[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

"Gestapo" Müller - Hunting Hitler's Secret Police Chief

How Michelle Obama Could Become Democrats' Nominee after Biden's Terrible Debate, with Steve Bannon

Was This Lethal Spitfire Ace Killed by His Own Tactics?

Welsh Police Pay Home Visit To Man For Displaying Reform UK Political Sign

Liz Harrington Drops a BOMBSHELL on How Georgia Was Stolen

Trudeau govt to make all bathrooms in Parliament buildings GENDER NEUTRAL

French official admits censorship is needed for government to control public opinion

Bill Maher Predicts Trump Victory: The Left Is Aggressively Anti-Common Sense

Google is suppressing Blaze Media. Heres how you can help.

Large-scale prisons being secretly erected in all 50 states will they be used to house illegals or force Americans into concentration camps?

Hezbollah is ready to confront Israels military, with Jon Elmer

Balloons Land in Southern Lebanon, Warning Locals the Land Belongs to Jews

German Politician Hit With Hate Crime Investigation For Demanding Migrant Criminals Be Deported

DNC Caught Funneling Millions to Law Firms Involved in Unprecedented Lawfare Campaign Against Trump

Here Are The 20 Biggest Whoppers Biden Told During His Debate With Trump

NYC to ban cellphones in public schools.

New York Times Columnists Turn On Biden After Disastrous Debate Performance

8 Armed Men With Venezuelan Accents Violently Rob Denver Jewelry Store

Uvalde Police School Chief Indicted, Arrested Over Response To 2022 Shooting

Greetings from the Horse

Tonight confirmed every Democrats worst fear.

Five Women Soon To Die In 1928

How Trump Can Lose The Debate

Tucker Carlson Savagely Dismantles ‘Dumb’ and ‘Stupid’ Far-Left Reporter at Australian Freedom Conference

James Clapper, Mr. October Surprise: How Obama's Intel Czar Rigged 2016 And 2020 Debates Against Trump

Biden Campaign Balks Wont Commit to Drug Test

S-500 Prometheus: Designed To Kill Stealth Jets, ICBMs

The US military chases shiny new things and the ranks suffer

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Now in the Med, USS Theodore Roosevelt Heads to the Middle East

Lefties losing it: Rita Panahi mocks Democrat judge acting like a ‘confused simpleton’


National News
See other National News Articles

Title: FREE SPEECH HATERS PISSING THEIR PANTS - FLORIDA - Thousands ride in support of Confederate flag at Marion County complex
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.ocala.com/article/20150712/ARTICLES/150719928?tc=cr
Published: Jul 12, 2015
Author: By Kristine Crane
Post Date: 2015-07-12 23:36:41 by HAPPY2BME-4UM
Keywords: CONFEDERATE, CONFEDERATE FLAG, FIRST AMENDMENT, FREE SPEECH
Views: 728
Comments: 102

An estimated 2,000 vehicles, mostly motorcycles and trucks adorned with Rebel flags, took part in a rally and ride Sunday afternoon in support of keeping a Confederate flag flying in front of the McPherson Governmental Complex in Ocala.

The event was organized by David Stone, of Ocala, and was called the Florida Southern Pride Ride. Police officials estimated participation at a couple thousand vehicles.

The ride started about 1 p.m., and by 1:30 p.m. could be seen winding its way through Ocala.

Participants were wearing shirts that said “heritage not hate” and talked of defending a way of life rooted in Southern traditions.

Danny Hart, of Dunnellon, had two Confederate flags and the American flag in the back of his truck. He pointed out that the U.S. flag was flying higher and said that he had come to participate in the ride to “defend freedom.”

Another ride participant, Rick Hart, said, “It's a history thing. The flag is also a military flag. It's not a race symbol.”

Phil Walters, a member of the Confederate Sons of America, felt compelled to attend to defend history against what he calls “intellectual dishonesty.” Walters said the NAACP's 1991 resolution “abhorring the Confederate Battle Flag” has set the tone for conflict and hatred.

