Dean Slammed Over Confederate Flag Comment (gun related)


PDA






BenW
November 2, 2003, 01:05 AM
Yup, us "lovers of the Confederate flag", redneck NRA members are sure loved by the Democrats. And isn't there a thread somewhere about Kerry going hunting? :rolleyes:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101935,00.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Dean Slammed Over Confederate Flag Comment (gun related)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
sm
November 2, 2003, 01:23 AM
Native son of the South, in AR no less.
klinton , showed them D a few more tricks, tell 'em what they[ insert any group here] want to hear to get votes...then forget them. I could always tell when he was lying-his mouth was open and utterance made. Oh heck yeah Klinton a "hunter too" remember...had a "duck rifle" he said , when asked at what range he was felling ducks "80 or so yards". Never will forget that being shown on the local news.

Yeah buddy, true friend of the hunter and "gun owner". that Klinton fella...he taught his party well.

But we do have our share of millionare here that do drive p/u trucks and have strong political ties, not referring to the Walton bunch either...and these ties ain't with the D boys either...Rockefeller for one...

Bill Hook
November 2, 2003, 01:43 AM
Why must the Confederate Flag be anything more than a symbol of regional pride? I like how "Southerners" like Clark and Edwards find it "offensive."

All the liberal @--holes at work on Monday will have put Kerry stickers over the Dean ones that were there on Friday, as they'd hate to be consider one of those "awful rednecks" who own guns (to prove their manhood), drink red wine with fish, or worse, beer and only listen to 2 kinds of music - Country AND Western. :rolleyes:

Dems will get 95+% of the black vote (as usual), while ticking off the South even more.

greyhound
November 2, 2003, 09:50 AM
Agree or disagree with the Confederate flag as a symbol, that was extraordinarily stupid for Dean to even use the words "Confederate flag".

Once again, agree or disagree, does he have any idea about the battles down there over the CF being on state flags? Not sure if its still on or possible, but wasn't at one point the NAACP calling for a boycott of the entire state of South Carolina?

There has got to be a better way of referring to Southern people than by using the Confederate flag.

What a gaffe. It'll be interesting to see how this is going to fly, and if he'll get a break for being a leftist (imagine if Bush did this?)

Mark Tyson
November 2, 2003, 09:59 AM
What is the big deal? Dean wants to appeal to rural working class Southerners, that's all he was saying, and these other candidates go berzerk over it.

greyhound
November 2, 2003, 10:08 AM
What is the big deal?

In the US today, ANYTHING that can even remotely be connected to race (not just racism, but race) is a big deal (look at the whole ESPN/Rush Limbaugh nonsense).

But, just like Cruz Bustamonte using the "N" word, we'll see if he gets a pass because of the "D" after his name....

4v50 Gary
November 2, 2003, 10:55 AM
The "problem" with using the Army of Northern Virginia's battle flag (St. Andrew's Cross) is that it was adopted by many racists during the Civil Rights movement and hence the disdain and hostility towards it today. There is a double standard in that a lot of racists also flew the American flag too. Anybody else see photos of the KKK marching with the American flag held aloft?

If someone were to run around with the Hardee flag (blue field with white snowball in center), only a Civil War buff would recognize it. An even earlier flag is the Bonnie Blue (used as early as the Seminole War).

Now, to represent the people of the south, the ANV battle flag really isn't appropriate when one considers how many southerners actually opposed the war and resented being drafted to fight. The large number of deserters or draft dodgers in the Southern armies (over 100,000 by 1864) speaks for itself. More Kentuckians fought for the Union than for the Confederacy. The same may be true for TN.

BTW, here's a snippet from Recollections of a Private by Warren Lee Goss. It takes place late in the war during the Battle of the Wilderness (May, 1864). "One of my friends had captured a rebel and was marching him into our lines. As he came out into a little cart-path he and his prisoner encountered a rebel officer. 'Where are you going?' said the officer, with his revolver turned upon the Yankee soldier. 'To the Yankee lines!' replied the prisoner. 'Give that man your musket!' imperiously ordered the officer to the Yankee soldier. "he had me, and I obeyed!' said my informant. No sooner had the officer disappeared than the rebel soldier, to the astonishment of my friend, cooly handed him back his musket, saying, 'Here, take your shooting-iron, and march me to the Yankee army. I'm done with this doggoned Confederacy, I am!' On the way into our lines my informant inquired why he had gone back on the Confederacy. "Well, stranger, the rich men made this war, and we poor men have to do the fighting, and there's too mcuh fight, I reckon, for my health. I've been fighting ever since this blamed war began, and I can see no end to it!'"

A symbol of the south? George Washington was a Virginian. So was Thomas Jefferson. Daniel Boone (Kentuckian & then Missourian)? Davy Crockett? If I want modern, I'd want Alvin York.

BenW
November 2, 2003, 11:20 AM
What is the big deal?
The big deal(s) for me in that article were:

1) That whatever your position on the Confederate flag is, it seems kind of offensive that "tolerant, non-prejudiced liberals" automatically equate the Confederate flag with the NRA. I would hazard to guess that in the membership of the NRA, there are people who both love and hate the Confederate flag, just like in the general population.

2) The day after he goes "hunting" to prove what a friend of gunowners he is, Kerry makes deragatory statements alluding to the cultural makeup of NRA membership. And Democrats are saying we should trust them on their attempt to reach out to gun owners? Right.

w4rma
November 2, 2003, 07:15 PM
Statement From Governor Dean Regarding Kerry, Gephardt Tag Team Attacks

BURLINGTON--Last winter--to resounding applause and a standing ovation--Democratic presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean, M.D., told the DNC that "white folks in the South who drive pick-up trucks with Confederate flag decals on the back ought to be voting with us because their kids don't have health insurance either, and their kids need better schools too."

In response to Congressman Gephardt's and Senator Kerry's most recent attacks (http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-democrats-2004,0,1055729.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines), Governor Dean said:

"I want people with confederate flags on their trucks to put down those flags and vote Democratic--because the need for quality healthcare, jobs, and a good education knows no racial boundaries. We have working white families in the south voting for tax cuts for the richest 1% while their children remain with no health care. The dividing of working people by race has been a cornerstone of Republican politics for the last three decades--starting with Richard Nixon. For my fellow Democratic opponents to sink to this level is really tragic. The only way we're going to beat George Bush is if southern white working families and African American working families come together under the Democratic tent, as they did under FDR.

"In his historic 'I have a dream speech,' Martin Luther King, Jr., said: 'I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.' I believe Dr. King's vision still represents the future of America. And that is what our campaign is about."

UPDATE: Here is the full quote from the DNC speech referred to above:

"I want all of our institutions of higher learning, our law schools, our medical schools, our best universities to look like the rest of America. And I thought that one of the most despicable moments of this president's administration was three weeks ago, when on national prime-time television, he used the word "quota'' seven times. The University of Michigan does not now have quotas. It has never had quotas. Quotas is a race-loaded word, designed to appeal to people's fears of losing their jobs.

"I intend to talk about race in this election in the south because the Republicans have been talking about it since 1968 in order to divide us. And I'm going to bring us together, because you know what? White folks in the south who drive pickups trucks with confederate flags decals in the back ought to be voting with us and not them, because their kids don't have health insurance either and their kids need better schools too.

"We're not done yet.

"Most of you know that six months before my last re-election I signed a bill into law that made Vermont the first state in American to guarantee equal rights to every person under the law - EVERY person under the law. That bill was called the Civil Unions bill. And it said that marriage is between a man and a woman, but same-sex couples are entitled to the exact same legal rights as I have - hospital visitation, insurance, and inheritance rights. All Americans are equal under the law in our state.

"This bill was at about 40% in the polls when I signed it ? 60% were against it, six months before the election. I never got a chance to ask myself whether signing it was a good idea or not because I knew that if I were willing to sell out the rights of a whole group of human beings because it might be politically inconvenient for a future office I might run for, then I had wasted my time in public service."

