Fall of the Confederate Wall - Confederate Symbols Debate (Merged)

[Grand Vol]

I didn't forget about this post by the way, so I'll address your points...

So, the following about that:

1.The right of a state to secede is a contentious one. It's not nearly as clear-cut as many of you on here typically make it out to be. Post-Civil War rulings have suggested that it's not a right unilaterally, and that a majority of states need to agree to it (which I can abide by, halfway, at least, depending upon context and circumstances).

Now, like I said, this is post-War, so if you want to criticize such rulings for anti-secessionist/anti-Southern bias, then that's fair.

If you recognize when those judgments were issued as well as the fact they could have been anti-Southern in nature, you know that's very likely the reason why. It's easy to enforce such laws on a nation (as it might be) that you defeated. Just like the Germans and Japanese having to abide by the surrender agreements after WWII, this is not that much different. "You can't leave the United States because we say so." That speaks more to a pure power gain than anything else.

I will remind such critics, however, to be very mindful of capital and geography, two things that often go unnoticed when passions run deep. A) The US was not about to let the Mississippi basin, its source of shipping and agricultural power go; and, B) The South had no actual capital. It was merely a loose confederation of wealthy slave-owners who honestly, despite how bad the Reconstruction South was, would have led us (Southerners, my family included) into serious ****-hole-dom, had they won. I'm glad they didn't.

And you pretty much confirm my previous point here. Greed, not some political ideal, was forefront at bringing the Confederacy back into the Union. And as to the South not having capital, you are partially correct. But at the same time, they had the raw materials needed by the industries in the North. Just like there are no iron ore mines in Detroit right now, there were no plantations in the North at that time and they relied on goods brought in from the South (tariff free I might add) or having to pay world market prices for them.

If you think the South is a bunch of moochers now (which it is, per capita), then you ought have seen the welfare state or chaos/in-fighting bunch of **** it would have turned into had the South one. Without any mineral or energy resources from the interior of the US (which most likely would have been shut off after independence), and with mixed foreign relations as a result, it would most likely have ended up either a failed state or a European whorehouse.

But that's just my educated opinion.

Which Buck has since debunked and I'll leave it alone as he did a far better job than I did.

2. Working off that last part, concerning foreign influence, any secessioner had better not underestimate that. The US is a strong conglomerate that keeps foreign domination out, despite the ****ty Chinese products our corporations sell us for cheap.

The US wasn't a major power at the time. At all. And it took another 40 years before we were able to exert our influence on a global scale. So this whole "foreign domination" thing is kind of moot. Who would have wanted to invade at that time? Mexico? They were still licking their wounds from the previous entanglements with the US. Canada or more specifically the UK? Too involved in European affairs. Take the timeline into consideration rather than the global climate of today.

To answer the babel of a question specifically, yes, hell, secede. I want officially stop you performing such actions, although the Federal government may.

If you want to form your own country in the interior, say, or in the Pacific Northwest, say, or in the South, say, go for it.

And the real point becomes "can or should the Federal Government try to stop secession?" And in turn, other than pure ego or a power grab, why would anyone try to stop such a thing?

But know this. Passions aside, you would be limiting your industrial and resource base. Further, you're the one who is going to have to work out resource and water rights treaties with the rest of the US/****hole fragmented secessionist country. Good luck with that. States already have a hard enough time doing such things with the Federal government trying to aid.

Already answered in Buck's post.

Further, like I alluded to above, you risk weakening your country endeavor, and turning it into a whorehouse for a European or Asian power to maintain dominance over.

And my last point, which has nothing to do about the legitimacy of secession but has everything to do with the points I mention above. Should someone attempt to secede, it weakens my country in the process. Whether it's mineral, water, or energy resources, shipping lanes or airspace. So I will fight anyone who attempts to weaken my country.

So it's power mongering then.

Currently, the US is no where in any shape to warrant what I would consider a legitimate secession (hell, half the secessionists are still in the South, which mooches the most federal money!). Nor do I foresee it being in that kind of shape as long as we all maintain our commitment and our checks and balances.