“According to the U.S. Congress, Confederate veterans are war veterans,” said Walters, whose branch of the Sons is named for Judah P. Benjamin, the Jewish secretary of state under Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

“The South was fighting for states' rights, and the Northern slaves were freed after Southern slaves. Slavery is a guilt across the human race.”

A replica of the General Lee from the 1979-85 “The Dukes of Hazard” TV show led the way during the ride, followed by motorcycles and then pickup trucks. The ride was expected to be 17 miles total and loop back to parking lots north of the city on North U.S. 441.

Ocala Police Department Sgt. Erica Hay said the ride was rerouted away from the Northwoods neighborhood after some residents threatened to shoot into the procession.

The ride was organized to support the Marion County Commission's decision Tuesday to return the Confederate flag to a historical display in front of the McPherson Governmental Complex. The flag had been removed after a massacre at an African-American church in Charleston. The suspected shooter is a white supremacist who was photographed with Confederate flags.

Two small protests were held last week at the county complex in opposition to the Confederate flag — which many see as a symbol of racial hatred.

On Sunday, a few black people participated in the ride. One of them, Renee Gore, 34, of Dunnellon, said that to her the flag means “heritage, love and family.”

Another black person, Dwayne Webb, 23, of Ocala, said he came specifically “to show people (the flag) is not about prejudice and hate.” For Webb, the flag represents “good living, respect, and honesty,” things that he associates with the South.

Webb participated in the ride with his friends, also in their twenties. “I got goose-bumps (during the ride),” said Mike Ponticelli, 29, also of Ocala. They were hanging out in a parking lot with several of the other participants after the ride's conclusion.

“We were standing up for what we believe in: manners and common courtesy towards all people, no matter who you are,” Ponticelli said.

“It's a positive movement,” Webb added.

A handful of people who view the flag as a sign of disrespect also showed up at the ride, holding signs that explained why they are against the flag flying in front of a governmental building.

Laila Abdelaziz, 23, who came to the rally from Tampa, held a sign with a quote from one of the flag's defenders in the 1860s, whose defense of the symbol was rooted in white supremacy.

“What if your heritage is rooted in hate?” Abdelaziz said. “You have to confront that.”

Abdelaziz, who was born in Palestine and came to the U.S. with her parents as a child, said she is very familiar with dynamics of hatred. “I know what hatred does to people,” she said. “America has to confront the fact that someone younger than me killed people out of hatred.”

Abdelaziz said she also came to protest the ride to speak for another part of Ocala, where her parents live and she also lived for some time.

“This (ride) does not represent all of Ocala,” Abdelaziz said.

In the aftermath of the Charleston killings, too much emphasis has been placed on the flag, she added. “Dylann Roof held the flag in one hand, and a gun in the other. We've heard more about the flag than the gun control problem in America.”

On Sunday evening, Awake Marion, in conjunction with the NAACP, held a meeting at the Second Bethlehem Baptist Theological Seminary in Ocala. About 75 people attended the meeting, where they discussed how to express their disagreement with the County Commission's decision to raise the Confederate flag. Draft copies of a letter to the Board of County Commissioners were handed out.

The organizers also announced that a peaceful sit-in to protest the flag will take place Wednesday at 9 a.m. at the south end of the McPherson Governmental Complex. The sit-in is being sponsored by Brown Memorial Funeral Home. (8 images)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-29) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#30. To: war (#28)

The Yankees had been plenty intransigent, grasping, exploitative, abusive, arrogant and tyrannical, just as they were once the war was over -- vastly beyond all proportion. Their behavior was communist in everything but name and had the open backing of Marx himself. A New York newspaper thoughtfully carried his writings on the subject!

Southern states left gradually on realizing they had no choice due to the above factors. Everybody knows Lincoln was proud of manipulating Dixie into firing the first shot, everybody knows an emotionally hysterical racial abolitionism heavily drove the Union to war despite Lincoln's sometime protestations to the contrary -- one of the reigning hypocrisies of history. Julia Ward Howe called it "the glory of the coming of the Lord" -- psychiatrists would call it PROJECTION on a cosmic scale.

