patrick.net

marcus says

but I do believe that for many in the south it is about southern pride and about their culture which should not be boiled down to simply racist.

OK--I hear this often. Could you be a bit more specific? What exactly does the confederate flag represent besides racism. What "culture"? What are Southerners taking pride in that the flag represents?

Other parts of the country have slightly different cultures, but you don't see a Midwest flag representing their culture or a Southwest flag representing desert culture.

Dan8267 says

And things like voter suppression laws are unique to the south,

Voter ID is pretty much the standard for all of Europe and the civilized world.

How is it "progressive" to have 16th century voting standards or to facilitate the poor and old to continue to live off the grid without any reasonable form of ID?

socal2 says

Voter ID is pretty much the standard for all of Europe and the civilized world.

The intent of voter ID in the south is to prevent legitimate voters from voting. Voter ID could be done trivially here without preventing a single legitimate vote. However, all supporters of voter ID laws oppose such measures.

Voter ID could be
1. Made free as in beer. There should be no cost to the ID.
2. The IDs could be issued years before they are required to vote.
3. An election could be run where the ID is asked for but not required to see what the current compliance level is. Until compliance is near 100%, the ID should not prevent voting.
4. Even when ID is required, it should not prevent voting. Instead, the votes should simply be flagged so that the voter can be verified. Unless it is proven by the state that the vote is fraudulent, it should count.
5. If a person shows up without ID, the voting site should be able to issue the ID on the spot within minutes. This is the 21st century, the apex of the Information Age. Securely issuing voting IDs should be easy to do in real time. Whatever procedures are needed to issue a voter ID should not take more than seconds using computers and automation. If computers and automation aren't used, then the procedures are not secure and the ID is worthless.

So, why is it that the voter ID proponents object to any system that meets the above five criteria? If the actual intent was to prevent voter fraud, they wouldn't. They would only object if the intent was to prevent legitimate votes. And that is why the south, which is where all these voter ID laws have been proposed, is still racist. This is just modern Jim Crow. And the laws and procedures in Europe are not designed to prevent legitimate votes, so the comparison is invalid.

The fact is that conservatives would block any voter ID system that met the above criteria because it would increase voting by minorities, especially blacks, by making the process easier and on-boarding potential voters who aren't registered. Image if everyone over the age of 18 with a driver's license had to get a voter ID to continue using their driver's license. There would be a lot more registered voters, both minorities and young people, and that would devastate Republicans and the Tea Party in every election. And people like you would oppose that measure.

Dan you will never grasp voter id laws of you prejudge everything based through a lens of 16 year old socialist comedy show.

So unless we can drag every American human being into a court house and give them free ID's, we need to keep our election laws like a 3rd world banana republic?

That makes sense!

Besides, many States already offer free IDs.
https://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/25/dps-begin-offering-free-voter-id-cards-week/

You can not function in the 21st century without ID. But dumb "Progressives" like Dan want to keep people living in the shadows and provide no incentive to participate in society.

socal2 says

So unless we can drag every American human being into a court house

Who said anything about a court house? IDs can be easily issued at polling stations.

But, of course, your objection is to any system that does not prevent legitimate voters from voting.

socal2 says

You can not function in the 21st century without ID.

Many voters have IDs that aren't accepted under voter suppression laws. This includes veterans.

Again, you objection isn't to lack of ID, it's to lack of suppression. Giving IDs to all voters without stopping anyone from voting is a trivial problem to solve.

What possible objection could you have to the system I proposed other than it doesn't suppress votes?

Dan8267 says

What possible objection could you have to the system I proposed other than it doesn't suppress votes?

First - I don't trust politically run polling stations to issue ID's.

"These 11 Illinois Counties Have More Registered Voters Than Eligible Residents"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reboot-illinois/these-11-illinois-countie_b_8072078.html

Besides, why create yet another bureaucracy to issue separate ID's when we already have State organizations that provide this service?

Maybe if Illinois wasn't already bankrupt from paying union pensions, their DMV could afford to offer free ID's for the tiny percentage of "eager voters" who aren't capable of getting their own ID?

socal2 says

Besides, why create yet another bureaucracy to issue separate ID's when we already have State organizations that provide this service?

Inter-state voting fraud. Obviously any kind of national election needs to be managed at the federal level. Proposing a state-level ID law says you're not interested in alleged fraud in other states. So what's the motivation? Oh yeah, vote suppression.

It is clear from you posts that you are not in any way concerned about voter fraud and only concerned about rigging elections.