Moochers is silly and you know it. This is a sad argument from you.

Despite its flaws, which prove inherent in any system, whether the system be a country's political operative, an engine's cylinders, or a computer's long-term networking capacity, the US is one hell of a system. It's one fine-tuned machine. People on here ***** and moan about everything under the sun, because they're whiners, but the US is a healthy organism overall. Its economy is going to need some health soon, partly due to Southern states mooching off of it without putting enough back in, but it will survive. Its institutional organisms are very strong.

And utopia does not exist. That's fairy tale bull****.

Okay, think about this. Say we fragment into geographically distinct nations. Texas and the Heartland, the West Coast, the North and South. And think of the typical attitudes of said States that might make up such new nations. You speak of economics as if the Federal Government does any good in that department. Now think of say Texas and the central States unbridled by Federal Regulations, unions and things like the EPA. And implementing a fair tax across the board without all the loopholes currently in place. Would that be:

A. Better for their economies
B: Worse for their economies
C: The same as it was before

Think about a reset of all the rules and regulations that industry currently operates under. And think about how unions have killed industries. And think about a legislative, executive and judicial system that doesn't have the special interests embedded as we currently have. One great reset button. Sure, over time they can establish a foothold again. But at the same time, the pause of being out of the picture can get real work accomplished.

You say you love your country. As do I. But I'm also one of those "moochers" you speak of that draws a military pension every month. And damn right I do as I earned that ****ing right over twenty years, nine deployments and a lot of advanced mileage along the way. I love my nation, but I also have come to realize we have overregulated ourselves into stagnation. This country didn't become great because the EPA decided the Greater Rocky Mountain Spotted Farting Mouse had to be protected at all costs. It became great because someone said "I will do this" and built this nation to the most preeminent power humans have ever seen. Not "yes we can" and turn around to serve special interests. But rather the will and desire to build great things and see a people rise to the challenge. They didn't build this nation by saying "that work is beneath me and should be reserved for illegal aliens." They rolled up their sleeves and did it themselves. They didn't say "we should pursue surrender talks to the Germans and Japanese since we don't have a military capable of defeating them." They went out and kicked them in the balls in their front yard. They didn't say "we can't go to the moon." They said "we will go to the moon" and ****ing did it.

And that's something this nation has lost. We have lost our way in short and lost our desire to do great things. All the while mired in political infighting, special interests and government regulation. So yes, a new nation that secedes from the United States, whether it be one or a dozen States, does have the advantages of being able to start from scratch once again. You claim a hostile power will take them over and make them a whore. I say I trust in the same spirit that made this country great to persevere over a hostile power as we've proven time and time again.

You say you love your country and would fight to keep it together. I love my country too and would fight against tyranny and a power grab from those who are the forefront of the problems we face today from the oligarchy in power. And that's what this nation has become, a pure and simple oligarchy.

 

[hog88]

^^^ :spank:

 

[red butler]

 

[volprof]

I didn't forget about this post by the way, so I'll address your points...



If you recognize when those judgments were issued as well as the fact they could have been anti-Southern in nature, you know that's very likely the reason why. It's easy to enforce such laws on a nation (as it might be) that you defeated. Just like the Germans and Japanese having to abide by the surrender agreements after WWII, this is not that much different. "You can't leave the United States because we say so." That speaks more to a pure power gain than anything else.



And you pretty much confirm my previous point here. Greed, not some political ideal, was forefront at bringing the Confederacy back into the Union. And as to the South not having capital, you are partially correct. But at the same time, they had the raw materials needed by the industries in the North. Just like there are no iron ore mines in Detroit right now, there were no plantations in the North at that time and they relied on goods brought in from the South (tariff free I might add) or having to pay world market prices for them.



Which Buck has since debunked and I'll leave it alone as he did a far better job than I did.



The US wasn't a major power at the time. At all. And it took another 40 years before we were able to exert our influence on a global scale. So this whole "foreign domination" thing is kind of moot. Who would have wanted to invade at that time? Mexico? They were still licking their wounds from the previous entanglements with the US. Canada or more specifically the UK? Too involved in European affairs. Take the timeline into consideration rather than the global climate of today.



