are motivated by race. The victims disproportionately identified the assailant as black. Therefore police have to arrest more black people than white.

"Facts are stubborn things ; and whatever may be our wishes or our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and of evidence."

-John Adams

Race and Racism in the United States: An Encyclopedia of the American Mosaic

 

[Dad2three]

Forgive me for not directly quoting you, Coyote, but the quote system doesn't seem to like you tonight, so in the interests of simplicity, I will tag you instead.

1. Basic math dictates that more whites are on death row than blacks, as seen here:

White 1,334 (43.10%)
Black 1,291 (41.71%)

That makes your premise incorrect. By proportion perhaps, but given the larger white population, there will naturally be more white death row inmates. Math.

2.

"41% are black...yet blacks make up only 14% of our population."

And? Yet, only 1,291 of them are on death row. That's roughly 0.0033% of the entire 38 million black people in America. Let's keep bendingg and twisssting! If you want to be absurdly technical the 1,334 whites on death row amount to 0.00059% of the 223 million white people in America.

If they were disproportionately targeted... why would they be on par with white people on death row in terms of percentage? You are citing the NCAAP (not to be confused with NAACP) study that only showed four states as proof of a race disparity on their death rows, right? Or this Atlantic article perhaps? It's convenient to use the proportional argument to claim how disproportionate the populations are being treated in any negative regard.

2. Something you missed:

The race of the victim and the race of the defendant in capital cases are major factors in determining who is sentenced to die in this country. In 1990 a report from the General Accounting Office concluded that "in 82 percent of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e. those who murdered whites were more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks."

3. "We are not talking about crime (a much more complex problem) - we are talking about police actions and race."

No, your exact words were: "Blacks are more likely to be pulled over, handled aggressively, shot, arrested, incarcerated, and given the death penalty for the same crimes than whites. There is a lot of evidence to support that."

a) Once again, no. Whites are arrested at three times the rate of blacks. Arrested, which was one of the terms you used in your remark. A ratio of 3:1. For every black person arrested, there were three white people arrested.

b) A disproportionate number of whites are shot by cops than blacks, "there is a lot of evidence to support that." Shot, which was one of the terms used in that remark.

c) As for being more blacks being "given the death penalty for the same crimes than whites" it seems clear to me looking at the stats you took from my link that there is a roughly equal amount of black and white people on death row. That makes your argument again, incorrect.

d) As for "being handled aggressively" you'll have to refine your terminology.

e) As for "being pulled over," of all the blacks pulled over, a staggering 12.3% were pulled over because of their race in 2008. That leaves a whopping 88.7% of them who were treated lawfully during traffic stops. Yeah. Such a problem.

Your race argument is bunk. I'm sorry but it is what it is.

LOL, PROPORTION IS THE CORRECT WAY TO SCIENTIFICALLY LOOK AT THINGS Bubs! Nominal numbers? lol

 

[BULLDOG]

You are either confused or very stupid. It wasn't banned, it was moved. That flag wasn't moved because a guy shot a bunch of blacks. It was moved because it has been a symbol of oppression since the civil war. It was virtually forgotten until the KKK took it as a symbol, and wasn't displayed on public property until civil rights were granted. Only a racist idiot would say it was banned (again, it was not) because of roof.

He might be referring to the fact of the removal of the purchase of the confederate flag from a vast majority of websites. I would not classify that as a "move".

Incidentally, the Civil War was over state rights and the power of a Federal Government to impose its power over them. If it was over the issue of slavery itself we wouldn't find this statement from President Lincoln:

On September 22, 1862, Lincoln had issued a preliminary proclamation warning that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state that did not end its rebellion against the Union by January 1, 1863. None of the Confederate states restored themselves to the Union, and Lincoln's order, signed and issued January 1, 1863, took effect.

What of those slaves in the north, as it's well documented that the union also had slaves themselves. William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865. U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865.

Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves (which he never purchased — they were inherited) in 1862!

I always prefer to do a little digging into personally fact checking our U.S. history, instead of simply going with what the popular agenda in society tries to sell you.