Dan8267 says

Inter-state voting fraud.

Whoa - so a Progressive admits that there IS voter fraud? That's progress I suppose....

But you still choose to not require State ID's arguing that a tiny fraction of American citizens who don't have the wherewithal to get an ID to function in society - so we need to keep our entire electoral system like a 3rd world banana republic?

socal2 says

Whoa - so a Progressive admits that there IS voter fraud? That's progress I suppose....

In person voting fraud is almost non-existence, 31 out of a billion cast ballots or 0.0000031%. In contrast, republicans ditching Ron Paul votes counted for thousands of times greater fraud. And even more cases of absentee ballot fraud.

And almost no general election race in recent history has been close enough to have been thrown by the largest example of in-person voter fraud on record.

That said, there have been examples of fraud, including fraud perpetrated through the use of absentee ballots severe enough to force new elections at the state level. But the slew of new laws passed over the past few years meant to address voter fraud have overwhelmingly focused on the virtually non-existent/unproven type of voter fraud, and not the still-not-common-but-not-non-existent abuse of absentee voting.

So anyone who really wanted to stop voter fraud would be concerned with absentee ballots, not in-person voting. Funny how voter ID advocates resist any effort to curtail absentee ballot fraud. Oh, that's because making it at all harder for absentee ballots would reduce the votes for Republicans. Total hypocrisy and lies.

Also, if you wanted to prevent in-person voting fraud, you'd have to do it at the federal level, not state level, because people could vote in different states if they were going to do in-person fraud. So once again, there is no justification for state-level IDs.

socal2 says

so we need to keep our entire electoral system like a 3rd world banana republic?

It's not. 31 in a billion ballots isn't even a rounding error. And that's across many elections.

It's obvious that the attempts to pass voter ID laws are designed to prevent far more than 31 legitimated ballots rather than any actual voting fraud. You, in particular, are transparent. Your false dichotomy cannot hide the clear fact that if you actually wanted to stop any voter fraud you would
1. Be calling to a ban on absentee ballots.
2. Be advocating the federal program I described above.

These two things would do far more to prevent voter fraud than any proposed ID law. They also wouldn't prevent legitimate votes. And there are absolutely no down sides to my proposal. The fact that you aren't cheering this proposal as the great solution proves beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise, that you don't want to stop voter fraud, you want to commit voter fraud by denying people their right to vote. And that makes you a scumbag.

But hey, prove me wrong by promoting the mechanism I proposed above. Write your congressman. Make YouTube videos promoting this proposal. Start a freaking petition on the White House petition page.

marcus says

I'll think about trying to ask that difficult, but also somewhat stupid question (in my opinion), if you answer a few questions for me fist.

No thanks. I didn't think it was that difficult.

I'll just say this-the flag represents the Confederacy which absolutely was about racism. Certainly you can see how honoring it seems to honor racism.

tatupu70 says

I'll just say this-the flag represents the Confederacy which absolutely was about racism.

This sounds really stupid to me.

tatupu70 says

Certainly you can see how honoring it seems to honor racism.

Yes, I can see how it would seem that way to some. Then again I can see how some might say all republicans are racists, or all liberals are homosexuals. It just depends on how stupid you want to get.

Another liberal with blind hate for Southerners.

marcus says

tatupu70 says

I'll just say this-the flag represents the Confederacy which absolutely was about racism.

This sounds really stupid to me.

That's not really an argument. Please post about all the things that the Confederacy was about, if not racism.

marcus says

Yes, I can see how it would seem that way to some. Then again I can see how some might say all republicans are racists, or all liberals are homosexuals. It just depends on how stupid you want to get.

Another liberal with blind hate for Southerners.

See, here's where you're wrong. I have nothing against Southerners. I know many, many folks from the South that understand history and find the Confederate flag repugnant. Southerners aren't racist-people that honor the Confederate flag (whether from Alabama or Minnesota) are racists (or idiots that don't understand history).

socal2 says

These 11 Illinois Counties Have More Registered Voters Than Eligible Residents"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reboot-illinois/these-11-illinois-countie_b_8072078.html

Besides, why create yet another bureaucracy to issue separate ID's when we already have State organizations that provide this service?

Maybe if Illinois wasn't already bankrupt from paying union pensions, their DMV could afford to offer free ID's for the tiny percentage of "eager voters" who aren't capable of getting their own ID?