And the real point becomes "can or should the Federal Government try to stop secession?" And in turn, other than pure ego or a power grab, why would anyone try to stop such a thing?



Already answered in Buck's post.



So it's power mongering then.



Moochers is silly and you know it. This is a sad argument from you.



Okay, think about this. Say we fragment into geographically distinct nations. Texas and the Heartland, the West Coast, the North and South. And think of the typical attitudes of said States that might make up such new nations. You speak of economics as if the Federal Government does any good in that department. Now think of say Texas and the central States unbridled by Federal Regulations, unions and things like the EPA. And implementing a fair tax across the board without all the loopholes currently in place. Would that be:

A. Better for their economies
B: Worse for their economies
C: The same as it was before

Think about a reset of all the rules and regulations that industry currently operates under. And think about how unions have killed industries. And think about a legislative, executive and judicial system that doesn't have the special interests embedded as we currently have. One great reset button. Sure, over time they can establish a foothold again. But at the same time, the pause of being out of the picture can get real work accomplished.

You say you love your country. As do I. But I'm also one of those "moochers" you speak of that draws a military pension every month. And damn right I do as I earned that ****ing right over twenty years, nine deployments and a lot of advanced mileage along the way. I love my nation, but I also have come to realize we have overregulated ourselves into stagnation. This country didn't become great because the EPA decided the Greater Rocky Mountain Spotted Farting Mouse had to be protected at all costs. It became great because someone said "I will do this" and built this nation to the most preeminent power humans have ever seen. Not "yes we can" and turn around to serve special interests. But rather the will and desire to build great things and see a people rise to the challenge. They didn't build this nation by saying "that work is beneath me and should be reserved for illegal aliens." They rolled up their sleeves and did it themselves. They didn't say "we should pursue surrender talks to the Germans and Japanese since we don't have a military capable of defeating them." They went out and kicked them in the balls in their front yard. They didn't say "we can't go to the moon." They said "we will go to the moon" and ****ing did it.

And that's something this nation has lost. We have lost our way in short and lost our desire to do great things. All the while mired in political infighting, special interests and government regulation. So yes, a new nation that secedes from the United States, whether it be one or a dozen States, does have the advantages of being able to start from scratch once again. You claim a hostile power will take them over and make them a whore. I say I trust in the same spirit that made this country great to persevere over a hostile power as we've proven time and time again.

You say you love your country and would fight to keep it together. I love my country too and would fight against tyranny and a power grab from those who are the forefront of the problems we face today from the oligarchy in power. And that's what this nation has become, a pure and simple oligarchy.

You put a lot of thought into this post. I appreciate that.

I'm still not quite sure what I just read, other than that power play dynamics are what make secession legitimate, which is what you accuse me of for defending against secession.

But, anyhow. I wouldn't expect much else from this site, quite frankly.

Carry on with your day.

 

[volprof]

Apparently, according to Grand, this Buckingham character is your latest god.

Buckingham, I'm going to give you credit. You provided a much better counter to my arguments than most around here are capable of. For that, you should be saluted.

Your statistics from the conservative Cato think tank, which don't take into consideration raw consumption, are questionable.

I admit they made me think quite a bit though and even question some of my own assumptions. So you did well in that aspect, at least.

Velo, who typically goes ignored on this site - why, I have no clue; only thing I can figure is he's sane, unlike the rest of our posters, including myself - posted a day or two ago a raw statistics graph.

Look, I don't hate the South, but I think it's a very misguided region, often fueled by poor education and raw hate and resentment. If the US were a terrorist rich breeding ground, like the Middle East, the South would be the lead.

This isn't necessarily the people of the South's fault. It's an agriculturally rich region traditionally, but with few mineral resources (despite central Appalachia, which, in turn, is not agriculturally rich). This often means less outside influx and more insulation. As a result, the South often thinks itself under attack when outside "intrusion" occurs.