You can also watch the full speech in the C-SPAN archive (http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen/odrive/c04_022103dnc.rm) -- when it loads, fast-forward to 1:57:05 (this particular section begins at 2:06:56).

Posted by Mathew Gross at 04:57 PM
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002081.html

El Tejon
November 2, 2003, 07:25 PM
Gary, yes, but the South's treason was in order to preserve slavery. Even that epitome of Ol' Virginny, Bobby Lee, admitted to this. How can the Confederate flag be more of a racist symbol than that???:confused:

McGovern must really be comfortable with his lead to make such a fox paw.:eek: I must confess to enjoy this--seeing the socialists tear into each other. I'd like to see some "protestors" at the next Dean speech.:D

Maybe burn the Traitors' Cross or chant "Dean, Dean, KKK, all of you can go away!":D

fallingblock
November 2, 2003, 08:37 PM
A Hoosier's sense of humor!:D



"....chant "Dean, Dean, KKK, all of you can go away!"

semf
November 2, 2003, 09:34 PM
broad outline, the Confederate Constitution is an amended U.S. Constitution. Even on slavery, there is little difference. Whereas the U.S. Constitution ended the importation of slaves after 1808, the Confederate Constitution simply forbade it. Both constitutions allowed slave ownership, of course.
In fact, slavery only became a constitutional issue after the war had begun. In his 1861 inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln said, "Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican administration their property [is] to be endangered.... I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the United States where it exists.... I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclina6on to do so."
And this fromthe constitution of the Confederacy

1. The importation of negroes of the African race, from any foreign country, other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
While the Confederate constitution did not abolish slavery neither did the U.S. it did forbid further importation
So will someone explain to me again how this was a war about slavery.
If it was soley about slavery, Why did it tak Lincoln two years to free them. And why did freeing them cause mass desertions in the north.
My only comment about displying the flag is How many of us display second place awards or trophies from a two party contest

w4rma
November 3, 2003, 01:34 AM
Related past statements by Gov. Dean:

Link 1 (http://mattbailey.blogspot.com/politics/deanquotes.html)
"All right, the Confederate Flag may be an issue for you, but what about your childrens' health care? There's sixty thousand kids in South Carolina that don't have health insurance - and most of them are white. If you keep voting for the Republicans, they're never going to get health insurance for your kids, they're never going to help your schools, you're never going to get a better job, you're never going to get a raise. Come back to the Democratic Party - the party of Franklin Roosevelt where everybody was included!"

Link 2 (http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/5179098.htm)
"There's no reason why white guys who have a Confederate flag in the back of their pickup truck shouldn't be walking side-by-side with blacks, because they don't have health insurance, either," Dean said.

Link 3 (http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/breaking_news/6928029.htm)
"South Carolinians have voted Republican for 30 years," said Dean, who appeared on stage with no jacket and blue short-sleeve shirt. "Tell me what you have to show for it?"

"Nothing! Nothing!" several in the crowd shouted back.

"The Legislature cut $73 million out of the public school system. Jobs gone to other countries especially in textiles. People haven't had raises in five years because their health insurance premiums took their raise in pay," Dean said.

"If you're satisfied with that, you ought to vote for George Bush," he said. "But maybe you ought to vote Democratic again. Because when white people and black people and brown people vote together in this country, that's when we make social progress."

Link 4 (http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/64897)
During a frenetic day of events, Dean continued to portray himself as the insurgent candidate among a crowded field of political insiders, the one unafraid to take on controversial issues.

And in South Carolina, where the Confederate flag waves on the grounds of the State House, one of those issues was race.

“When we come to the South, Democrats have got to start talking about race because the Republicans always talk about race,” he said to the South Carolina Democratic Convention. “They talk about it to try to keep people from voting, they talk about it by using divisive words like quotas, which are race-based words. In the South, we have discovered that when white voters and black voters vote together, we all make progress.”

fallingblock
November 3, 2003, 02:18 AM
"In the South, we have discovered that when white voters and black voters vote together, we all make progress.”
************************************************************

They'll no doubt be voting all right....Republican:D

Mark Tyson
November 3, 2003, 08:15 AM
This pathetic effort to portray Dean as racist just for saying that the party needs to expand its voter base reveals desperation and viciousness on the part of the other candidates. Of course Dean has said some pretty nasty things himself. It's just politics - it's the nature of the beast. If Dean really wants to reach out to rural southerners he should drop any pretense of being for gun control and come out in support of RKBA - against the ban, against "closing the gun show loophole", etc. The other candidates and the Mommies already portray him as against gun control anyway. He doesn't owe them a damn thing, so let him flush 'em down.

El Tejon
November 3, 2003, 08:16 AM
semf, the South made the war about slavery, not the North. The evidence that it was slavery comes from the South.

Waitone
November 3, 2003, 09:00 AM
I was surfing through cable last night and caught Russert's show (I rarely watch it) where he was interviewing Zel Miller from GA. Russert was batting questions about Miller's book. When he asked about Dean's confederate flag comment I thought Miller would come unglued. I said that kind of comment raised the spectre of Dukakis' southern campaign strategy of piling bales of hay around. It remined him of something out of Hee Haw. Miller said the comment betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of what the south is. Every candidate who misunderstands the south has lost the presidency.

BTW, I can now see why Miller is such a loss to the senate. He is one strong individual.

MuzzleBlast
November 3, 2003, 09:15 AM
How can the Confederate flag be more of a racist symbol than that???What is more racist, slavery or genocide? I'm fairly certain it was the Stars and Stripes flying at the head of the 7th Cavalry. People condemning the confederacy and its symbols as racist are HYPOCRITES.
We can keep slinging mud, or we can live and let live. Your call.

Waitone
November 3, 2003, 09:30 AM
Muzzleblast hit on something that is not wekk appreciated.

The confederate flag (for now just one variation) is under attack. When the stars and bars is effectively banned other variations will assume importance and it will then be attacked. See, racial hatred has to have a public object to villify.

At some point an enterprising community racist will figure out racial hatred was carried out under the US flag. So then whaddya do? If the stars and bars was banned because it was a symbol of racial hatred, then you gotta do the same thing with the US flag because the same kind of stuff happened while it fluttered above.

semf
November 3, 2003, 11:45 AM
semf, the South made the war about slavery, not the North. The evidence that it was slavery comes from the South.
How so? Lincoln made it about slavery when he issued the EP to win Euro support or to at least prevent their interference.
In the grand scheme of things it really dosen't matter the south lost the war. Even though slavery was on the way out at the time of the war, if the south had won at best we would be at the same point we were at in the 60s. And I would be branded a race traitor which is lower than any of the dark races. So I'm prety happy with the way things are.
One thing that has not been mentioned is that the Reb flag never flew over the reconstructed south until the 50s brought the civil rights movement.
El Tejon I respect your opinion I just don't agree with it. We will never agree and to me it's not worth arguing over. The war's over we lost I got over it years ago.
I also think the flag is worn out and needs to be put to rest.

On a liter note does anybody know what Arlington cemetary was originally and who's property it was.

El Tejon
November 3, 2003, 12:08 PM
semf, Bobby Lee's, right?

semf, my point was that the South made it the issue. That was their reason for leaving the Union as evidenced by their own declarations, actions, Congressional debate, and statements by the administration of the CSA.

You're right though Lincoln said several times that he simply wanted to save the Union, slavery or not. You're also right in that it may be a distinction without difference in that slavery was ended with the ending of the CSA. However, I think it is important to counter the Southern revisionist attempts that I believe are dangerous.

semf
November 3, 2003, 12:28 PM
Yes and I feel the same way about the Union revisionists. But I've read more than the govt text books printed in NYNY and Pa. The winner always writes the history.
The Southern History of The War published in 1866 and written during the war in some parts tells a differant story. It mentions specifically states rights as the overwhelming issue of the war although slavery was a major issue, as it pertained to southern economy. If slavery was an issue in the war it certainly was not the reason that the soldiers fought it.
There were as many people in the north that thought blacks were inferior as there were in the south. Lincoln himself made that assertion.
The south has no franchise on racism or bad behavior we just have a ready symbol to point at.

gburner
November 3, 2003, 12:37 PM
Some points...