That's funny. I guarantee that those 11 Illinois counties voted strongly Republican last election. Probably 80% R.

So maybe it's Republicans that are the epicenter of voter fraud.

tatupu70 says

That's not really an argument. Please post about all the things that the Confederacy was about, if not racism.

I didn't say it was an argument. You don't respond to arguments, and you don't want to know what I think or why you're wrong. You want to tell me how simple and easy to understand my perspective should be for you to comprehend. I did put some effort into writing some questions that would help you understand a little.

IF you had said the flag was about slavery it would have been more accurate, than to say it was about racism. But to the typical guy fighting for the confederacy it was about having the right to keep their way of life and not being told by the north how they had to change and when.

tatupu70 says

I know many, many folks from the South that understand history and find the Confederate flag repugnant.

That's an outright lie that you pulled out of your ass. Unless you think not wanting it flown over the state capitol means they find it repugnant. Even then it's obvious that you made that up, thinking it sounds believable. Common Tat. I like to think liberals have integrity.

75% of white southerners say that the confederate flag is about Southern pride. Keep in mind this includes the fact that probably at least 50% of white southerners do not have roots that go back to the civil war.

marcus says

You don't respond to arguments

Why don't you try making an argument, and we'll see how it goes.

marcus says

IF you had said the flag was about slavery it would have been more accurate, than to say it was about racism. But to the typical guy fighting for the confederacy it was about having the right to keep their way of life and not being told by the north how they had to change and when

Not really--it was about the typical guy being told he couldn't own slaves. The North didn't say how often they had to bathe, what they should eat, or what kind of parties to host. Just that they couldn't own another human being. And forgive me, but I don't see a big difference between someone owning slaves and someone being a racist. I suppose it's possible for one to think it's OK to own another human being without thinking they are less than you, but I think it would be rare.

marcus says

That's an outright lie that you pulled out of your ass. Unless you think not wanting it flown over the state capitol means they find it repugnant. Even then it's obvious that you made that up, thinking it sounds believable. Common Tat. I like to think liberals have integrity.

75% of white southerners say that the confederate flag is about Southern pride. Keep in mind this includes the fact that probably at least 50% of white southerners do not have roots that go back to the civil war.

OK--this is ridiculous. It is most definitely not an outright lie. I DO know people in the South and they DO find the flag repugnant. Here's an short essay that sums up their view pretty well:

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/50239-not-all-southerners-fly-the-confederate-flag

How simple minded does a person have to be to think that if a southernor has some historical pride that it means they wish slavery still existed now ?

I wonder how many Southerners Tat thinks she knows who think that if the south had won the war, they wouldn't have had to end slavery within a couple decades anyway ?

In 1864, the Confederate States began to abandon slavery. There are some indications that even without a war, the Confederacy would have ended slavery. Most historians believe that the Confederacy only started to abandon slavery once their defeat was imminent. If that were true then we are to believe that the CSA wanted independence more than they wanted to hold on to slavery. The CSA’s highest ranking generals, Robert E. Lee and Joseph E. Johnston were not slave holders and did not believe in slavery. And according to an 1860 census, only 31% of families owned slaves. 75% of families that owned slaves owned less than 10 and often worked beside them in the fields. The Confederate Constitution banned the overseas slave trade, and permitted Confederate states to abolish slavery within their borders if they wanted to do so. Slavery wasn’t abolished until 1868, 3 years after the war. Thus Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware still had slaves.

http://listverse.com/2010/12/06/10-surprising-facts-about-the-confederacy/

marcus says

How simple minded does a person have to be to think that if a southernor has some historical pride that it means they wish slavery still existed now ?

You're completely missing the point again. My problem isn't with Southerners that are proud of some of the uniquely Southern foods, or colloquialisms like saying "Howdy". The issue is using a flag that is representative of slavery and shouldn't be celebrated.

And we can argue all day about whether the South would have eventually abandoned slavery--clearly they felt strongly enough about keeping it that they seceded from the Union and fought the Civil War. But, it's not important. You shouldn't be honoring the flag that represents slavery.

tatupu70 says

Not really--it was about the typical guy being told he couldn't own slaves. The North didn't say how often they had to bathe, what they should eat, or what kind of parties to host.

Now you're just trolling or else truly retarded. If you tell me one thing I have to do,, and I tell you you that I don't accept you telling me what I have to do, when did I imply that you were dictating to me all of my activities ?

tatupu70 says

And forgive me, but I don't see a big difference between someone owning slaves and someone being a racist.

