Confederate flag
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Right, so you vehemently object to the notion that slavery was the sole reason for secession, yet have no other causes to list.
I never said it was the sole (only, hopefully this doesn't confuse you too much, ya dingus) cause but you very clearly do object to the notion. You object to it so vehemently that you are desperate to foster polemic.
Why not elucidate on some other things that you think led to the secession of the confederate states?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
it wasn't states rights.
it wasn't 'government control'.
it wasn't "social inequality".
what was it then?
fobesterdam
Well-Known Member
keep googlin brah. take more notes first if you THINK itll help...
i like how youve applied your focus so intensely on my nutsack and not the issue that you imply yourself as being such the authority on though.
stay true to character. i could use the LOLz.
fobesterdam
Well-Known Member
is there a distinction there? or would you like to equate the two as to not stray from your precious, self righteous implying narrative?
the meaning of a flag could be something different to others 150 years later.
but thats too dynamic for the self aggrandizing narrative isnt it.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You tell me. I'm really curious as to your views. I'm also really hoping to find out if they are right and if you really are kkkynes. So maybe if you expound upon your views a bit, I will know if it's a kkkynes manifesto I'm reading. Of course if it is, I will know quickly and lose interest.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
South Carolina senator and Republican presidential candidate Lindsey Graham was asked by CNN’s Alisyn Camerota this morning why the American and South Carolina state flags were flying at half-mast today, but the Confederate flag was not.
As he didn’t seem inclined to answer, Camerota shifted to a more general question, asking the senator whether it’s “time to stop flying the Confederate flag.”
Graham said that it would be “fine” by him if South Carolinians wanted to “revisit that decision,” but insisted that “this is part of who we are. The flag represents — to some people — the Civil War, and that was the symbol of one side.”
He acknowledged, though, that “to others, it’s a racist symbol, and it’s been used by people in a racist way.” But, he added, “the problems we’re having in South Carolina and around the world aren’t because of a symbol, but because of what’s in people’s hearts.”
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/19/lindsey_graham_the_confederate_flag_is_part_of_who_we_are_in_south_carolina_even_if_its_a_racist_symbol/
As he didn’t seem inclined to answer, Camerota shifted to a more general question, asking the senator whether it’s “time to stop flying the Confederate flag.”
Graham said that it would be “fine” by him if South Carolinians wanted to “revisit that decision,” but insisted that “this is part of who we are. The flag represents — to some people — the Civil War, and that was the symbol of one side.”
He acknowledged, though, that “to others, it’s a racist symbol, and it’s been used by people in a racist way.” But, he added, “the problems we’re having in South Carolina and around the world aren’t because of a symbol, but because of what’s in people’s hearts.”
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/19/lindsey_graham_the_confederate_flag_is_part_of_who_we_are_in_south_carolina_even_if_its_a_racist_symbol/
fobesterdam
Well-Known Member
yes. because dynamic critical thought leads to an obvious conclusion that there were probably some other/secondary issues involved. and the fact that you guys champion this myopic narrative so hard and kneejerk even harder to anything that may imply the possibility that there may be more dynamics to the relevant issues than the single issue thought process that is rampant in every narrative you guys incessantly pom-pom. regardless of any additional facts that come to light after your "team" assignments have been made.
i already asked buckybrah to expound. you saw his focus quite clear. his dismissal of the other dudes input isnt really relevantly dynamic enough to hold much weight in context either. besides, his own reply using the phrase "VERY FIRST" implies other relevance that you guys will dance around for months if allowed.
i said im not half the historian the shoulder chippers CLAIM to be on this issue. polemic exchange isnt exclusive to self righteous/professed "enlightened" persons. some peoples discernment CAN BE more thorough and accurate than some's incessant googling and chastising of those who dont tow the line of every myopic narrative they champion in their internet race jihad.
my mistake. but it sounded that way to me. see above.
arent you "vehemently" objecting to the notion of a more dynamic SET of issues? the ones that buckybrah may have been referencing with his remark about "VERY FIRST"?
have you fully swallowed buckybrah's rebuttal/dismissals of McCurdy's listed issues like you have so many other buckybrah narratives? because those are as paper thin flimsy as that papersack puppet i referenced earlier. doesnt take much "esoteric" insight to see that his conclusion lacks dynamics. must i really state the obvious? nah. ill just watch yall dance and LOL some more.
even lincoln acknowledged more dynamics to the issue of the war than what you guys want to. am i to believe that one side had many dynamics involved and one side had only a static single issue that their "cause" was invested in? or maybe i should believe that the north had a single issue too, although different than the south's? did the southern flag mean the same to the north as it did the south? vice versa with the northern flag? dynamic complexity or polemic clash based on simple single issue thought processes? doesnt really matter what i believe. you guys are the experts it seems youd have me believe. well, "sockpuppet this, sockpuppet that" isnt really relevantly compelling brah, no matter how it fits your "team's" theme or narrative.
polemic exchange was solicited from the first post. but its obvious that this was bait for a desired clash of egos. bait with a barb less hook from the looks of it. a trollitup usual suspect SOP/MO. thanks for the consistent expected responses and LOLz.
dont forget to google me and search my user name here to attempt to validate and bolster your focal point of my character, accused or actual. good luck.
"very first"
iLOL
desertbrah was right (gasp).... BOTH!
now search the net some more for my username. thats also key tactic in polemic exchange on relevant issues.