The War Between the States was not about slavery, at least not in the absolutist sense that some posters present it here. The largely agrarian, slave labor maintained lifestyle and economy of the south was rapdly fading/faltering by the mid 1800's. Advances in the mechanization of agriculture and the criminalization of the slave trade spelled the end of this repugnant system. Further, views on race, with the exception of a small but vocal group of abolitionists, were fairly analogous on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. Blacks, as a race, were treated no more fairly or humanely in New York City than they were in Charleston, SC. To state that one side or the other fought soley to either uphold or abolish slavery betrays a lack of understanding of the larger issues involved and the context in which these issues were being played out. If one is to look for the fundamental causes of the War, it can be found in three questions.

First, does the Federal Government have the overarching (and some would say unconstitutional) power to impose upon the various states the Federal 'will' as regards trade, economic policy, social norms, the garrisoning of troops, usurpation of land rights, institution of tarriffs which are both regionally benefical for northern merchants and strangulating for those in the south, etc...?

Second, if the answer to number one is yes, do the individual states, having joined the union voluntarily, have the right to dissolve that union when the government fails or refuses to ensure those rights enumerated in the Constitution or takes on powers not specifically granted to it under the same document?

Does the FederalGovenment have the constitutional power to hold the union together by force, thus enforcing voluntary participation in the union by duress? This attempted dissolution was incorrectly referred to as treason by a previous poster.

The subject of slavery and race is certainly woven in and out of these larger issues but is by no means the whole cloth.

In the modern context, the use of the ANV battle flag as a symbol of regional solidarity has been strenghtened by years of derisive and insulting attitude by much of the rest of the country about the south. Redneck jokes, stereotypes of inbred banjo playing idiots, slow and lazy folks caught up with family ties,
the absolute (and to some outsiders, tedious) need for manners, honor
and loyalty all seem somewhat foreign to many and therefore something to be mocked. Add to this the fact that the South was occupied territory from 1865 to 1875, that it's 'carcass' was picked clean by carpetbaggers and hustlers from the north and those societal changes that it was unwilling or uable to make prior to the War were forced upon it at the point of the Federal bayonet. This humiliation, added to the characature of the south as a haven for racists, buffoons, traitors, charlatans and whack jobs of every stripe only reinforced the need for a symbol as 'in your face' as the Battle Flag. It's not slaves or the repugnant slave supported economy that southerners miss. Quite the contrary. To a person, my experience has been that slavery is seen as a grievous moral failing and outrage which is insupportable; the fallout of which is being rectified even today. No, what southerers long for is a time when the Federal government stayed out of our pockets, out of our businesses, and out of our lives.

Idiots like Dean are only too eager to attempt to co-opt the image of the Flag without truly understanding (or caring for that matter) what it is all about. Likewise, race baiters like Sharpton will always see something evil and insideous in the Flag because their eyes are blinded by the need to financially and socially perpetuate their victimhood.
Heritage, not hatred.

semf
November 3, 2003, 12:55 PM
See if i could communicate like that gburner, I would win more arguments and probably get to meet prettier women.

Ed
November 3, 2003, 01:03 PM
Having worked for the National Park Service and Living in the South, I can honestly say that the was not just about slavery. It was about States rights, and tarrifs on goods from overseas. The North was setting up tarrifs to insure goods were sent to their factories for processing. And another fact that is often forgotten is that when Lincoln freed slaves, he freed only the slaves in the revolting states. The whole thing with flags and racist are blown out of proportion. Come live in the south for a while and you will see Confederate flags sure, but you will also see white people and black people getting along everyday. I think most of the people complaining don't live here. Sure there are the stupid racist people. But they live outside the south too. My generation grew up in schools where the mix was 50/50 or in my school, 70/30 more black than white. So We learn from the start to get along. I get mad whenever peopel start to equate the " Confederate flag" with stupid white people. Like Dean has done.

DRC
November 3, 2003, 01:14 PM
That was one impressive post.

One thing to add that was a big part of the War of Northern Aggression ;) is that it had more to do with equal representation in the forming government. Industry was typically concentrated in the North and so were the majority of people. Southern lands were less densely populated and therefore would have been left with little voice in the matters of the nation which was unfair and unconstitutional.

I always love to hear the "slavery as the reason for" the war arguement. As soon as I see someone bring that in I know immediately that they know dangerously little about the history of the United States of America during that time and probably all the way up until now.

I read about the regiment battle flags during the war about 12 years ago. I was shocked to find out that what I'd been taught in public school history was a bit incorrect :) The flags were used to identify the regiments sos not to shoot the wrong people and for commanders to know which troops as well as officers were in the area for correspondence purposes.

Oh well, those that know, know and those that don't can live in the dark.

Take care and again good post.

DRC

MrAcheson
November 3, 2003, 01:47 PM
Yeah the Civil War was about states rights and fundamental limits on the federal government. But in specific it was about how these concepts related to slavery. The right that the south was fighting for was the right to be a slave state and keep people as property. You can't get around the specifics and just look at the generalities because it makes the picture prettier.

Conceptually yes the South had a point (conceptually Communists have a point too), but specifically they were fighting to keep something abhorrent in existence. As Gen Longstreet said to the British officer in the movie Gettysburg, "Maybe we should have freed the slaves and then seceded from the Union." But they didn't and its very telling why.

semf
November 3, 2003, 01:54 PM
Then how telling is it that the slaves were not freed by Lincoln until 2 years after the war started

Ed
November 3, 2003, 02:07 PM
What the war was about and why people fought, I guess should then be discussed. Most of the people in the south, didn't own slaves. Also there were states that fought with the North that were slave states. So "and I don't think anyone has said it, but to get the point across first" MOST people were not fighting for slavery. This country was founded by Seceeding from England when England didn't recognize our voice. The Decleration Of Independance and the Constitution both agree to that. They also state that when the government of the people doesn't represent the people, thay have the right and duty to form a new government. So the South left. Of course they had to fight to leave, and they lost, so they came back. And that is for the better. But they had a right to leave, and the United States had a right to Fight to keep them. The war is over, and has been for 138 years. The only way that people can know the real reasons the south Seceeded are to read what the people in the south wrote. History books are for the most part written by the Victors of wars. They have their opinions of why the South did what it did. But to know the truth you must go to the source. I'm not saying slavery had no part to do with it. I'm saying it was a minor part. With Eli Whitneys cotton gin, slavery was already on the way out in the south in 1860.

MrAcheson
November 3, 2003, 02:21 PM
What state's right had Lincoln abridged then? The Secession began because of Lincolns election, but started before he even assumed office (South Carolina seceeded in Dec 1860). The only one I can think of that was in jeopardy was slavery since he was a Republican Abolitionist.

Was it about states rights? Yes. Was it also about regional economic differences and a ton of other little things? Yes. Which states' right was it really about? Slavery, the right to have people as property. Most people fought because of regional and state loyalty, but the reason the war started was the election of an Abolitionist president. The rest really is semantics.

Jonesy9
November 3, 2003, 02:35 PM
Dean makes a good point. The Dems do need white souhterners to vote their way. It's not gonna happen, but he can wish for it. By the location of some of our posters and their words, it sounds like they racially identify with certain parties. That's a shame but divide and conquer is the rule of the 2 party system.


The Confederate flag is a powerful symbol. We must never forget that. It means different things to different people. Pres Bush beat McCain in the SC primary over the issue of the flag and stopped his surging candidacy and went on to win the nomination. If Bush's team had not been able to mobilize those voters he would not be president.

