Dean Slammed Over Confederate Flag Comment (gun related)
- Thread starter BenW
- Start date
- Status
gburner
member
Game, set and match to 2 Dogs.....
AUTIGER04
member
He's not getting my vote anyway!!
Waitone
Member
<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>
Hey all you southerners out there! Don't vote like the gun-loving, Bible-thumping, gay-hating racists that you really are.
<Over>
AUTIGER04
member
gburner
member
Unfortunately, that's the Naval Ensign and not the Battle Flag. The Battle Flag is square with a white border around it.
AUTIGER04
member
Close enough. Its the only one that would download.
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
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.
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
member
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.
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.
Sean...
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
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
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
The seccession committies and the president of the Confederacy said, "slavery, slavery, slavery, slavery..." ad nauseum, and your conclusion is, "not about slavery."
Compelling.
Compelling.
Hutch
Member
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.
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.
w4rma
member
…
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
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
Member
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
member
"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.
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
member
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.
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
Member
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
Member
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.
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
member
Handout? No.
Better salaries and lower prices? Yes.
Lessen the handouts by us to the idle and transient wealthy? Yes.
Better salaries and lower prices? Yes.
Lessen the handouts by us to the idle and transient wealthy? Yes.
fallingblock
Member
Y'all must be talkin' Clintons here....
"Lessen the handouts by us to the idle and transient wealthy? Yes."
Or maybe the Kennedys?
Hopefully we're not doing another tedious "eat the rich-give the rest of us their money" threads ?
"Lessen the handouts by us to the idle and transient wealthy? Yes."
Or maybe the Kennedys?
Hopefully we're not doing another tedious "eat the rich-give the rest of us their money" threads
?
Last edited:
gburner
member
Econ 101
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.
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
Member
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
member
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?
Last edited:
- Status