If you don't think it was about slavery, you might want to read the declarations of session issued by the states. Here are quotes directly from the Texas and Mississippi documents. The others are easily found and quite similar.
TEXAS
DECLARATION OF CAUSES: February 2, 1861 A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union. | TSLAC
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?
MISSISSIPPI
Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

The modern liberal party in America is nothing more than a bunch of closet authoritarians who realized that the only way they can ever stay in power is to feign liberty. Just notice how each generation of liberals become more and more closer to the communist party. Compare Obama to Clinton Clinton to jfk and jfk to FDR and you will see that each sequence the politics of each person has changed quite a lot. FDR respected the founders, so did jfk. I would not say that is true of Clinton or Obama.

The confederate flag does not represent slavery as it represents defiance to the federal government and that is a massive no no in any authoritarians world. It is just a piece of history that some people want to cherish and nothing more. What is the big deal?

 

[Syriusly]

To the leftists here:

You wanted to ban this flag when some white boy shot up a black church. You got your wish:

Not soon after the massacre, a picture of Dylann Roof was found where he was sporting a Confederate flag, and then again not soon after, liberals behaved as if banning that flag would somehow bring those poor souls who died in Charleston back to life. It didn't. If it were only that simple.

But when a black gay man kills two people on live TV, what would have been the reaction if people began calling for a ban of the Gay Pride Flag? This flag does represent him, does it not?

If you want to ban one flag when someone goes on a killing spree, why don't we ban all of them? Sins have been committed under all sorts of banners and flags. Banning the flags will not undo any of the crimes.

But here liberals are, using the very same narrative which they once viewed as a defense of racism, hatred, slavery, or even the murderer himself to defend a flag which represented the sexual preference of the man who murdered two people. What if we used that same logic against gay rights activists? That flying that flag is a defense of the man who killed two people in cold blood?

Even in her ignorance, the woman in the tweet below asks an important question. How does removing (banning) a flag change someone's actions? It doesn't. But here we are, fighting over which flags to ban when some psychopath goes on a killing spree. My gosh, such petty arguments over such things as pieces of fabric. Why aren't we condemning the person instead of the flag? Why are we blaming the flag or the weapon he used? On a separate note, a number of you liberals want to ban firearms when a perceived conservative commits a mass murder, however, when a gay black man commits murder, no longer is he the perpetrator, but the firearm itself. How I wish you knew how much of a double standard is being perpetrated here.

If only all of you (both sides now) realized how colossally hypocritical your narratives are. Ban one, keep the other. Ban, ban, ban, ban! This offends me! Ban it! Ban all the things! Wow. No... I can't even... just... just stop. Seriously.

If you're about to use the same narrative you criticize, you will have a bad time.

I agree- any State flying that flag on its Capital building- or as the State Flag- should have it taken down.

Oh wait- are you using hyperbole again?

Eh, I don't have time for asshattery. Move along.

Clearly you do have time for asshattery- since that is all this thread is about.

That and your butt hurt about the Confederate Flag no longer flying where you think it should.

 

[Syriusly]

The confederate flag does not represent slavery as it represents defiance to the federal government and that is a massive no no in any authoritarians world. It is just a piece of history that some people want to cherish and nothing more. What is the big deal?

Do you notice that the Conservatives embrace the slave states of the Confederacy- and the symbol of the slave states- more and more- especially when African Americans object to it?

 

[Vigilante]

Need we say more...NeoCommie will never admit to the TRUTH!

 

[Syriusly]

You are either confused or very stupid. It wasn't banned, it was moved. That flag wasn't moved because a guy shot a bunch of blacks. It was moved because it has been a symbol of oppression since the civil war. It was virtually forgotten until the KKK took it as a symbol, and wasn't displayed on public property until civil rights were granted. Only a racist idiot would say it was banned (again, it was not) because of roof.

He might be referring to the fact of the removal of the purchase of the confederate flag from a vast majority of websites. I would not classify that as a "move".

Incidentally, the Civil War was over state rights and the power of a Federal Government to impose its power over them. If it was over the issue of slavery itself we wouldn't find this statement from President Lincoln:

On September 22, 1862, Lincoln had issued a preliminary proclamation warning that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state that did not end its rebellion against the Union by January 1, 1863. None of the Confederate states restored themselves to the Union, and Lincoln's order, signed and issued January 1, 1863, took effect.

What of those slaves in the north, as it's well documented that the union also had slaves themselves. William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865. U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865.

Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves (which he never purchased — they were inherited) in 1862!

I always prefer to do a little digging into personally fact checking our U.S. history, instead of simply going with what the popular agenda in society tries to sell you.

There's a current movement to white wash the confederacy with a new "popular agenda".

Sure - individuals on both sides owned or freed slaves. But that's little more than a minor detail.

It's disengenius to say it wasn't over slavery. The issue of slavery was integral to "state's rights" - specifically the right to own, breed and sell humanity. As each new territory became a state, it had to be designated a slave state or non-slave state in order to maintain the balance of states legalizing the ownership of human beings by other human beings.

This latest attempt at minimizing the issue of slavery is just that - an effort to minimize. You can not unweave the history of slavery from the southern state's right's cause.

Again, I bring the documented fact of Lincoln's threat to the southern states, the reason behind the emancipation proclamation, to force those southern states back into the union by freeing slaves in those states that stand in opposition to the north. It clearly isolates those southern states in particular and not on the United States as a whole, that is a BIG difference. The fact men leading those union troops continued to have slaves even at the conclusion of the civil war is another damning fact. Lincoln's use of the preliminary proclamation in September 22, 1862 was a strategic decision to hurt the south economically. If not, he would have made the initial decision at that point to free ALL slaves, not just within those states in rebellion. His statement clearly doesn't make that claim. Even after that controversy that would follow the civil war, equality wouldn't be accepted until the battle for the civil rights movement in the middle of the next century.

And once again I will point out that the Southern Slave states seceded over the issue of slavery. The rest of the Union- including the non-rebellious slave states did not go to war over slavery.

Lincoln had no authority to free slaves that were legal in the non-rebellious states- he could do so in the areas in rebellion under his authority as Commander in Chief.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a strategic decision- and a brilliant one at that. Lincoln always opposed slavery- but he was clear he was willing to endure slavery to maintain the Union- but when it became clear that the Union was better served by ending slavery, Lincoln took the actions he was able to take- the Emancipation Proclamation- and promoting the 13th Amendment.

We are better as a nation because of it.

 

[Dad2three]

The modern liberal party in America is nothing more than a bunch of closet authoritarians who realized that the only way they can ever stay in power is to feign liberty. Just notice how each generation of liberals become more and more closer to the communist party. Compare Obama to Clinton Clinton to jfk and jfk to FDR and you will see that each sequence the politics of each person has changed quite a lot. FDR respected the founders, so did jfk. I would not say that is true of Clinton or Obama.

The confederate flag does not represent slavery as it represents defiance to the federal government and that is a massive no no in any authoritarians world. It is just a piece of history that some people want to cherish and nothing more. What is the big deal?

Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.

The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.

The results were exactly what liberals predicted. Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America, alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses.

Conservatives have developed an apologist literature defending Chile as a huge success story. In 1982, Milton Friedman enthusiastically praised General Pinochet (the Chilean dictator) because he "has supported a fully free-market economy as a matter of principle. Chile is an economic miracle." However, the statistics below show this to be untrue. Chile is a tragic failure of right-wing economics, and its people are still paying the price for it today.


Chile: the laboratory test

 

[TemplarKormac]

Clearly you do have time for asshattery- since that is all this thread is about.

And all you have time for is name calling. Care to make a point?

That and your butt hurt about the Confederate Flag no longer flying where you think it should.

I don't really care where it flies. Honestly. I'm beyond the point of caring.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Do you notice that the Conservatives embrace the slave states of the Confederacy- and the symbol of the slave states- more and more- especially when African Americans object to it?

Do you notice how Democrats founded them? Why aren't African Americans rebelling against them for their role in creating the Confederacy? Hey, I can travel down this road too.

 

[Dad2three]

Do you notice that the Conservatives embrace the slave states of the Confederacy- and the symbol of the slave states- more and more- especially when African Americans object to it?

Do you notice how Democrats founded them? Why aren't African Americans rebelling against them for their role in creating the Confederacy? Hey, I can travel down this road too.

Because they were/are CONServative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa, you know ideology of today's GOP? UNLESS you think PROGRESSIVES ruled those Southern CONServative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa?

 

[BULLDOG]

Do you notice that the Conservatives embrace the slave states of the Confederacy- and the symbol of the slave states- more and more- especially when African Americans object to it?