If Dean goes on with this theme after the primary, every mention he makes of the CF will be used against him, regardless of what context he uses it in.

MrAcheson
November 3, 2003, 02:51 PM
Yeah the flag issue is a two edged sword. Lots of southerners were brought up to respect and revere that flag, but a bunch of others were brought up to detest and fear it. Dean would be wise to shut up about it, but lets hope he doesn't.

Tempest
November 3, 2003, 02:55 PM
It just seems to me that this highlights the democrats' bigotry and prejudice. It doesn't reflect very positively on them at all. If they're hoping to garner votes that way, IMO this is the wrong strategy.

Waitone
November 3, 2003, 03:46 PM
What it demonstrates is the utter ignorance of what the south really is. Forty years ago you couldn't find a republican in state government and only occasionally in the federal level. Coincidently at that time the south was still laboring under the psychology and economics of reconstruction.

Then for a number of reasons the south began to develop economically, culturally and politically. Since that time the south has contributed mightly to the election of serveral presidents of both parties. Economically the south has exploded to the point that the old confederacy today constitutes the third largest economy on the planet. Culturally the south has digested integration and moved far beyond.

Problem is the democrat party has a caricature of the south that is at least 40 years out of date. And what is so sad I don't think democrats know it. Everyone benefits when we have at least two healthy and competitive parties. Not so in today's south.

Jonesy9
November 3, 2003, 04:10 PM
so what changed Waitone? was civil rights really the breaking point? federal intervention on behalf of CV? was it the flow of more capital to the south? air conditioners or cheap labor? combination? I'm a Yankee but have old family ties to southern agarians and I think i got their libertarian blood. Interested in your opinion.


never seen that the old Confederacy is the third largest economy, where did you see that? The south is still heavily subsidized by the northeast, i.e. you guys get more tax $$ than you produce while the north recieves less $$ than they produce but there's nothing wrong with that. Same thing with the midwest but they are the breadbasket.

DRC
November 3, 2003, 05:31 PM
I'm posting this in hopes that people will read all in order to put it in clear context. The sad part will be that many will read only one or two of these documents and say "See! It says in this one that the war was about slavery." You cannot garner a full historical picture from one or two pieces of information and these are only a few to get you started.

The intent of the documents was to show the unlawful and unfair manner in which the Northern governement was attempting taxation without representation. Strangley enough, the governement was taxing slaves (predominantly found in the South) as property for revenue. The myth that the North was against slavery was just that, a myth. They profitted by it in taxation and when the South said "No" via secesion the federal government got a bit upset with the confederacy.

In a nutshell the South seceded because of taxation without representation and the North declared war to bring them back into the Union. The final compromise? The abolishment of slavery so the South couldn't profit by their labor and the North couldn't profit by the taxation thereof. Government representation and money is what the war was about, slavery, or slaves rather, were the arguing point (read "issue" for the politicos) and little more.

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/index.html

Take care folks and enjoy the information. The War of Northern Aggression is an intresting subject and I wish they would teach it in public schools, but with fact rather than the revisionists historical depictions. Then people would actually know what the Confederate flag was historically and not just what it's been made up to be. History is a wonderful thing and we can learn so much from it, but not with inaccurate depictions and fiction.

Take care,

DRC

greyhound
November 3, 2003, 07:47 PM
This pathetic effort to portray Dean as racist

I don't believe for one second that Howard Dean is a racist, the real revelation here is that he keeps saying stupid stuff that's going to come back and bite him (going back to the famous Tim Russert interview where he got all flustered about past statements).

I'm no Bush fan, but if Dean is the best the Dems can do, no thanks.

I know he's their best on guns, but no leftists need apply as far as my vote goes...

fallingblock
November 3, 2003, 08:16 PM
"I know he's their best on guns, but no leftists need apply as far as my vote goes..."
************************************************************

And the fact that he's their best on guns merely demonstrates how bad the policies of the Democratic party are for gunowners:eek: .

As president, Dean would have little if any influence on his party when it comes to their anti-gun stance, and the anti-gun democ-rats would be in a position of enhanced power to conduct their agenda.:mad:

Moreover, Dean's generally leftist bent would encourage the democ-rat left to further damage the nation.:(

gburner
November 4, 2003, 12:18 AM
More thoughts...

In the election of 1860, Lincoln won in a 4 way split between Bell, Breckenridge, Douglas and himself. Lincoln was, at the outset, no abolitionist, nor, like many of his contemporaries, did he consider Blacks to be the equal of Whites. In fact, he had advocated sending both slaves and freed men back to Africa in order to keep America a wholly white country. Lincoln's calling for volunteer's to put down the fledgling insurrection caused the infant Confederacy to double in size almost overnight...not because of slavery, but because of Lincoln attempting to use illegal and unconstitutional means to hold the Union together by duress.

Lincoln's signing of the Emancipation Proclamation was a bone thrown to the Abolitionists to ensure their support for the war and to get them inside the tent for his re-election campaign in 1864. He, himself, considered it a strictly political gambit. It also had the effect of giving moral justification to the unconstitutional Federal aggression against the southern Confederacy and likewise painted the South as being villianous and morally inferior for fighting for such an abhorrent cause...great propaganda. It's also a lie.

The nations of France and Great Britain (who were actively considering intervening in the war as late as the summer of 1863) having themselves signed onto international treaties prohibiting and criminalizing the slave trade, could not throw their weight to a country that had been painted with that brush.

This also serves to explain the timing of the Proclamation, October of 1862, just after Lee's army had fought to a tie at the battle of Antietam and showed the world that they may indeed make the Confederacy a success.

Consider, if you will, the 'moral' high ground taken by the Federal government, fighting a war to free an oppressed race of African slaves, sold into bondage to the highest bidders in
indolent, self consumed, southern aristocracy. Some light here, please.

The vast majority of Southerners owned no slaves nor did they benefit from the system in any direct way.

There were slaves still held as chattel in several northern states during the war.

After all of the murder and mayhem over whether Kansas would be free or slave, the 1861 census there reported fewer than 5 slaves in the population.

Freed blacks with money in cities such as Charleston, SC and Savannah, GA are reported to have owned their own slaves.

While the Federal Government prosecuted the war against the south, using vast numbers of conscripted Irish and German immigrants as cannon fodder, they put former slaves,freed by the fighting and called contraband,
to work harvesting crops, digging fortifications, clearing swamps, burying the dead and performing menial tasks for the army for little or no money. Further, regiments of Black
soldiers were raised that earned half of what white soldiers did, were commanded by white officers and often were given the worst assignments in the field.

And finally...while the Federal government fought this glorious, 'morally superior' war to free the slaves, it continued it's genocide of native Americans west of the Mississippi, establishing a reservation system and slaughtering those who would not abide by it.

The color that mattered most in the War Between the States was not Black nor White, blue nor grey...it was green. It finalized the ability of the Federal Government to uproot and displace the power structure in any given area, replace it with one of their own choosing and in doing so, ensure that the riches and resorces of that area was completely controlled by them. The 'freeing the slaves' jive was just chrome plating for the turd.

fallingblock
November 4, 2003, 12:28 AM
"The color that mattered most in the War Between the States was not Black nor White, blue nor grey...it was green. It finalized the ability of the Federal Government to uproot and displace the power structure in any given area, replace it with one of their own choosing and in doing so, ensure that the riches and resorces of that area was completely controlled by them. The 'freeing the slaves' jive was just chrome plating for the turd."
************************************************************

And as one who had great-granpas on both sides during the fight, whose descendants pretty much concur with your conclusion....

I'd say you've got it down pretty well there.:D

Besides, that ANV flag is downright purty :)

DRC
November 4, 2003, 12:48 PM
This is the kind of thing that if you want to know the real story you have to look for it yourself because the information is not given up or out freely. Revisionists don't want people to know these things, especially now, since it would paint the opposite picture of what has been taught for decades.