Luckily, we have enough wealth in this nation and in the South and enough legitimate institutions to keep things honest and relatively successful.

Further, understand that I'm a native Southerner. I know Southerners. I know the South. I'm not some Californian outsider, which you seem to think, that's coming in here to lecture you all.

Lastly, don't ever equate me or my beliefs (I'm not a liberal, by the way - rather, I'm a moderate) with Stalin. That's a very cheap trick and not very well-thoughout, and I didn't appreciate it very much.

Thank you.

 

[Grand Vol]

You put a lot of thought into this post. I appreciate that.

I'm still not quite sure what I just read, other than that power play dynamics are what make secession legitimate, which is what you accuse me of for defending against secession.

But, anyhow. I wouldn't expect much else from this site, quite frankly.

Carry on with your day.

Take your meds and reread it. It might make more sense when you're clear headed.

 

[volprof]

Take your meds and reread it. It might make more sense when you're clear headed.

Bud, I typically like you on here, and despite your recent little spat of anti-volprof posting, I still do, but if you keep this up you're going to get on the wrong side of me.

Just like Buckingham associating my thinking with that of Stalin's, it's a cheap trick, one that merely scores you some simple brownie points on here with your other VolNation buds (kind of like the dentist who killed Cecil sipping scotch with his buds and bragging about it), and I'm getting tired of it.

Look, I know passions get the best of us on here very often. They certainly do me. But I have not taken a personal shot at any of you (certainly not you), other than general job duties (mostly in response to the constant criticism I get for my own job duties from said posters). And I even retracted and apologized for that. I know it wasn't right, and I admitted I made a mistake.

Could you please behave like a man and stop making light of me? I'm tired of it. Grow up. I would expect better from a military man, but I guess not. You're just like the rest of us.

Get over yourself, sir.

 

[volprof]

And there's a question about debt and secession. Should those upset with the debt, or having to carry bigger burdens, etc., be allowed to secede should they choose.

I basically answered that in my previous posts, but I realize that it may have been lost in translation.

To answer the question simply, I don't know. I honestly don't know. Like I argued in my previous posts, I think it is a very context-specific decision. I can't offer an all-encompassing answer, as some of you seem to desire.

As I've discovered, it is very rare when an all-encompassing answer can meet the needs of everyone for an extended amount of time. Often, it proves very limited and short-lived.

Like I said before, if a state should choose to act upon such a dilemma, it had better consider all of its bases (geographic position, water rights, agriculture, mineral resources, industry capability, foreign relations potential, airspace rights, educational capacities, constitutional capacities, etc.) and not just act upon a myopic economic decision that may prove successful short-term but a failure long-term.

I hope this finally answers the apparent question. I honestly don't know how else to answer it.

 

[Obsessed]

Bud, I typically like you on here, and despite your recent little spat of anti-volprof posting, I still do, but if you keep this up you're going to get on the wrong side of me.

Just like Buckingham associating my thinking with that of Stalin's, it's a cheap trick, one that merely scores you some simple brownie points on here with your other VolNation buds (kind of like the dentist who killed Cecil sipping scotch with his buds and bragging about it), and I'm getting tired of it.

Look, I know passions get the best of us on here very often. They certainly do me. But I have not taken a personal shot at any of you (certainly not you), other than general job duties (mostly in response to the constant criticism I get for my own job duties from said posters). And I even retracted and apologized for that. I know it wasn't right, and I admitted I made a mistake.

Could you please behave like a man and stop making light of me? I'm tired of it. Grow up. I would expect better from a military man, but I guess not. You're just like the rest of us.

Get over yourself, sir.

"Wrong side of you"?

I bet Grandvol won't sleep a wink over that....

He's going to be so sad.

 

[Grand Vol]

Bud, I typically like you on here, and despite your recent little spat of anti-volprof posting, I still do, but if you keep this up you're going to get on the wrong side of me.

Just like Buckingham associating my thinking with that of Stalin's, it's a cheap trick, one that merely scores you some simple brownie points on here with your other VolNation buds (kind of like the dentist who killed Cecil sipping scotch with his buds and bragging about it), and I'm getting tired of it.