The Yankee Problem in America
archive.lewrockwell. com/wilson/wilson12.html

The Union League: Washington's Klan
books.google. com/books/about/The_Union_League.html? id=yv8GtwAACAAJ&hl=en

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-07-15   9:56:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: NeoconsNailed, war (#30)

Comrade Abraham: Was President Lincoln a Closet Marxist?

U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY

HAPPY2BME-4UM  posted on  2015-07-15   10:05:21 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#31)

Happ, you are a never-ending magic genie of good stuff! Yeah, Ape was as race- obsessive as Obongo in his own sanctimonious way. I remember the episode of Disney's Wonderful World of Color where they introduced an audio-animatronic statue of Ape spouting that very "The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty" business. Of course we baby boomers just drank it cluelessly in as the most absolute, ultimate in amerikan greatness.

Where has that page BEEN all my life? It's Christmas in July!! I really wish more people knew about 4um, but everybody's totally into Twitter, FB etc...... "To secure each laborer the whole product of his labor" -- uh, is this the same president that gave us our first income tax, which Congress promptly shot down as un-Constitutional? That must be the "as nearly as possible" part, an otherwise very strange thing to say.

Lots of Ape's most beloved humanitarianistic quotes are FAKE.

isp.netscape.com/whatsnew...? name=fte/lincoln/lincoln

There used to be a Lincoln Never Said It site, wonder where it went. He was rightly hated and derided for the aberration he was during his lifetime. Thanks for nothing, Booth!!

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-07-15   10:21:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: war (#29)

Reference the Declaration of Independence.

Where is that referenced in the United States Constitution?

The 9th and 10th Amendments.

the states which negotiated the USCON agreed that only 9 were needed for the Union...

The secessionist States agreed in violation of the Articles of Confederation:

[T]he Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

On the other hand, Article VII of the proposed Constitution stated that it would become effective after ratification by a mere nine states, without unanimity

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-07-15   11:29:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: GreyLmist (#33)

The 9th and 10th Amendments.

I've read them several times and never was the Declaration of Independence referenced. And the Declaration was a culmination of a meeting of the WHOLE of The People...not one delegation.

There is a difference between a Confederation and a Republic. As is mentioned in the A/I the Union was to be perpetual. The Preamble of the USCON clearly states that the Union was to be *more* Perfect. I can't see any track of logic that leads me to believe that a Perpetual Union, made more perfect, was one that could be negated by one member.

--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...

war  posted on  2015-07-16   7:25:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: GreyLmist (#33)

On the other hand, Article VII of the proposed Constitution stated that it would become effective after ratification by a mere nine states, without unanimity

And only enforceable between those states...

--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...

war  posted on  2015-07-16   13:41:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: war (#34)

The 9th and 10th Amendments.

I've read them several times and never was the Declaration of Independence referenced. And the Declaration was a culmination of a meeting of the WHOLE of The People...not one delegation.

The 9th and 10th Amendments encompass all rights reserved to the States and the people, including: "it is their right, it is their duty" to throw off Despotic Government and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The Declaration was a culmination of Patriots who understood their God-given natural right to secede from despotic government without the permission of it. Loyalists to the Crown weren't of that view, so their consultations were soon no longer considered as admissable.

There is a difference between a Confederation and a Republic. As is mentioned in the A/I the Union was to be perpetual. The Preamble of the USCON clearly states that the Union was to be *more* Perfect. I can't see any track of logic that leads me to believe that a Perpetual Union, made more perfect, was one that could be negated by one member.

It's arguable that the secession of States from the Articles of Confederation wasn't because it was a despotic form of government but because it was more of a wartime provisional system that was too legislature-centralized. A more Perfect Perpetual Union would not be one that's despotically forced to be unfreely amalgamated.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-07-16   15:02:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: war (#35) (Edited)

On the other hand, Article VII of the proposed Constitution stated that it would become effective after ratification by a mere nine states, without unanimity

And only enforceable between those states...