Constitutionally speaking, the South was merely excersizing it's rights as sovereign states to protect those rights granted by Constitutional law. It's the same as any of us excersizing our 2nd ammendments right or any other constitutional rights. When something is wrong we say or do something about it.

The War of Northern Aggression was about equal representation in the governing body and money.

Here's something I found to be intresting; granted there were slaves still around but something to remember is that the slave trade ended in 1808 and the War was fought from 1861 to 1865 which was 53 years after the slave trade ended and was made illegal. So we're talking about the second generation, at least, of naturalized slaves most of which weren't even slaves by that time but were free. I do hope people will look into things like this to see what really happened. I think it's important.

As to Dean? He's a loser no matter how you slice it, which will probably explain why he says what he does and still gets the nomination for the Democratic party :)

DRC

JohnBT
November 4, 2003, 04:33 PM
"Gary, yes, but the South's treason was in order to preserve slavery. Even that epitome of Ol' Virginny, Bobby Lee, admitted to this. How can the Confederate flag be more of a racist symbol than that???"

I see you're still reading them Yankee history books.

John

w4rma
November 4, 2003, 06:50 PM
John Nichols: Rebel flag flap shows media failure

If you want to understand just about everything that is wrong with the way American politics is practiced these days - and especially with the malpractice of the media - consider the absurd controversy about Howard Dean's comment that "I want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks."

What isn't being reported is this reality: Every single presidential candidate who is now expressing concern about Dean's remark has sat in meetings where political operatives, pollsters and consultants have discussed strategies for winning the votes of white working-class males. These voters, whose economic interests would be at least somewhat better served by Democratic policies but who tend to vote Republican for social and cultural reasons, have fueled the rise of the GOP in recent years. And Democrats are obsessed with figuring out how to reach them.

So why has the Dean comment proved to be so controversial? Good question. It has something to do with the desperation of the other candidates, who have had a hard time keeping up with the former Vermont governor's fund-raising juggernaut and highly effective grass-roots campaign. But, in truth, it has a lot more to do with the media.

Too many political reporters practice stenography to power. They simply take down what candidates have to say. This week, the other candidates are trying to paint Dean as the reincarnation of Jefferson Davis, and the media are dutifully reporting it.

More responsible and engaged media would stop to ask the deeper questions: Why do so many white working-class males vote against their own economic interests? Is it because they are racists who really do embrace the Confederacy's legacy? Is it because the Democratic Party has so abandoned populist economic messages that even voters in what were once traditional Democratic constituencies have lost faith in the party and its candidates? The answers to these questions are complicated; but they are at the core of any serious examination of our politics.

Unfortunately, most politicians are unwilling to engage in real discussions about race and economics, let alone the complex zones in which they intersect. And as the current controversy illustrates, most political reporters have lost the inclination, and perhaps even the ability, to demand better of the politicians.

http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/column/nichols/60451.php

fallingblock
November 4, 2003, 09:55 PM
"... real discussions about race and economics.."
************************************************************

does not meet the above qualifications!:rolleyes:

El Tejon
November 5, 2003, 11:28 AM
JohnBT, Robert E. Lee's quote about slavery being the reason for the War of Southern Treason comes from Robert E. Lee, not a Yankee.:)

Last night Dean backtracked and called the Stars and Bars a "loathsome symbol" but would not apologize for referencing the flag. May be a non-issue in Iowa or New Hampshire, but do you (second person, plural) think this will save him on Super Tuesday?

Partisan Ranger
November 5, 2003, 11:50 AM
Regarding the Civil War and slavery, here is my view --

People fight wars for a variety of reasons. Some fight for revenge, some for country, some for a paycheck, etc.

I'm sure that the soldiers who fought in the Civil War did so for many reasons, some of which I mention above. And maybe a few did fight for slavery to continue or be abolished.

However, I don't see how anyone can argue that the issue of slavery didn't help to bring about the war. It was a major issue that divided the nation in that period and helped to draw a line between the country. The people who fought, sure, many didn't fight over this issue. But the cause of the war and what people were fighting for individually are quite different.

gburner
November 5, 2003, 12:26 PM
El Tejon....

Re. your 'Bobby' Lee 'quote', I'm sure that I'm not the only one that would like to see some documentation on the exact 'quote', the context in which it was said and the source.

PS. Southern secession was NOT treason. It was the remedy prescribed by the Constitution for dissoving the bonds of Union with a government that no loger operated under the constraints of that Constitution. The Federal response to secession was illegal, immoral, murderous and extreme in it's cruelty. Heaped upon this outrageous evil was a dozen years of 'reconstruction', in which every manner of indignity was visited upon the South under the heavy hand of a sadistic group of 'radical Republicans'.

El Tejon
November 5, 2003, 12:39 PM
gburner, sure, I believe the most popular source would be the Jay Winik's "April 1865" (wasn't this a NYT "Best Seller"), I believe it's in the last chapter. When I go back to the FBP late tonight, I'll get it for you. To paraphrase (if that's O.K.), it reads [paraphrased] "we lost the war and the struggle for white supremacy, blacks should have the rights that we whitefolk do." Bunch of other stuff from CSA Administration and Congress as well.

As for levying war upon the United States, I believe that is blackletter treason.

cloudkiller
November 5, 2003, 01:44 PM
I don't think it matters. The fact is, there are no simple answers. Most soldiers fought because they had to, or were made to.

The issue with the flag is much much more current than the Civil War. I used to have much more simpathy for the "Southern Heritage" position until I found out that the flag really became a prominently used symbol for protest against desegregation during the civil rights movement. That is when its "rennaissance" as a symbol came about.

On the other hand, I think Dean's comments were appropriate, regardless of how I feel about his policies. He was simply painting a very real picture of a demographic group that he hopes to appeal to. He wasn't saying "I think we need to embrace the KKK".

Sadly, we are still living with many of the effects of the abhorrent racial policies of the South, particularly after the civil war. These have been exacerbated, rather than improved, by many of the policies that were meant to "right old wrongs".

Waitone
November 5, 2003, 02:22 PM
Dean did a bad thing to his mess kit when he spoke of the confederate flag. Ignore for the moment his concept of the south being based in firm understanding of Hee Haw. Dean's problem is not what he said. His problem is who he is.

Ya see, the term "Yankee" historically and properly does not refer to anyone above the Mason-Dixon line as many suppose. The term "Yankee" has its historical origins is a particularly obnoxious New Englander who came to the south complaining how the south had it all wrong. Said New Englanders were quite free with advice and criticism. The term "Yankee" arose in honor of the ship which was commonly used, the Yankee Clipper. And the original location from which said obnoxious originated was specifically the New England states.

Mr. Dean is a great reconstructed cartoon of a New England Yankee coming south to help us poor, ignorant, and stupid southerners. I do not give Dr. Dean much of a chance in SC among the political class because that group of people knows southern history.

2dogs
November 5, 2003, 06:31 PM
help us poor, ignorant, and stupid southerners

Hey if you guys have figured out that the Democrats are the enemy you can't be that poor, ignorant or stupid.:D

gburner
November 6, 2003, 12:04 AM
Game, set and match to 2 Dogs.....

AUTIGER04
November 6, 2003, 12:10 AM
He's not getting my vote anyway!!:neener:

tyme
November 6, 2003, 03:10 AM
Dean urges voters not to vote based on race, guns, God, and gays.
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/7181952.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Waitone
November 6, 2003, 07:26 AM
<What he really meant to say>

Hey all you southerners out there! Don't vote like the gun-loving, Bible-thumping, gay-hating racists that you really are.

<Over>

AUTIGER04
November 6, 2003, 09:43 AM
Confederate flag!!!

gburner
November 6, 2003, 06:15 PM
Unfortunately, that's the Naval Ensign and not the Battle Flag. The Battle Flag is square with a white border around it.