Look, I know passions get the best of us on here very often. They certainly do me. But I have not taken a personal shot at any of you (certainly not you), other than general job duties (mostly in response to the constant criticism I get for my own job duties from said posters). And I even retracted and apologized for that. I know it wasn't right, and I admitted I made a mistake.

Could you please behave like a man and stop making light of me? I'm tired of it. Grow up. I would expect better from a military man, but I guess not. You're just like the rest of us.

Get over yourself, sir.

Long winded way of avoiding the questions I posed. I have not taken a cheap shot at you either however crazy your posts have been as of late. If you can't debate the points I bring, don't reply. Simple really. And I really don't give a flying monkey **** if I end up on the "wrong" side of you. You think you're that special?

Get over myself? Try getting over whatever has possessed you as of late to act like a complete douche.

 

[volprof]

Long winded way of avoiding the questions I posed. I have not taken a cheap shot at you either however crazy your posts have been as of late. If you can't debate the points I bring, don't reply. Simple really. And I really don't give a flying monkey **** if I end up on the "wrong" side of you. You think you're that special?

Get over myself? Try getting over whatever has possessed you as of late to act like a complete douche.

What questions of yours have I not answered, sir?

 

[red butler]

And there's a question about debt and secession. Should those upset with the debt, or having to carry bigger burdens, etc., be allowed to secede should they choose.

I basically answered that in my previous posts, but I realize that it may have been lost in translation.

To answer the question simply, I don't know. I honestly don't know. Like I argued in my previous posts, I think it is a very context-specific decision. I can't offer an all-encompassing answer, as some of you seem to desire.

As I've discovered, it is very rare when an all-encompassing answer can meet the needs of everyone for an extended amount of time. Often, it proves very limited and short-lived.

Like I said before, if a state should choose to act upon such a dilemma, it had better consider all of its bases (geographic position, water rights, agriculture, mineral resources, industry capability, foreign relations potential, airspace rights, educational capacities, constitutional capacities, etc.) and not just act upon a myopic economic decision that may prove successful short-term but a failure long-term.

I hope this finally answers the apparent question. I honestly don't know how else to answer it.

Seceding states should take their share of the debt based on population. Then, they should pull an Iceland and write the debt off while issuing their own debt free currency backed by a commodity.

Of course in my dream scenario most of the US secedes, leaving only parts of NE and west coast in the USA. There wouldn't be a significant population left in those regions with the gumption to try to invade the seceding states.

 

[volprof]

Seceding states should take their share of the debt based on population. Then, they should pull an Iceland and write the debt off while issuing their own debt free currency backed by a commodity.

Of course in my dream scenario most of the US secedes, leaving only parts of NE and west coast in the USA. There wouldn't be a significant population left in those regions with the gumption to try to invade the seceding states.

Ah. God, why did you have to post this. I hope it's just a matter of momentary bravado.

I like you, but why?

Iceland? Seriously? Iceland? It's a ****ing island in the middle of nowhere, with a population less than the least populous US state that is only made feasible because North America and Europe treat it as such.

Don't go this route, Red. Please don't.

I've posted at least 3 or 4 times now how a seceding country on the North American continent, particularly within the US, needs to take into consideration resource rights (I'm abridging this only because I've posted this numerous times now), including minerals and water. Ocean access? Legal rights and constitutions? Air space? Military? (Heck, I haven't even mentioned the latter yet, despite all the other obvious factors as to why to avoid secession.)

Why do you secessionists keep ignoring these factors?

You act like seceding from the union is just some sort of game, that, once won, will benefit all.

You couldn't be any further from the truth.

Don't go over to the hateful crowd, Red. You actually care about people and things, and not just power. Come back.

 

[Grand Vol]

What questions of yours have I not answered, sir?

I do hate quoting myself as it's such a Ras thing to do...