Yes, that is correct...those secessionist States. Edit to add: And they were agreeable to substantially downsizing the Union to form and implement their own government. No war was fought over it; just a diplomatic separation of the States and their jurisdictional powers of governance.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-07-16   15:03:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: GreyLmist (#36)

U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY

HAPPY2BME-4UM  posted on  2015-07-16   15:07:48 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#38)

A quote from Hall, a Loyalist

Sounds like he might be an ancestor of Gus Hall, who was a Chairman of the Communist Party USA.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-07-16   15:25:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: GreyLmist (#36)

As I understand it, the Declaration is considered higher law than the Constitution. Doesn't the "alter or abolish" clause answer this whole thing? Original intent shows freedom, not statism, was the default position in the minds of the founders. The whole weight of the past millennium of history is on that side, going back to "Þorgnýr the Lawspeaker"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-07-16   15:37:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: NeoconsNailed (#40) (Edited)

As I understand it, the Declaration is considered higher law than the Constitution. Doesn't the "alter or abolish" clause answer this whole thing? Original intent shows freedom, not statism, was the default position in the minds of the founders. The whole weight of the past millennium of history is on that side, going back to "Þorgnýr the Lawspeaker"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution

Right of revolution - Wikipedia

the right of revolution is the right or duty, previously stated throughout history, of the people of a nation to overthrow a government that acts against their common interests.

Liberty depended upon the people’s “ultimate” right to resist [despotic government]. ... This right implied a duty on the part of the people to resist

As Alexander Hamilton noted in 1775, government exercised powers to protect “the absolute rights” of the people and government forfeited those powers and the people could reclaim them if government breached this

nccs.net: The Declaration of Independence Part of American Law

"The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America.

"The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading 'The Organic Laws of the United States of America' along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance. Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the principles of the Declaration; in the Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, Congress authorized Oklahoma Territory to take steps to become a state. Section 3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution 'shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.' (Christianity and the Constitution, pp. 360-361)

What is the Alter or Abolish Clause? - YouTube [2.5 minutes]

Published on Jan 8, 2014

Constitutional scholar Dr. Edwin Vieira sits down with Gary Franchi and answers the question... What is the Alter or Abolish Clause?

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-07-16   16:18:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: GreyLmist (#41)

Riches, Grey!

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-07-16   16:33:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: NeoconsNailed, greylmist (#40) (Edited)

As I understand it, the Declaration is considered higher law than the Constitution. Doesn't the "alter or abolish" clause answer this whole thing?

=============================================

The Constitution is 'higher,' including all of the amendments thereto which are still in effect. That would include the Bill of Rights which is not a separate document but part of that Constitution.

The reason for the importance of the Constitution can be found in the preamble where it states that the document was created to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity.

The Declaration of Independence was more influential since it was the first instance where a people asserted that they were in charge, not some king.

The bill of rights is important BUT it is part and parcel of the constitution AND as recently noted in the Heller decision, the Bill of Rights does NOT give any rights, it gives limitations on government for certain rights which we belive all people to HAVE by virtue of being living human beings. The constitution was not ratified until the Bill of Rights was added and would not exist without it BUT our rights WOULD!

The Declaration of independence has no legal power or authority.

U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY

HAPPY2BME-4UM  posted on  2015-07-16   17:32:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#43)

Amen.

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken

Lod  posted on  2015-07-16   18:15:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#43)

But the Constitution was only witnessed, not signed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Treason

In any case, we've closed the case. This is supposed to be a free country, and every indicator says that any union is based on voluntary association -- the individual model applied to the corporate.

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-07-16   21:07:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: NeoconsNailed (#42) (Edited)

Riches, Grey!

Glad you found those resources at #41 to be useful, NN. The video speaker, Dr. Edwin Vieira, is an excellent and voluminous reference guide for Patriot studies of Constitutionality issues, sound money matters, American Government History to the present and also regarding the imperative Revitalization of America's Constitutional State Militias in accordance with our Founders' directives for properly securing our nation's Freedoms.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-07-17   12:39:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: GreyLmist (#46)

Vieira's well known -- Freedom to Fascism etc. Great man, been at it forever.

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-07-17   12:52:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: NeoconsNailed (#45)

the Constitution was only witnessed, not signed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Treason

???

United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Signatories: 39 of the 55 delegates

74 delegates were named, 55 attended and 39 signed.

