Hi, I'm Ted

damo,

We're going to make Dixie live by the exact same rule he set for John Kerry.

Kerry voted against the 2004 authorization for war funding, not because he "hated the troops", but because he believed there was an alternative way to do the funding.

But, in Dixie's mind, there was no such room for nuance. Kerry simly "voted against funding the troops".

Likewise, there's no such room for nuance in Dixie's vote for school segregation. There's no room for nuance in how it was a vote about taxes or funding. Dixie simply voted to keep schools segregated.
 
Cypress said:
damo,

We're going to make Dixie live by the exact same rule he set for John Kerry.

Kerry voted against the 2004 authorization for war funding, not because he "hated the troops", but because he believed there was an alternative way to do the funding.

But, in Dixie's mind, there was no such room for nuance. Kerry simly "voted against funding the troops".

Likewise, there's no such room for nuance in Dixie's vote for school segregation. There's no room for nuance in how it was a vote about taxes or funding. Dixie simply voted to keep schools segregated.
Click to expand...
That might work better if the schools actually were still segregated. This was a non-functioning portion of the constitution. So, had the schools still been segregated then I'd at least somewhat agree that some people voted to keep the schools segregated. However, I'd be disgusted with any politico that attached a tax increase to such a referendum.

Every election we have a referendum to remove non-functioning portions of our state constitution. Amazingly our politicos here don't add tax increases to such, and thankfully we don't have such a thing in the constitution of our state.

Again Thankfully, referendums must be written on one subject only and if such attachments were added it would be rejected by the Supreme Court of the state...
 
I ask any of my lawmakers that if even one single part of a bill is bad it must be rejected. For me a yea vote indicates total agreement with a new law.

In a referendum I would hold myself to the same standard.
 
I would love to see a law that requires a bill to cover only one subject....
And the bill must be written by the congressman submitting it or his staff, not a lobbyist.
 
It is also the flag that represents people committed to go to war to maintain their 'right' to own slaves.

You are ignorant of the history regarding the Civil War, if you believe this.

If a German were to present a swastika, claiming it on the basis that it is his 'heritage' and that his ancestors fought under it, would it be any less repugnant?

There are Germans who do honor the flag their relatives died under, so do the Japanese, the Italians, the Russians, and everyone else in the world. You want to make an invalid analogy between the CSA and the Nazi movement, and it's intellectual dishonesty to its core. There is a very stark difference between an ideological movement to eliminate a race of people you hate, and a coalition of states joining together to protect their legal and constitutional rights as states.
 
uscitizen said:
I would love to see a law that requires a bill to cover only one subject....
And the bill must be written by the congressman submitting it or his staff, not a lobbyist.
Click to expand...
Only on amendments in CO. The Amendment must cover one topic and must be clearly stated in the Title.
 
Yeah Damo, but I would like to see that on a federal level.

Each subject should stand or fall on its own merits. No adding of another item to ensure its death or success.
 
There are Germans who do honor the flag their relatives died under, so do the Japanese, the Italians, the Russians, and everyone else in the world. You want to make an invalid analogy between the CSA and the Nazi movement, and it's intellectual dishonesty to its core. There is a very stark difference between an ideological movement to eliminate a race of people you hate, and a coalition of states joining together to protect their legal and constitutional rights as states.

Actually I think it is illegal in Germany to do this. The German and Confederate comparison actually is appropriate. Most of the German soldiers were not fighting for the destruction of any race but for the glory of Germany. They fought for nationalism not hatred. Many were unaware of the death camps. Do we think Rommel and those who fought with him in the Afrika Corps were fighting for the final solution? No. They had a mission and as patriotic Germans they fought the British for control of North Africa.

Most confederates were not fighting for slave rights. Most solidiers did not own slaves or could even ever hope to. They fought for independence. Many likened themselves to the patriots that fought in the American revolution and in many ways they were similar.

Should we honor our war dead even when history says the cause they fought for was wrong? I think so. But I think the way we honor our dead should be somewhat reserved especially if it evokes strong feelings. The swastika is far more offensive than the Con. Battle Flag. But nevertheless both evoke strong feelings among the victims of both governments. I don't think Rommel's (who is a man I respect) grandson if he was participating on a message board should use as an avatar a skull and crossbones with a german war helmet with a swastika on it. Thats not the best way for him to honor his grandfather and I think the same is true in your case.

Dixie I give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you that your display of the flag is a tribute to your ancestors and your southern culture. But I wonder if another part of it is to be purposefully provocative.

Do you have family or ancestors who fought for the United States? Why then do you not display the Stars and Stripes. It is an interesting comparison that your arch rival's avatar does display that very thing.

I have family who fought for the US. I also have family who fought for Japan in WWII. While I honor their sacrifice I don't think it appropriate to honor them by proudly displaying the Naval Battle flag of the imperial fleet. I most likely also have family who fought for Germany and Italy and the same idea applies.
 
Dixie I give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you that your display of the flag is a tribute to your ancestors and your southern culture. But I wonder if another part of it is to be purposefully provocative.

Do you have family or ancestors who fought for the United States? Why then do you not display the Stars and Stripes.


Do you even need to ask IHG? Of course the Con flag is meant to be provacative. From what I've read, after 1865, the Stars and Bars didn't even really re-appear in wide use in the south, until the civil rights movement began.

Now, why do you suppose that is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top