If you recognize when those judgments were issued as well as the fact they could have been anti-Southern in nature, you know that's very likely the reason why. It's easy to enforce such laws on a nation (as it might be) that you defeated. Just like the Germans and Japanese having to abide by the surrender agreements after WWII, this is not that much different. "You can't leave the United States because we say so." That speaks more to a pure power gain than anything else.

Agree or disagree?

And you pretty much confirm my previous point here. Greed, not some political ideal, was forefront at bringing the Confederacy back into the Union. And as to the South not having capital, you are partially correct. But at the same time, they had the raw materials needed by the industries in the North. Just like there are no iron ore mines in Detroit right now, there were no plantations in the North at that time and they relied on goods brought in from the South (tariff free I might add) or having to pay world market prices for them.

Agree or disagree that times have certainly changed since then and the South had "capital" more than anything?

The US wasn't a major power at the time. At all. And it took another 40 years before we were able to exert our influence on a global scale. So this whole "foreign domination" thing is kind of moot. Who would have wanted to invade at that time? Mexico? They were still licking their wounds from the previous entanglements with the US. Canada or more specifically the UK? Too involved in European affairs. Take the timeline into consideration rather than the global climate of today.

Which major world power at the time would have made the South their *****?

And the real point becomes "can or should the Federal Government try to stop secession?" And in turn, other than pure ego or a power grab, why would anyone try to stop such a thing?

Self explanatory question. Other than maintaining power or a bruised ego of failure, what other reasons could there be for trying to stop a State (or States) from leaving the Union today?

Moochers is silly and you know it. This is a sad argument from you.

More of a statement rather than a question. But certainly worth repeating.

Okay, think about this. Say we fragment into geographically distinct nations. Texas and the Heartland, the West Coast, the North and South. And think of the typical attitudes of said States that might make up such new nations. You speak of economics as if the Federal Government does any good in that department. Now think of say Texas and the central States unbridled by Federal Regulations, unions and things like the EPA. And implementing a fair tax across the board without all the loopholes currently in place. Would that be:

A. Better for their economies
B: Worse for their economies
C: The same as it was before

I even gave you a multiple choice on this one. Or you could answer "D" and write in your own answer.

Think about a reset of all the rules and regulations that industry currently operates under. And think about how unions have killed industries. And think about a legislative, executive and judicial system that doesn't have the special interests embedded as we currently have. One great reset button. Sure, over time they can establish a foothold again. But at the same time, the pause of being out of the picture can get real work accomplished.

Agree or disagree.

The remainder was a rant that you don't (won't) need to reply to. And why are you trying to quash any posts that are contradictory to yours? Red put together a decent post, his opinion, but obviously you don't like it when others voice something contrary to what you believe. Is your position on the matter so tenuous that any attempt at a rational debate is a threat to the house of cards you built?

 

[Vol8188]

Seceding states should take their share of the debt based on population. Then, they should pull an Iceland and write the debt off while issuing their own debt free currency backed by a commodity.

Of course in my dream scenario most of the US secedes, leaving only parts of NE and west coast in the USA. There wouldn't be a significant population left in those regions with the gumption to try to invade the seceding states.

Seriously? I've never heard of anyone who seriously believed we should just all start over. **** America! It's time to start fresh.

I know our country has its problems, but such an extreme solution is unnecessary.

 

[red butler]

Ah. God, why did you have to post this. I hope it's just a matter of momentary bravado.

I like you, but why?

Iceland? Seriously? Iceland? It's a ****ing island in the middle of nowhere, with a population less than the least populous US state that is only made feasible because North America and Europe treat it as such.

Don't go this route, Red. Please don't.

I've posted at least 3 or 4 times now how a seceding country on the North American continent, particularly within the US, needs to take into consideration resource rights (I'm abridging this only because I've posted this numerous times now), including minerals and water. Ocean access? Legal rights and constitutions? Air space? Military? (Heck, I haven't even mentioned the latter yet, despite all the other obvious factors as to why to avoid secession.)

Why do you secessionists keep ignoring these factors?

You act like seceding from the union is just some sort of game, that, once won, will benefit all.

You couldn't be any further from the truth.

Don't go over to the hateful crowd, Red. You actually care about people and things, and not just power. Come back.