Last edited:
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
It only took a few lines to know who's sock puppet account I'm dealing with.yes. because dynamic critical thought leads to an obvious conclusion that there were probably some other/secondary issues involved. and the fact that you guys champion this myopic narrative so hard and kneejerk even harder to anything that may imply the possibility that there may be more dynamics to the relevant issues than the single issue thought process that is rampant in every narrative you guys incessantly pom-pom. regardless of any additional facts that come to light after your "team" assignments have been made.
i already asked buckybrah to expound. you saw his focus quite clear. his dismissal of the other dudes input isnt really relevantly dynamic enough to hold much weight in context either. besides, his own reply using the phrase "VERY FIRST" implies other relevance that you guys will dance around for months if allowed.
i said im not half the historian the shoulder chippers CLAIM to be on this issue. polemic exchange isnt exclusive to self righteous/professed "enlightened" persons. some peoples discernment CAN BE more thorough and accurate than some's incessant googling and chastising of those who dont tow the line of every myopic narrative they champion in their internet race jihad.
my mistake. but it sounded that way to me. see above.
arent you "vehemently" objecting to the notion of a more dynamic SET of issues? the ones that buckybrah may have been referencing with his remark about "VERY FIRST"?
have you fully swallowed buckybrah's rebuttal/dismissals of McCurdy's listed issues like you have so many other buckybrah narratives? because those are as paper thin flimsy as that papersack puppet i referenced earlier. doesnt take much "esoteric" insight to see that his conclusion lacks dynamics. must i really state the obvious? nah. ill just watch yall dance and LOL some more.
even lincoln acknowledged more dynamics to the issue of the war than what you guys want to. am i to believe that one side had many dynamics involved and one side had only a static single issue that their "cause" was invested in? or maybe i should believe that the north had a single issue too, although different than the south's? did the southern flag mean the same to the north as it did the south? vice versa with the northern flag? dynamic complexity or polemic clash based on simple single issue thought processes? doesnt really matter what i believe. you guys are the experts it seems youd have me believe. well, "sockpuppet this, sockpuppet that" isnt really relevantly compelling brah, no matter how it fits your "team's" theme or narrative.
polemic exchange was solicited from the first post. but its obvious that this was bait for a desired clash of egos. bait with a barb less hook from the looks of it. a trollitup usual suspect SOP/MO. thanks for the consistent expected responses and LOLz.
dont forget to google me and search my user name here to attempt to validate and bolster your focal point of my character, accused or actual. good luck.
"very first"
iLOL
desertbrah was right (gasp).... BOTH!
now search the net some more for my username. thats also key tactic in polemic exchange on relevant issues.
And no, I don't agree with UncleBuck on quite a few issues but we come together to make caca fall on racist shitstains.
Nice manifesto.
fobesterdam
Well-Known Member
better keep tagteam googling sonnyboi.
single issue thought processes are gonna leave you stumped when it comes to my identity brah. as if thats an issue to even ponder. LOL.
i expect nothing less from those that prefer to dwell in the bubble where everyone who doesnt tow the myopic line of the self appointed racially righteous pot forum jihadist is a racist "sockpuppet". although socks do have greater tenacity than paper sacks!
=2ez.
single issue thought processes are gonna leave you stumped when it comes to my identity brah. as if thats an issue to even ponder. LOL.
i expect nothing less from those that prefer to dwell in the bubble where everyone who doesnt tow the myopic line of the self appointed racially righteous pot forum jihadist is a racist "sockpuppet". although socks do have greater tenacity than paper sacks!
=2ez.
fobesterdam
Well-Known Member
true. engaging the single issue thought process engulfed self appointed race police about dynamic issues is an autofail by default in any instance where serious discourse is desired.
but its so hilarious to watch em dance to protect their precious narrative.
time and time again. and again.
google iLOL all yall want. but i get the most laughter of all right here.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
As a people we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause. ... As a national emblem, it is significant of our higher cause, the cause of a superior race, and a higher civilization contending against ignorance, infidelity, and barbarism. Another merit in the new flag is, that it bears no resemblance to the now infamous banner of the Yankee vandals.
—William T. Thompson (1863), Daily Morning News
Well that's the end of the thread. William T. Thompson designed the flag
—William T. Thompson (1863), Daily Morning News
Well that's the end of the thread. William T. Thompson designed the flag
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yeah, you're right.keep googlin brah. take more notes first if you THINK itll help...
i like how youve applied your focus so intensely on my nutsack and not the issue that you imply yourself as being such the authority on though.
stay true to character. i could use the LOLz.
i haven't focused on the issue.
that's why my points about the south trampling states rights, jizzing their pants for government control, and leading the way in social inequality remain unrebutted.
dipshit sock.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
such as?
still waiting on your eloquent rebuttal.
if you're not kkkynes, you are clearly a member of the Kynes Kopykat Komittee (KKK for short).
iLEL.
it doesn't sound like kynes.
DirtyMcCurdy
Well-Known Member
That's whats you said, not me. The only issue you were/are concerned about is slavery. In your words that was the only reason there even was a confederacy or a civil war. I tried to say that there were other reasons but those reason were apparently humorous to you, if I remember correctly.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
that's historical fact.
the fugitive slave act demonstrates perfectly that the south had no regard for states rights. they trampled all over the north to get their slaves back, exercising massive government control to do so. you'd rebut that if you could, but it's historical fact so you can't.
and the institution of slavery shows the south was no concerned about social inequality, not sure why you even attempted that.
so what else could it have been?