Its final version was taken up on Monday, September 17, at the Convention's final session. Several of the delegates were disappointed in the result, a makeshift series of unfortunate compromises. Some delegates left before the ceremony, and three others refused to sign. Of the thirty-nine signers, Benjamin Franklin summed up, addressing the Convention: "There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them." He would accept the Constitution, "because I expect no better and because I am not sure that it is not the best."

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-07-17   13:00:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: GreyLmist (#48) (Edited)

"In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names"

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Rather odd, isn't it? Can you think of anything else "signed" that way? Sly dogs!

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-07-17   14:14:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: NeoconsNailed (#49)

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Rather odd, isn't it? Can you think of anything else "signed" that way? Sly dogs!

List of signers of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Pic: Part of page four of the Constitution, showing the signatures of the delegates

That's all I have time to research and post about that for today. When I can resume, it will most likely be after I've archived some info on the Corwin Amendment.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-07-17   15:58:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: GreyLmist (#36)

The 9th and 10th Amendments encompass all rights reserved to the States and the people, including: "it is their right, it is their duty" to throw off Despotic Government and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The Framers' intent was to create a government wherein *change* or revolution was accomplished through debate...i.e. warring with words and argument...

And keep your eye on the ball here, the tariff argument doesn't fly because, as of 1856, they were actually lower and narrower than what was passed in the 1820's...so...if your future *security* is dependent upon the power of a state government to forcibly enslave human beings then I submit that is hardly a *security* worth saving and perpetuating...

The Declaration was a culmination of Patriots who understood their God-given natural right to secede from despotic government without the permission of it.

The Declaration was a *culmination* of the realization that the colonists would never be granted a say in how they were governed. The Southern States suffered under no such yoke and, in fact, FREELY entered in to an agreement that bound them to the rules of the Republic.

What happened is, that as time progressed on the Republic, what they wished to preserve was no longer tenable.

They were also Creator given which, to some I am sure, including Jefferson, could have meant nothing more than having been born. Atheism was hardly unknown in the 18th century and Deism/Unitarianism was a way of being so without saying so.

It's arguable that the secession of States from the Articles of Confederation wasn't because it was a despotic form of government but because it was more of a wartime provisional system that was too legislature-centralized. A more Perfect Perpetual Union would not be one that's despotically forced to be unfreely amalgamated.

That is very well stated and I have to say, again, that I really admire how it is that you write.

This is an open question of history: What would have happened had Annapolis failed or had 9 states not ratified? Would the States have continued to operate under the Articles and tried again? Would the US have fractionated in to 13 Republics or Commonwealths?

But when we look, again, at history, we know that it took an actual trail. In 1860, there were 33 states that, again, FREELY entered in to the United States. They FREELY agreed to a the form of government that they all knew could either advance some practices or end them.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 (3/5's of all other persons) ADVANCED the notion that the South would be best served by INCREASING the slave population.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 (slave trade) was a timebomb/poison pill that slave states KNEW could go off or be activated any time after 1808.

And anyone who had anything to do with Founding or Framing the Confederation and then the Republic, KNEW that the question of slavery was going to be an open ended one that would be debated until either made permanent or ended.

Every slave state knew this when they FREELY entered into the United States...

--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...

war  posted on  2015-07-18   10:19:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: NeoconsNailed (#40)

I would submit that the Declaration is a statement of principles without force of law but a force on the law...

--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...

war  posted on  2015-07-18   10:20:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: war (#51)

And keep your eye on the ball here, the tariff argument doesn't fly because, as of 1856, they were actually lower and narrower than what was passed in the 1820's...so...if your future *security* is dependent upon the power of a state government to forcibly enslave human beings then I submit that is hardly a *security* worth saving and perpetuating...

The question isn't whether it was lower in 1856 but whether tariffs (and other gouges) were still punishing. I don't happen to have the figures handy, but it's academic in view of "alter or abolish".

We've already busted up the slave angle. You look a bit ridiculous trying to form a moral argument against the Confederacy -- there isn't any.