AUTIGER04
November 7, 2003, 01:07 AM
Close enough. Its the only one that would download.:D

Sean Smith
November 7, 2003, 10:03 AM
Buying into the notion that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, or that slavery only played a small role in it, depends on you making a point to NOT read the statements of Southern politicians, or the documents of secession drafted by the various states that left the union. Their own letters, speeches, and official documents damn them, for they were clearly obsessed with the preservation of slavery at all hazzards, and their main sense of being persecuted was quite clearly the fear of an anti-slavery federal government, not some blather about tarrifs.

As starting points, the text of The Address of the people of South Carolina, assembled in Convention, to the people of the Slaveholding States of the United States and "Message of Jefferson Davis to the Provisional Congress of the Confederate States of America," from J.D. Richardson, Messages and Papers of Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy, Including Diplomatic Correspondence, 1861-1865 shouldn't be too hard to dig up. But I'm sure it would be easier for the neo-Confederates to deny reality and ignore the primary source material in favor of shoddy "The South Was Right!" blather.

As for Dean? His statement was dopey.

gburner
November 7, 2003, 01:59 PM
I would suggest that you attempt to differentiate between what were known as the 'Fire Eaters', that group of vociferous politicians who represented the rich, landed, slaveholding minority and the work-a-day joe who fought in the ranks of the Confederate Armies. Dean's comments were addressed to the average guy in the South who drives around in a pickup truck, with a gun rack and a Confederate flag. These people are the modern day equivalent of the line troops. As posted earlier, the vast majoity of these folks owned no slaves nor benefitted directly from the slave supported economy. These were the people who gave their lives, fortunes and sacred honor and were completely, utterly devastated in their defeat. The rich, those who stood at the podium of insurrection, continued to be rich (comparatively) after the war. The alleged inferiority of the Black race was an attitude that was pervasive throughout both North and South. The same was said of the Irish, who were treated no better than slaves, had no rights to speak of and worked for only the barest of wages in the most menial and dangerous of jobs. The Army of the Potomac was home to a large contingent of Irish troops. Do you think that freeing Southern slaves was first and foremost in their minds as they did their deadly businees on the battlefield. I think not.

The view that the War was fought to end or prolong slavery as it's dominant motivation is wrong headed and inaccurate. It is, however, politically correct to think in those terms as the arguement serves to lionize the North (and by extension, the Federal government; whose crimes and usurpation of powers not granted under the Constitution during this period are legion), villianize the South, thus making it not only excusable but laudable to visit the sufferings upon it that took place during the War and Reconstruction,
and provide those who currently seek to keep the Black race in economic bondage a 'boogie man' to point to, thus reinforcing the 'culture of victihood' and the Federal nanny state. There was nothing 'moral' about the War, it was a political and economic test of wills. The adoption of the slavery issue as motivation came late in the show and was a political expedient geared toward having abolitionists vote Republican,
keeping Britian and France out of the War and groping desperately for 'moral' justification in the midst of a gross immorality. To try and paint it with the brush of altruistic holiness is absurd, hypocritical and flies in the face of historical fact.

DRC
November 7, 2003, 03:00 PM
The arguement isn't whether or not the South was right bu8t whether or not the South was within it's rights to secede from the Union. It was. As to the War of Northern Aggression being about slavery, Northerners owned slaves but decided autonomously that slavery was "unpropitious" and sold their slaves to those in Southern states. The slavery issue was a thorn in Southern states side and little more. Taxation without representation was the reason for the war. Northern states had a very different agenda than the South. The Northern states wanted all the South to be tax slaves TO the North because the South was where the money was AND they wanted the South to pay for the priviledge of being slaves (blacks and whites alike) to the North. So I guess you're right slavery was an issue just not in the vain that it's been presented all these years

Think of slavery as an issue this way. Let's say I own several guns (which I do ;) and one day I decide that I don't like guns anymore and think it's wrong to own them. Instead of just getting rid of the guns or giving them away I sell them to you and make some money on the deal, but then declare gun ownership to be illegal and wrong and try to forcibly make you give them up. First of all it's your Constitutional right to own guns (RKBA as it was at the time to own slaves) that I'm taking away AND I'm going to cost you money and force you to give up "property" while at the same time I'm going to make you pay me money 2/3rds of which I'm going to use to push my agenda of disarmament and not give you enough of a voice political to make any difference. I'm going to sell to you, then rob you of what I sold you, then rob you again of money all the while doing everything within my power (and your money) to make you the criminal in all this and force you to be inslaved and indebted to me forever. So was it slavery or the fact that the Southern states didn't want to be turned into slaves to the North?

Slavery was an "issue" that the North could own and is what has been passed around in history to demonize Southern states. At this very moment there are people on this board that harbor the idea that all Southerners are toothless, racist, rednecks that want to bring back slavery and oppress the black man, but guess what? It isn't true now and it wasn't true then.

Good sources for the information you posted by the way. I read them all which is where I came up with my conclusions for this post. What I found amazing is the more I read the more I understand why the South seceded and for good reason. Slavery was on its way out at the time anyway so slavery was honestly a moot point but was an "issue." What the South failed to do was succeed in it's attempt to keep state soverenty, which had they succeeded we wouldn't be worried about the AWB or the loss of our 2nd amendment rights or the loss of any other rights for that matter. Instead the North succeeded in keeping the states together (which was a good thing) but also granted a central government omnipotency (which was and still is a bad thing)

Take care,

DRC

Sean Smith
November 7, 2003, 03:18 PM
The seccession committies and the president of the Confederacy said, "slavery, slavery, slavery, slavery..." ad nauseum, and your conclusion is, "not about slavery."

Compelling.

;)

Hutch
November 7, 2003, 04:29 PM
To get back to Dean, and away from the Confederacy, it's clear that He Just Doesn't Get It. Read Zell Miller's account in http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031103-123326-5341r.htm . It describes the attitude of the DNC towards the South nigh perfectly.

Another matter, all this head-scratching about why we poor rednecks don't vote what the effete Northeasterners THINK is in our economic interest...

I'll vote my Constitutional interests, and work for my economic interests myself, thankyouverymuch.

I'm proud of myself. I said "effete Northeasterners" instead of damnyankees. .. .. Oops.

DRC
November 7, 2003, 06:08 PM
Read the documents you recommended a little more closely. I think you may have missed some important details, whole scentences and word definitions.

Take care,

DRC

w4rma
November 7, 2003, 09:11 PM

To the Editor:

As a born-and-bred Southerner (although with neither pickup nor Rebel flag decal), I am disappointed that you have aligned yourselves with the absurd controversy promoted by Howard Dean's Democratic opponents in decrying his mention of including decal-bearing, pickup-driving good ol' boys in the campaign against the current administration (editorial, Nov. 6).

After all — as Dr. Dean has been stating in speeches since last winter — those folks need to know that voting Republican for the past 30 years has gained neither better schools for their children nor better jobs for themselves!

No Southerner I've talked to — of whatever class or color — sees Dr. Dean's comments as anything other than an indication that he is willing to go after everyone's vote, including that of the working-class white male.

SUE FOMBY
Goshen, Ky., Nov. 6, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/07/opinion/L07DEAN.html

greyhound
November 7, 2003, 09:36 PM
absurd controversy promoted by Howard Dean's Democratic opponents

Yep, I was waiting for this...

Dean (and yes we know he is a medical doctor, thanks, and by the way, have you heard that Kerry served in Vietnam [and is and 'avid hunter']?) has done one of two things with this:

1) had his Bill Clinton "Sister Souljah" moment where he "bucks the trend" and "stands out as a maverick". (Despite my quote marks, this is a good thing with the centrists).

or

2) just lost the vote of 1/3 of the population.

We see how this played out for Clinton in 1992 (#1), let's see how in flies in post 9/11 2004....

gburner
November 7, 2003, 09:59 PM
"As a born-and-bred Southerner"...
Might I remind you that Kentucky was a 'border' state and, though claimed by the Confederacy, had at least as many men fight for the Union as for the South.

