I agree with your current position as it reflects my own. I do not agree with your last position which you have now amended.
...Now I don't want to go into the topic of people flying black-white-red. They are idiots anyway, by default.
Then I guess you aren't very distressed.No worries... I am always distressed when I see people engaging in activities that they do not support, hence the advice to all.
This one works better for you actually. The only advice I need to follow is "don't respond to people who clearly haven't read the thread they just posted in".More advice: Seeking clarification next time might easily avoid such unpleasantness in the future.
I see no difference between waving the Confederate flag and waving the Imperial German battle flag.
Do you find both problematic?
I believe Germans who wave black-white-red are usually well aware that most people immediately associate the not so nice periods in German 20th century history with it. So when they decide to wave it despite this common understanding of the symbolism, it's usually a clear statement.
This makes for a fairly good analogy for what's going on with the Confederate flag here. It's often hung by people who are using it to symbolize their ancestry or something similarly uncontroversial. Then there are those mix those personal things with revisionism. I personally think most fall into the latter category to some degree.Sorry if that's too off-topic, but I believe it's remotely related to the topic:
I have seen people here in Germany flying the flag of the former East German communist dictatorship GDR. Usually, they are idiots. Nostalgics who had a nice youth in the GDR, but became victims of the economic transformation after Reunification 1990, now unemployed and so on.
Now there is nothing wrong with being nostalgic (who doesn't want the good old times back, sometimes? And of course you can have a good life, even in a bad system), and it is nothing necessarily wrong with being critical of our current system, or the way Reunification was handled -- but I believe you can well hold these opinions, without at the same time justifying Berlin Wall, persecution of dissidents and shooting orders at the border. But many mix personal nostalgia with political revisionism. The latter makes them idiots.
Now I don't want to go into the topic of people flying black-white-red. They are idiots anyway, by default.
So, which rights and priveleges granted by the first ten amendments initially applied to Blacks ? (at the time that these amendments were added)white supremacy was not one of the ideals of the Founding Fathers.
Were all Germans Nazis? Did they all support the Holocaust?
So, which rights and priveleges granted by the first ten amendments initially applied to Blacks ? (at the time that these amendments were added)
Oh, and when you're done listing them, please provide some credible evidence. This should be good. :lol:
Were all Germans Nazis? Did they all support the Holocaust?
Leave now.This thread has gotten so stupidified that I'm confused now.
Agreed. :thumbs:This thread has gotten so stupidified that I'm confused now.
This one works better for you actually. The only advice I need to follow is "don't respond to people who clearly haven't read the thread they just posted in".
Eh, I was more talking about the people who have no idea what they wrote and then backtrack when they realize they've said something stupid. Those guys are the worst.Yeah, I won't bother responding to those that clearly have no idea what they have just read yet reponded anyway next time...
That was good advice. Thanks...
Then I guess you aren't very distressed.
Were all Germans Nazis? Did they all support the Holocaust?
Well, if you had read the thread instead of posting in it before doing so (as I've continually warned you you've done), you would know that I changed my opinion on that and a few other things during its course.For the 2nd Time:
...how can you agree that a symbol's meaning, by it's very nature, is dependent on the viewer yet stick to your initial statements that the CF is a symbol of racism and all that? The two seem quite contradictory...
They claim is that it was really about tariffs and railroads and the Northern disrespect for the Constitution particularly as it relates to tariffs. This is ridiculous as South Carolina who was the main state who opposed the Tariff of 1828 (which is the tariff in question) and it listed ONLY slavery and the North's hostility towards slavery as its reason for secession in its official declaration of secession.
It goes back further than that. The articles are a very condensed version.Yes, all the seceding states made it quite clear what their reasons were in their articles of secession, for anyone to read.
It goes back further than that. The articles are a very condensed version.
That is true, the problem is that when they speak of other abuses those trying to make the "slavery only" argument like to point to it's prominence within the articles, they conveniently omit that the prominence came because slavery was the last issue, not the only one.Okay...but they're still quite clear.
Well, if you had read the thread instead of posting in it before doing so (as I've continually warned you you've done), you would know that I changed my opinion on that and a few other things during its course.
Let's turn things around a little: is the Confederate flag a symbol of patriotism for and loyalty to, the United States?
Precedent is a horrible idea, and its by itself is NOT legally binding, idiot. It is the court cases decisions themselves that is LEGALLY binding, you ****ing dullard. Second, people have argued against court opinions, and in extension their decisions since the beginning of the country. Hell, Madison himself, the ****ing author disputed a decision in his time. A decision even got a court justice removed because of how unfounded it was. Maybe you should learn your history for a change instead of just parroting bull**** with no real basis?
As for Playdrive demanding referencing, he can read the federalist papers or any other paper written on the topic, the clauses, etc by the founders. He is a dullard, just like you.
Not much. As you say, there are restrictions placed on member states in article I. If I miss your point, what is it?
Yes, that is in the nature of a sovereign state. Any sovereign state could make murder legal. However, I'm not sure how many sovereign states in the world actually make murder and rape legal.
On the grounds that it is absurd for the states' agent to be the judge of exactly what power it has over the states that created it. Also, their decision is not based on any of the enumerated powers delegated to the federation by the states.
Were dissolved and are no longer applicable.
Correct, every state in the union, per their agreement, must maintain a republican form of government. This restriction only applies to states actually in the union, not states that are not members of the union.
At the request of the governor of a state.
Or perhaps the commerce clause...
So, which rights and priveleges granted by the first ten amendments initially applied to Blacks ? (at the time that these amendments were added)
Oh, and when you're done listing them, please provide some credible evidence. This should be good. :lol:
trolololololol
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?