The so-called draft riots were in fact a rebellion against Mr. Lincoln's War that stretched all the way over to Ohio. New Yorkers showed what they thought of abolition (and racial equality) by hanging negroes in the streets of NYC. Yeah, negroes, "Martin Luther" King's word for them.

The north and South were two completely different societies from the beginning, notably thanks to the narcissistic, messianic, tyrannical New Englanders. The two "sections" as they were called then were no more meant to be glued together forever than the Beatles were (four wildly different personalities that consistently showed through and often clashed during their decade as a unit). If you think Southern secession was wrong you should be calling for the Virginias to be rejoined.

Yankee oppression persists today in the Voting Rights Act and many other ways. Their vicious hate campaign against the South never lets up and only increases. "Martin" said the difference between Birmingham and Boston was that Boston would never change. Yankees are collectively incapable of moderation or reason and the Southern states were still paying them for Mr. Lincoln's war into the 1950s. Yankees are in fact psychotic as a group and the world needs to recognize this fast. Why did the Underground Railroad end in Canada? Because yankees refused to have the slaves they had freshly liberated enter their states.

I say yankees meaning the evil kind of northerner, but not all northerners, obviously, since many have always been fine people despite mostly being diversity-delusional.

"Connecticut's long and profitable complicity in slavery" -- complicity, nothing!
The Plantation Next Door
www.courant.com/news/spec...rtsep29-story.html#page=1

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afr..._Ground_National_Monument

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-07-18   11:30:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: NeoconsNailed (#53)

You look a bit ridiculous trying to form a moral argument against the Confederacy -- there isn't any.

It's not moral to enslave human beings.

Period.

--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...

war  posted on  2015-07-18   14:33:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: war (#54)

You look a bit ridiculous trying to form a moral argument against the Confederacy -- there isn't any.

It's not moral to enslave human beings.

Period.

I meant a special case, obviously. You lose!

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-07-18   22:01:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: war, 4 (#54)

Moral, or not, slavery has been part and parcel of the human condition since our existence began; it continues around the world today in one form or another.

It's particularly pernicious here with all the welfare slavery going on.

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken

Lod  posted on  2015-07-18   22:12:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: war (#54)

It's not moral to enslave human beings.

Period.

So you are saying I am hereby absolved of any tax assessment which will be used to fund TANF/SECT-8/etc?

You see, I feel that paying lazy morons to sit on their asses while I work for a living upsets the fundamental fairness of the social contract.

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges - Tacitus

Dakmar  posted on  2015-07-18   22:37:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: Dakmar (#57)

I'm unclear as to what exactly is the "contract" between the makers and the takers.

Hep me out, please.

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken

Lod  posted on  2015-07-18   22:54:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: Lod (#58)

Haven't you ever heard of Newt Gingrich's Contract On America?

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-07-18   22:56:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: Lod (#58)

I'm unclear as to what exactly is the "contract" between the makers and the takers.

Therein lies the problem, it is ever changing, depending on the political will and whims of a parasitic ruling elite.

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges - Tacitus

Dakmar  posted on  2015-07-18   23:01:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: NeoconsNailed (#55)

I meant a special case, obviously. You lose!

I don't know what that is supposed to mean.

As I stated, the *tariff* meme was BS...the South had effectively thwarted keeping slavery out of new territories...it had prevailed in Dred Scot...prior to Lincoln, it had 4 years of the second dumbest man to ever hold the office of POTUS (he was number one until 2001)...

The fact is, there was no moral reason for the Southern States to attempt to secede...

--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...

war  posted on  2015-07-20   14:48:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: Dakmar (#57)

So you are saying I am hereby absolved of any tax assessment which will be used to fund TANF/SECT-8/etc?

Taxation isn't slavery...

--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...

war  posted on  2015-07-20   14:49:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: war (#61) (Edited)

You do know what it's supposed to mean -- your attempt to pin special slavery guilt on the South is up in smoke, because the north was equally guilty or much more so. And since you're playing such a silly game over it, still pretending not to get it, I see no point in taking these subjects further with you.

If you're getting paid by the post or word, me so solly......

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-07-20   15:38:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: war (#62)

Taxation isn't slavery...