As for Governor Dean, it doesn't take a doctor to diagnose that he is suffering from terminal cranial rectalitis aggrevated by foot in mouth disease. He has no more practical idea of what the people of the South need than the Pope does about fornication.

w4rma
November 7, 2003, 10:43 PM
I am white and middle class. I grew up in Martinsville, Virginia and a few years ago I moved to Richmond, Virginia where I now reside. I am in full agreement with Dean in trying to get folks like myself to join the Democratic Party on the Democratic economic platform.

Except for the pork, Republican economic policies, in general, transfer resources from the poor, middle and even lower-upper class upwards to the idle and transient rich. That is a fact. On economic issues, the Republican Party represents, first and foremost, the board members and CEOs of multinational (not American) corporations.

mountainclmbr
November 7, 2003, 11:31 PM
Born, raised and lived in Florida untill 5 years ago. I knew many who flew the Confederate flag, but were not racist. It was more an dislike of northeast liberal ideals. Many people raised in Florida dislike the rude attitudes of people (only liberals from my view) visiting from places like NY and NJ. I these these are mostly liberal elitists who looked down on anyone living in the south. I was a registered Democrat for 21 years. I switched to Libertarian 3 years ago. I have not voted for a single Democrat for the last two elections and I may never do so again for the rest of my life. To the Dem party I just have to say F' all yall!

George Hill
November 8, 2003, 12:07 AM
So basically Dean equates the Confederate Flag with Poor, Ignorant, White Guys who need a handout from the Federal Government.

Dean knows NOTHING about the people in the South, the Confederate Flag, nor of history. These things are unpardonable sins for a man wanting to become the POTUS.

w4rma
November 8, 2003, 12:13 AM
Handout? No.
Better salaries and lower prices? Yes.
Lessen the handouts by us to the idle and transient wealthy? Yes.

fallingblock
November 8, 2003, 03:51 AM
"Lessen the handouts by us to the idle and transient wealthy? Yes."


Or maybe the Kennedys?:D

Hopefully we're not doing another tedious "eat the rich-give the rest of us their money" threads:( ?

gburner
November 8, 2003, 07:06 AM
OH MY GOD!!!!

We have rich people in this country???
How in the name of Karl Marx did that happen???

Businesses provide goods and services to a free market economy. They sell these goods and services to a consumer base that has the need for same and the wherewithall to purchase same from working for wages. The provision of goods and services is done at a profit (gasp) so that the business providing same has money to meet overhead expenses, reinvest in the business and perhaps expand it's ability to function in the larger economy.

Redistribution of earned wealth, either through a onerous tax burden, fees or tarriffs reduces the incentive for businesses to operate, expand and strengthen the economy. It also serves to shrink the wage earning consumer base and replace it with a base that is dependent on govenment handouts. This dependency eliminates the need to work, is a drain on the consumer base that does work (because it siphons off a percentage of their earned wages to support the welfare state), curbs reinvestment in the business and hampers the expansion needed to produce new jobs, expanded services, etc.

Instead of damning the rich, maybe you should spend your energy learning how to become one. Government mandated redistribution of wealth is socialism, at best and communism at worst.

greyhound
November 8, 2003, 09:11 AM
No Southerner I've talked to

Personally, I discount any argument (from either side) that resorts to "No _______ I've talked to." Either means you only hang around with folks of similar mind, or you haven't talked to enough people.

There is such a wide range of feelings and beliefs in this nation that we are probably not in 100% agreement on anything.

w4rma
November 8, 2003, 11:00 AM
Government mandation of industry oligopolies is communism. You ever wonder why prices keep going up after most of the factories left the U.S. to where they don't have to pay Americans decent wages to work in them, gburner? Why do you support corporate welfare? Whose interests does the Red Chinese Retail Outlet (Walmart) work for?

gburner
November 8, 2003, 03:26 PM
I do not support corporate welfare. I do support the right of business to make a profit on the goods and services it provides and to do with that profit what it sees fit, without government imposed duress to redistribute that wealth downward. I also support governmental investment in business for improvement in the overall standard of living. I do not believe that businesses should be able to opt out of their fair share of the tax burden. I also do not believe that they should be soaked to prop up the welfare state either.

Prices fluctuate within the free market system due to a myriad of influences such as availability of capital, increasing overhead costs, profitability in research and development, gluts or shortages in basic resources or manpower, inflation, deflation, overstocked inventories, etc. All this aside, you can thank, President Clinton for selling those jobs you mentioned out through his support and initiation of NAFTA...free trade my fat, pink fanny. Between Clinton and Dean we'll be lucky if businesses survive in this country at all. Then what windmill will you attack.

While I go into the kitchen to look for the tinfoil, perhaps you can educate us all on the great Red Chinese/Walmart conspiracy. I'm open for a good yarn.:scrutiny:

w4rma
November 8, 2003, 07:59 PM
No conspiracy "theory". It's just a shorthand description on how Walmart works. They buy most everything from China, instead of the U.S., and sell it here. i.e. they are a retail outlet for the Red Chinese.

Dean is pro-fair trade. Clinton was pro-free trade. Clinton's free-trade support is partially why he was nicknamed, by many, the best Republican president since Theodore Roosevelt. Bush and Bush, Jr. are both pro-free trade, more-so than Clinton.

I am very happy you don't support corporate welfare. Maybe you'll switch to the Democratic Party in the future on that stance, since the Democratic Party tries to be, in general, anti-corporate welfare.

gburner
November 8, 2003, 09:28 PM
'Maybe you'll join the Democratic Party in the future...'

And monkeys may fly outta my backside, but it's not very likely.:D

fallingblock
November 9, 2003, 12:12 AM
"since the Democratic Party tries to be, in general, anti-corporate welfare."
************************************************************

That's because the Democ-rats are much too busy trying to rob those corporations, and any one else who produces wealth, to provide plain old "welfare" for their power base:eek: .

Whatever happened to Maggie Thatcher's 'poll tax'?
Now there was a good idea.:D

w4rma
November 9, 2003, 02:49 PM

I didn't think there was anything wrong with the comment. Perhaps he could have found a more eloquent way to make his point, but the intent was clear: If Democrats are going to beat George W. Bush, they'll need to convince some white Southern voters to jump political ship. If people have racial alliances with the party, then it's probably wise for Dean to start slicing through those alliances.

Like me, Dean was obviously shaken by the verbal assaults his comment drew. But he handled it much better. Standing by his statement, he initially refused to apologize. In doing so, he may have even wound up appealing to more voters.

Before driving out to Durham's show, I stopped by one of the "Dean Meetup" functions. The strategic meetings are hosted throughout the country every month. I attended one at Blueberry Hill in University City.

I asked a few people at the meeting if Dean's Confederate flag comment soured them against the candidate.

A St. Louis police officer, 32, told me he was attracted to Dean because he takes on unpopular issues.

"Poor Southern whites have been sold a bill of goods by the Republicans for years. We need to confront that with facts," he said.

A college English teacher in the crowd admires Dean for not backing off the statement.

"We have to confront racism, and it's not going to be nice all the time."

A black 43-year-old physician said Dean's comment actually impressed him.

"That's why I like him. He's not a real politician. A real politician wouldn't have said that."

Dean later issued a statement apologizing for starting the conversation in a "clumsy way" but he added Americans still needed to have the "discussion in an honest, open way."

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/Sylvester+Brown+Jr./6A16E16CE6AEA27E86256DD8003D105B?OpenDocument&Headline=When+confronted+with+the+question+of+race,+Dean+came+out+a+bit+better+off


Nevertheless, Dr. Dean's display of strength has clearly staggered his opponents.

In the pivotal primary state of New Hampshire, Mr. Kerry suddenly finds himself in a battle to save his once formidable candidacy in what was supposed to be his comfortable backyard. With polls showing Dr. Dean opening up a wide lead in the state, Mr. Kerry has struck a newly aggressive stance against him.