I'm not ignoring anything... I just think the things you mentioned aren't as big as you. My confederacy has ocean access by way of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean (I'm sure California would also open trade routes to the pacific in exchange for water). I like our current constitution and legal rights, but I'd repeal the 16th and 17th amendment. Airspace would follow the same rules as every other sovereign nation. Military might be tricky, but I'm guessing most of it would stay with the new confederacy, as most military members and veterans hail from the seceding states.

If the old union states tried any funny business, I'd simply cut off the major population centers with my massive army. Within 9 days they'd be eating each other.

 

[red butler]

Seriously? I've never heard of anyone who seriously believed we should just all start over. **** America! It's time to start fresh.

I know our country has its problems, but such an extreme solution is unnecessary.

Lol. I'm not really saying start over. If you look at the regions I'm suggesting should secede, I'm really just isolating NY, Philly, Seattle, and SoCal. Based on county maps of national elections, most of the progressive policies that are destroying our country generate their support from a handful of densely populated cities.

 

[Herman Hickman]

Apparently, according to Grand, this Buckingham character is your latest god.

Buckingham, I'm going to give you credit. You provided a much better counter to my arguments than most around here are capable of. For that, you should be saluted.

Your statistics from the conservative Cato think tank, which don't take into consideration raw consumption, are questionable.

I admit they made me think quite a bit though and even question some of my own assumptions. So you did well in that aspect, at least.

Velo, who typically goes ignored on this site - why, I have no clue; only thing I can figure is he's sane, unlike the rest of our posters, including myself - posted a day or two ago a raw statistics graph.

Look, I don't hate the South, but I think it's a very misguided region, often fueled by poor education and raw hate and resentment. If the US were a terrorist rich breeding ground, like the Middle East, the South would be the lead.

This isn't necessarily the people of the South's fault. It's an agriculturally rich region traditionally, but with few mineral resources (despite central Appalachia, which, in turn, is not agriculturally rich). This often means less outside influx and more insulation. As a result, the South often thinks itself under attack when outside "intrusion" occurs.

Luckily, we have enough wealth in this nation and in the South and enough legitimate institutions to keep things honest and relatively successful.

Further, understand that I'm a native Southerner. I know Southerners. I know the South. I'm not some Californian outsider, which you seem to think, that's coming in here to lecture you all.

Lastly, don't ever equate me or my beliefs (I'm not a liberal, by the way - rather, I'm a moderate) with Stalin. That's a very cheap trick and not very well-thoughout, and I didn't appreciate it very much.

Thank you.

Unless you are one of our "Wilsonian overlords," then it wasn't a direct reference to you. Your fault is in believing without question those with a political animosity against the flyover country in general and the Southeast in particular.

What annoys me is that you bought it hook, line, and sinker, accepting the line as if it served as some confirmation of your own feelings regarding your native region.

You didn't look any further; you simply ran with the mythology of a mooching South feeding off the productivity of the nation. In a thread about the Confederate Battle Flag, you referred to Southern mooching three separate times. When referenced against actual welfare programs, as researched by the Center for Immigration Studies, the assertion simply doesn't hold up.

You may claim otherwise. But within your earlier posts there exists an intense amount of cultural self-loathing. After reading your last post from yesterday, I had an image of someone who is so desperate to fit in that he hides his background and tries to pass himself off as just another good old NOCAL leftist. He hides his accent, his culture, and nods his head in acceptance as his friends talk about his home as if it were populated by rednecks with sisters for spouses and lifetime memberships in the KKK. No doubt he hides any display referencing his diploma from the University of Tennessee. That just wouldn't impress his neighbors. Must not look like one of them. Must not talk like one of them. Must not display any evidence that you are one of them. You generally came off as a cultural Dolezal.

Two points to consider...