Do you notice how Democrats founded them? Why aren't African Americans rebelling against them for their role in creating the Confederacy? Hey, I can travel down this road too.

Think how silly that sounds. It would be a little silly for them to be mad at the democrats for something that happened a couple hundred years ago, especially since the democrats are now liberals who are supporting them and republicans have become conservatives who want to turn the clock back.

 

[Ravi]

Do you notice that the Conservatives embrace the slave states of the Confederacy- and the symbol of the slave states- more and more- especially when African Americans object to it?

Do you notice how Democrats founded them? Why aren't African Americans rebelling against them for their role in creating the Confederacy? Hey, I can travel down this road too.

Think how silly that sounds. It would be a little silly for them to be mad at the democrats for something that happened a couple hundred years ago, especially since the democrats are now liberals who are supporting them and republicans have become conservatives who want to turn the clock back.

Yep. And this thread is evidence of that.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

i wonder if we will ever see the day when the far left bans "Grape Kool-Aid and Grape Soda" stands.

 

[Bonzi]

To the leftists here:

You wanted to ban this flag when some white boy shot up a black church. You got your wish:

Not soon after the massacre, a picture of Dylann Roof was found where he was sporting a Confederate flag, and then again not soon after, liberals behaved as if banning that flag would somehow bring those poor souls who died in Charleston back to life. It didn't. If it were only that simple.

But when a black gay man kills two people on live TV, what would have been the reaction if people began calling for a ban of the Gay Pride Flag? This flag does represent him, does it not?

If you want to ban one flag when someone goes on a killing spree, why don't we ban all of them? Sins have been committed under all sorts of banners and flags. Banning the flags will not undo any of the crimes.

But here liberals are, using the very same narrative which they once viewed as a defense of racism, hatred, slavery, or even the murderer himself to defend a flag which represented the sexual preference of the man who murdered two people. What if we used that same logic against gay rights activists? That flying that flag is a defense of the man who killed two people in cold blood?

Even in her ignorance, the woman in the tweet below asks an important question. How does removing (banning) a flag change someone's actions? It doesn't. But here we are, fighting over which flags to ban when some psychopath goes on a killing spree. My gosh, such petty arguments over such things as pieces of fabric. Why aren't we condemning the person instead of the flag? Why are we blaming the flag or the weapon he used? On a separate note, a number of you liberals want to ban firearms when a perceived conservative commits a mass murder, however, when a gay black man commits murder, no longer is he the perpetrator, but the firearm itself. How I wish you knew how much of a double standard is being perpetrated here.

If only all of you (both sides now) realized how colossally hypocritical your narratives are. Ban one, keep the other. Ban, ban, ban, ban! This offends me! Ban it! Ban all the things! Wow. No... I can't even... just... just stop. Seriously.

If you're about to use the same narrative you criticize, you will have a bad time.

I've heard this "argument" before. I don't think there is a comparison to draw here.

The confederate flag is viewed by some/many (whatever) as a symbol of racism (or, if you prefer, hating blacks) and hostility toward such. Of course there are some/many (whatever) that just view it as a Southern flag and are proud to be from the South...

A Gay flag, I don't think, can be construed as "racist" or even as derogatory toward any other group, it can only be viewed as pride toward your sexual orientation. I guess a Christian person (such as myself) might view it was "ungodly"... but, I don't think anyone views it as hateful...

The confederate flag has been receiving "heat" for some time, the shooting at the church only ramped it up at that time....

The guy that shot the new people in VA was mentally unstable and prone to violence (probably would have been even if not gay) - I would say the same thing about the other guy as well (although, his hatred of blacks probably contributed to who he chose to shoot up, but, hard to say if he was prone to violence regardless).

I hate rambling, I just don't think it's a good comparison........

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is this thread based on the most illogical premise ever?

 

[Seawytch]

Is this thread based on the most illogical premise ever?

That's Templar's wheelhouse. Another of his "top hits"...Gays should STFU about their rights because Muslims in other countries kill gays (paraphrased). He forgot that Christians in other countries do too and that we all live in America.

 

[bodecea]

Is this thread based on the most illogical premise ever?

Well, it's Templar.....SSDD.