In Iowa, Dr. Dean and Mr. Gephardt were engaged in what many Democrats in the state said was a tight race before Dr. Dean succeeded this week in lining up endorsement of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which is to be announced in Washington on Wednesday, Democratic officials said. That endorsement may have shifted the tables there, providing Dr. Dean an infusion of disciplined, organized support, a counterweight to what has been Mr. Gephardt's main advantage going into these caucuses.

Increasingly, Dr. Dean's strength is evident not only in early polls, but on the ground in places like Iowa and New Hampshire. At 11:30 the other night at Dr. Dean's New Hampshire headquarters in Manchester, the lights were on and the office was buzzing with paid aides and volunteers. A block away, at Mr. Kerry's headquarters, the lights were dark.

When Dr. Dean turned up for a town hall meeting on Thursday night in Nashua, in the midst of the furor over his Confederate flag remark, so many people turned up that many parked their cars at the Nashua Airport, a half mile away. Dr. Dean drew at least four standing ovations in the course of his presentation, a wild reception that left little doubt about the intensity of enthusiasm among supporters that has led many Democrats to view him as such a potent candidate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/politics/campaigns/09DEMS.html?pagewanted=2&hp

4v50 Gary
November 9, 2003, 03:36 PM
Proves that politicians are whores. Methinks they'll say anything to get elected.

fallingblock
November 9, 2003, 07:12 PM
How about putting some quotes in front of those articles?

Here I am thinking it was you writing about St. Louis and wondering why a Virginian would drive all the way to Missouri for a Dean meeting:)

Both of those papers are bastions of left-wing journalism, by the way.:(

edited to correct geographical indiscretion;)

gburner
November 9, 2003, 07:16 PM
another 'democratic underground' peeper in the High Road window.:uhoh:

w4rma
November 9, 2003, 08:31 PM
Both of those papers are bastions of left-wing journalism, by the way.On sources. IMHO, folks need to be careful about discounting all "news" sources except those that are owned by either Rev. Moon (Washington Times, UPI, Newsmax) or Rupert Murdoch (NY Post, FOX News, The Weekly Standard). Discounting other sources means that *they* decide what "news" you get…and don't get.

Moon Shadow
With Help From Congressional Republicans And The Bush 'Faith-Based' Initiative, Controversial Korean Evangelist Sun Myung Moon Is Trying To Expand His Religious-Political Empire

Reading further, they would have found out that the ALC is a project of the American Family Coalition and The Washington Times Foundation – both front organizations for the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, a controversial Korean evangelist and founder of the Unification Church. The "faith-based summit" itself was sponsored by Watts (R-Okla.), Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and other top congressional Republicans, but efforts to promote it at the grassroots level were turned over to a Moon organization.

http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs6013.htm

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 10, 2003
Neo – CONNED !

In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neocon charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. They urged early on for war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings. Obviously, these bombings were motivated more by Clinton’s personal and political problems than a belief in the neocon agenda.

The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post, and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powell’s State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire. Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.” This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances and neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

Note:
Fallingblock, neither Richmond, VA (http://www.richmond.com/) nor Martinsville, VA (http://www.martinsville.com/) are part of Northern Virginia (http://www.northernva.com/govt-va.html).

fallingblock
November 9, 2003, 09:09 PM
"Discounting other sources means that *they* decide what "news" you get…and don't get."
************************************************************

I'm not discounting your sources...merely suggesting that they are biased.:)

Rupert Murdoch also owns over half of the major Australian newspapers-
and they play the other side of the political street here.



************************************************************
"Fallingblock, neither Richmond, VA nor Martinsville, VA are part of Northern Virginia.
************************************************************

My apologies....plain old Virginia it is! No offense intended....I recall that Virgininans can be a mite touchy about identifying with the D.C. suburbs.

Dang! You mean that Marse Robert should have renamed the Army of Northern Virginia after things 'went south' for them?:D

And to think I used to pass through those parts on leave from Ft. Bragg:)

Just shows what age can do with geographical memory:eek:

glocksman
November 9, 2003, 11:40 PM
another 'democratic underground' peeper in the High Road window.


So?

Are we so afraid of debate that we should ban everyone here who isn't a lockstep conservative Republican?
I don't think we should lower ourselves to the level of the DU, which bans people (such as myself) who deviate from the party line at the drop of a hat.

There are some liberals who are also progun. They aren't all Ted 'Chap Acquitted' Kennedy, you know.
Likewise there are plenty of 'conservatives' who'd be glad to disarm the rabble.


Given a choice between a progun liberal and a country club conservative, I'll take the liberal every time.

gburner
November 10, 2003, 12:48 AM
Glocksman...

No need to be so defensive. This party is big enough for everyone. I just haven't seen a lot of support for RKBA in the du message or from liberals in general.

fallingblock
November 10, 2003, 01:01 AM
It's the lo-o-ng string of articles from the lefty papers I tire of.

Let's discuss our views on the issues, provide a link to a source.:)


************************************************************
"Given a choice between a progun liberal and a country club conservative, I'll take the liberal every time."
************************************************************

I certainly agree with that, but unfortunately a lot of 'pro-gun liberals' put RKBA well down their list of priorities, as does the DNC (durn near the bottom of their list).

Being pro-gun and voting for the likes of Dean, for example, would mean trusting the democrat hierarchy to lighten up on their gun control obsession.

They are not going to do that, folks!:scrutiny:

glocksman
November 10, 2003, 02:20 AM
Being pro-gun and voting for the likes of Dean, for example, would mean trusting the democrat hierarchy to lighten up on their gun control obsession


That's why I lean towards Dean at the moment, but I would vote for my current Congressman (John Hostettler) who is one of the better Republicans on Capital Hill when it comes to guns. On the other hand, Senator Lugar backs the AWB and other gun control measures. What do I do?

My support for Dean isn't becaue I'm in love with him, but because he's the best of the lot running for President.

GWB's administration has been a huge disappointment to me on several levels and personally I feel betrayed by such things as the PATRIOT act and the holding of American citizens without trial or representation.

A war on terrorism is no excuse to savage the bill of rights.

I'm leaning towards Dean in my disappointment, others are leaning Libertarian as demonstrated by this post I found on another board on the AWB and re-electing Bush:

The Dutchess of Zeon wrote:

If Bush signs away assault weapons? Absolutely. Better to take one of those bastard democrats now and awaken the people to their true intentions all at once than have the Republicans penny-packet us. I'd rather take it in the gut with a Democratic administration for four years by spoiling Bush's reelection now than have Republicans feel safe in bartering away our firearms rights for political advantage. It would teach them that firearms is non-negotiable and if they want the votes to get elected they'd need to have an uncompromising stand on it. And I'd vote libertarian to do just that if Bush signed the AWB.

I'd say she's serious. :D

fallingblock
November 11, 2003, 02:13 AM
My general dislike of lefty ideology steers me away from Dean...I feel certain that Dean wouldn't be able to keep a lid on the anti-gun Democrats, either:( .

That leaves voting Bush for a practical choice for RKBA on perhaps Libertarian for a principled vote.:o

I cannot trust the democ-rat party when my RKBA is at stake. To vote against Bush to 'send a message' is very likely counter productive, and could see a precipitous loss of Second Amendment rights in a short time.,
particularly if the Democrats could gain a majority in both houses.

I remember Dick Lugar from when he was Mayor of Indianapolis; he is no friend of the Second Amendment:mad: .


************************************************************"A war on terrorism is no excuse to savage the bill of rights."
************************************************************

We are in complete agreement!

Of course we'll never know for sure, but my feeling is that Democrats would have done much the same given the circumstances, no doubt with heaps of new 'homeland security" anti-gun measures thrown into the bargain.

One priority for all of us from whatever place on the political spectrum is to work to remove/gut the Patriot Act.
Ill-conceived and poorly debated, but both parties supported it.:mad:

If you enjoyed reading about "Dean Slammed Over Confederate Flag Comment (gun related)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!