You don't have to be a flag-waving SCV member to believe people in the antebellum South had different reasons for choosing to secede. What motivates Jefferson Davis to secede is not what drives Patrick Cleburne or the farmer in the Alabama Wiregrass. What drives Ernest Hollings or Lester Maddux to put a rebel flag on state grounds is not the same reason John Doe from the South places one on the grave of his Great-Great Grandfather. One should be allowed to remember their ancestors in the way they please without the left moving heaven and earth to deny them that right.

The attempt by the left to project the values and beliefs of the CSA's political leadership upon modern conservatives in this region demonstrates the real purpose behind the drive for censorship. This isn't so much about the need to recognize the history of the Confederacy as it is the need to broad-brush and demonize those who disagree with your President and his actions in the here and now.

I'm an East Tennessean with a near 100% Unionist heritage. I'm not going to purchase CSA anything at any point in my life. But I share a culture with those whose ancestors were on the other side of the conflict and it is my belief that they should have the absolute right to remember their ancestors as they see fit regardless of where memorials or grave markers are to be found. They should have full access to purchase symbols and products aiding in that remembrance of their past.

The problem I have with regard to the main topic of this thread is that the politicians you tend to support do not share that belief. It is not enough to pull down a Confederate Battle Flag whose main purpose at a state building was to protest the advance of Civil Rights for Black Southerners. The Executive and his political party also want to deny access to others who have far different reasons for flying a battle flag.

 

[Grand Vol]

I do hope the new god didn't mind me invoking his name like I did. Or shortening it for ease of typing.

 

[Herman Hickman]

I do hope the new god didn't mind me invoking his name like I did. Or shortening it for ease of typing.

All good. You've got to keep your words to a minimum in order to beat me to that fantastic government cheese all us racist Southerners receive from the largesse of Barry Soetoro.

:hi:

 

[Herman Hickman]

Perhaps the left in this nation bases the allegations of mooching on the wonderful American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009:

John Lott's Website: Did Stimulus dollars go to states with more Democratic Congressional delegations? (Recovery.gov February 17, 2009, and December 31, 2011)

It includes this nice table...

Damn Southerners!

 

[joevol33]

I hate seeing things posted that insinuates the south is good for some stuff, but not as educated. What makes the north smarter? Because more of us are religious, hunt, fish, care about our neighbors? That goes for white, black, Asian, etc. Because Harvard and such aren't here? Maybe you should read some news stories from these "smarter" people. Half my family lives up north, and I've been up around some of these people. There are a lot of northerners who live here in Georgia. I'll tell you one thing, from the ones I've met and worked with, southern folk have more common sense. Should I judge all northern folk on that, and say "they're book smart, but stupid"? No I shouldn't. All people in the south aren't uneducated, toothless hillbillies.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

I hate seeing things posted that insinuates the south is good for some stuff, but not as educated. What makes the north smarter? Because more of us are religious, hunt, fish, care about our neighbors? That goes for white, black, Asian, etc. Because Harvard and such aren't here? Maybe you should read some news stories from these "smarter" people. Half my family lives up north, and I've been up around some of these people. There are a lot of northerners who live here in Georgia. I'll tell you one thing, from the ones I've met and worked with, southern folk have more common sense. Should I judge all northern folk on that, and say "they're book smart, but stupid"? No I shouldn't. All people in the south aren't uneducated, toothless hillbillies.

:thumbsup: roger that tomcat.

 

[jp1]

I hate seeing things posted that insinuates the south is good for some stuff, but not as educated. What makes the north smarter? Because more of us are religious, hunt, fish, care about our neighbors? That goes for white, black, Asian, etc. Because Harvard and such aren't here? Maybe you should read some news stories from these "smarter" people. Half my family lives up north, and I've been up around some of these people. There are a lot of northerners who live here in Georgia. I'll tell you one thing, from the ones I've met and worked with, southern folk have more common sense. Should I judge all northern folk on that, and say "they're book smart, but stupid"? No I shouldn't. All people in the south aren't uneducated, toothless hillbillies.

You forgot toothless MOOCHING hillbillies.

 

[Herman Hickman]

Maybe our Coastal betters are referencing the Ex-Im Bank regarding all those Southern welfare queens stealing from hard-working Democrats....

Errrr...guess not.