Consent to be governed is not acquiescence to tribute, you creepy little man.

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges - Tacitus

Dakmar  posted on  2015-07-20   19:16:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: Dakmar (#64)

Ha -- you got that right! Try to get through if you like, but casuistry cannibalizes ratiocination.

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-07-20   23:31:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: Dakmar (#64)

Consent to be governed is not acquiescence to tribute, you creepy little man.

That is exactly what it IS...more so when the final decision is made by and among ourselves. You don't want to be taxed...fine...make a better argument as to why you shouldn't be...

--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...

war  posted on  2015-07-21   6:59:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: NeoconsNailed (#63)

You do know what it's supposed to mean...

Sorry...but I really do not.

attempt to pin special slavery guilt on the South is up in smoke

I don't need to attempt to do it...history has already done so...

So the csA becomes the CSA...read their proposed constitution...take all of their supposed gripes that the *industrialized* North allegedly did to them (even though the nation was overwhelmingly agrarian at the time including the North) out of the equation when does slavery end? The fact is, the csA constitution made slavery permanent.

--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...

war  posted on  2015-07-21   7:04:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: war (#67)

The fact is, the csA constitution made slavery permanent.

The union made slavery permenate too. Double check your thriteenth amendment , their shall be no slavery EXCEPT as a term of punishment. We dont have the largest prison population in the world for nothing. And when the governmnet feels entitled to tax your home or how many miles you drive , well thats another form of slavery too ...

______________________________________

Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.

titorite  posted on  2015-07-21   7:14:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: NeoconsNailed, All (#50)

Your posted reference:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Your posted archives.gov reference, activated:

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

America's Founding Fathers - Delegates to the Constitutional Convention

From the listed signers after Article VII:

The Founding Fathers: South Carolina
J. Rutledge
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney [info at that site]
Charles Pinckney [info at that site]
Pierce Butler

You: Rather odd, isn't it? Can you think of anything else "signed" that way?

My posted Wikipedia references:

List of signers of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia [Rhode Island sent no delegates.]

Pic: Part of page four of the Constitution, showing the signatures of the delegates [after Article VII]

South Carolina [names written near lower left corner of the Pic]
15 John Rutledge
16 Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
17 Charles Pinckney
18 Pierce Butler

Some excerpts for both Pinckney signatories from Charleston, SC, linked above at #s 16 & 17:

16 Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (February 25, 1746 – August 16, 1825)

represented South Carolina at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. ... advocated that African American slaves be counted as a basis of representation. ... played a key role in requiring treaties to be ratified by the Senate and in the compromise that resulted in the abolition of the Atlantic slave trade. ... [Reference notation] "The Third Amendment and the Issue of the Maintenance of Standing Armies: A Legal History," American Journal of Legal History (1991), volume 35, p. 393: Elbridge Gerry...proposed that the Constitution contain express language limiting the size of the standing army to several thousand men. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, ostensibly at the instigation of Washington, responded that such a proposal was satisfactory so long as any invading force also agreed to limit its army to a similar size. ... In 1789, President George Washington offered ["C. C."] Pinckney his choice of the State Department or the War Department; [He] declined both. When Washington offered [him] the role of Ambassador to France in 1796, Pinckney accepted. ... Castle Pinckney in Charleston Harbor, completed about 1810, and an earlier fort on the same site, were named for Charles C. Pinckney.

17 Charles Pinckney (October 26, 1757 – October 29, 1824)

an American politician who was a signer of the United States Constitution ... was first cousin once removed of fellow signer Charles Cotesworth ["C. C."] Pinckney. ... was an ancestor of seven future South Carolina governors. ... well after the War for Independence had begun, young Pinckney enlisted in the militia (though his father demonstrated ambivalence about the Revolution). ... When Charleston fell to the British the next year, [he] was captured and held as a prisoner until June 1781. ... Pinckney's role in the Constitutional Convention is controversial. ... South Carolina had established Protestantism as the state religion, so it was interesting that he introduced a clause into the Constitution article VI in opposition to an established state religion. His "no religious test" clause [...] passed with little opposition and so for the first time in history an official of a national government was not required to have a religion. ... Jefferson appointed Pinckney as Minister to Spain (1801–05). He tried but did not succeed in gaining cession by Spain of the Floridas to the United States. He facilitated Spanish acquiescence in the transfer of Louisiana from France to the United States in 1803 by the Louisiana Purchase.

"American Civil War" - Wikipedia

April 12, 1861 – May 9, 1865

Juneteenth - Wikipedia

a holiday that commemorates the announcement of the abolition of slavery in Texas in June 1865, and more generally the emancipation of African-American slaves throughout the Confederate South. Celebrated on June 19 ... On June 18, 1865, Union General Gordon Granger arrived at Galveston Island with 2,000 federal troops to occupy Texas on behalf of the federal government. On June 19, standing on the balcony of Galveston's Ashton Villa, Granger read aloud the contents of "General Order No. 3", announcing the total emancipation of slaves

Clementa C. Pinckney - Wikipedia

Clementa Carlos "Clem" Pinckney (July 30, 1973 – June 17, 2015)

a Democratic member of the South Carolina Senate, representing the 45th District from 2000 until his death. As a state senator, Pinckney pushed for laws to require police and other law enforcement officials to wear body cameras after Walter Scott, an unarmed black man, was shot eight times in the back by a police officer in North Charleston. ... He was previously a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives from 1997 through 2000. Pinckney was a senior pastor at Mother Emanuel A.M.E. in Charleston. On June 17, 2015, Pinckney was assassinated in a mass shooting at an evening Bible study at his church. U.S. President Barack Obama delivered the eulogy at Pinckney's memorial in his honor. ... Pinckney's name is in honor of the baseball player Roberto Clemente of the Pittsburgh Pirates ... During his eulogy, multiple friends and family pronounced his first name as "Clemen-tay". ... Pinckney's father's family, the Pinckney family based in the Beaufort, South Carolina area, could possibly be descendants of slaves owned by Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, who was instrumental in framing the United States Constitution.

Pinckney was a member of Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity. He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree from Allen University in 1995 and went on to obtain a Master of Public Administration degree from the University of South Carolina in 1999. He then obtained a Master of Divinity degree from Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary. Pinckney was a student at Wesley Theological Seminary pursuing a Doctor of Ministry degree. ... Pinckney preached in Beaufort, Charleston, and Columbia. ... He became pastor of Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, South Carolina in 2010. ... Pinckney spent the earlier part of his last day, June 17, 2015, campaigning with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in Charleston. That evening, he led a Bible study and prayer session at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, where he was senior pastor. A 21-year-old shooter, suspected to be Dylann Roof, opened fire on the congregation, killing Pinckney and eight others.

On June 24, 2015, there was a public viewing ... in the rotunda lobby of the State Capitol Senate Chamber where Pinckney served in the South Carolina legislature ... Public viewings were held at St. John AME Church in Ridgeland, South Carolina, and Mother Emanuel in Charleston, South Carolina. A funeral was held on June 26, 2015, at the College of Charleston in TD Arena, which was filled up to maximum capacity, necessitating a viewing center with a video feed at the Charleston Museum. President Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and Jill Biden, among many other politicians and public figures, attended the funeral, with Obama giving the eulogy. During the eulogy, Obama sang the opening line of "Amazing Grace".

As a result of the shooting, in July 2015, the South Carolina Legislature put forth a bill to take down a Confederate flag that had been flown in front of the statehouse by state law since 2000 and move it to the Confederate Relic Room and Military Museum. Pinckney's widow attended the session during the final vote to thank her husband's colleagues for their support. The bill was passed

Reference: #51. Obama, Barack (June 26, 2015). "Remarks by the President in Eulogy for The Honorable Reverend Clementa Pinckney" (PDF). The Post and Courier. Retrieved June 26, 2015.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-07-21   14:39:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: titorite (#68)

And when the governmnet feels entitled to tax your home or how many miles you drive ..

==========================================

Mileage taxation was JUST PASSED in Oregon two weeks ago.

U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY

HAPPY2BME-4UM  posted on  2015-07-21   15:05:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (71 - 102) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]