That word racism wasn't even being thrown around then. But of course, if you owned slaves in 1840, and were okay with that conscience wise, then you must have felt either that blacks were inferior, or you felt there is this ugly business (slave trade - that the confederate constitution outlawed 20 years later) that had already brought many thousands of totally uneducated indigenous Africans into western civilization to work as slaves. Those totally uneducated Africans were already here, and had to do something. It's clear that most other white southerners (or all Americans) were prejudiced about them so the difficult question of what was to become of these people was not a trivial or easy question. Going along with slavery in the south at that time was kind of like going along with eating meat now, or going along with using iphones made by slave labor in China. IT was ugly that that slavery had even even happened, but most of our founding fathers participated. From the perception of an enlightened southerner, there was no way to instantly or easily undo slavery.

IF someone at that time thought that ending slavery was going to lead to a lot of difficulty for those black folks (they would have been right btw), and if they thought that at least for the time being, slavery was little worse or maybe even better for them than the frightening and probably very difficult road ahead for free blacks, that would have been an understandable point of view. It was based on what they know of human nature and the relative ignorance of everyone else.

But in any case, whether or not slavery in 1860 was racist, and regardless of ones simplistic interpretation of what that means if it was, it has nothing to do with now.

That is, people who honor the confederacy in any way or their ancestors who were in the confederacy, are not honoring slavery, any more than someone who honors the US flag is honoring terrible things that have been done by our country.

Again:
marcus says

75% of white southerners say that the confederate flag is about Southern pride. Keep in mind this includes the fact that probably at least 50% of white southerners do not have roots that go back to the civil war.

tatupu70 says

marcus says

How simple minded does a person have to be to think that if a southernor has some historical pride that it means they wish slavery still existed now ?

You're completely missing the point again. My problem isn't with Southerners that are proud of some of the uniquely Southern foods, or colloquialisms like saying "Howdy".

Actually you're missing the point. When I said "some historical pride" you have to know I wasn't referring to grits or saying "howdy" or "yes mam." Or maybe even now, I give you too much credit.

marcus says

Now you're just trolling or else truly retarded. If you tell me one thing I have to do,, and I tell you you that I don't accept you telling me what I have to do, when did I imply that you were dictating to me all of my activities ?

You didn't. Obviously. Just wanted to make clear that the ONLY thing the North was dictating was in reference to slaves.

marcus says

That is, people who honor the confederacy in any way or their ancestors who were in the confederacy, are not honoring slavery, any more than someone who honors the US flag is honoring terrible things that have been done by our country.

Bullshit. I'm back again to my original question that you never answered. What exactly are Southerners honoring with the Confederate flag, if not slavery. What else did it stand for?? You haven't argued that the South went to war for states rights or tariffs or any of the other nonsense, so I'm assuming you know that it was for slavery. The North wasn't trying to take away any other Southern culture except for slavery. So, wtf else could that flag stand for??

marcus says

Actually you're missing the point. When I said "some historical pride" you have to know I wasn't referring to grits or saying "howdy" or "yes mam." Or maybe even now, I give you too much credit.

OK great--I've asked a few times. What do you mean by "some historical pride"? Tell me what you mean and there won't be any misunderstandings.

I already attempted some explanation with the questions you refused to answer. We are talking about how people feel about things, which is nt always easy to break down into logic. You take a simplisitic approach that goes someting like this:

1)The South Seceded from the US mostly because of Slavery, their new country was called the confederate states.
2)THere was a huge war for independence (that the South lost) in which 100s of thousands were killed
3)SOmehow anyone who honors those who fought in the war on the side of the south, or has feelings about the confederacy, monuments or sculptures referencing confederate soldiers, or the Navy Jack Flag, is saying something about their current beliefs (150 years later) about relations between African Americans and white folk.

YOu haven't given anything close to a proof that #3 is true. But it's somehow on me to explain why it's not, by giving you logical explanations for how people feel about something.

I speak from my own ambivalence. I grew up in the north, but am descended from someone who died in that war on the side of the south. I have nothing but respect for my great great grandfather. The politics behind the war do not affect that respect for him any more than the fact that Washington and Jefferson were slave owners takes away from my respect for them.

Reading this might help, if you actually wanted to gain insight rather than only being about winning some stupid internet argument.

http://letterstotheeditorblog.dallasnews.com/2015/07/the-confederacy-slavery-wasnt-so-black-and-white-dont-destroy-the-past.html/

marcus says

1)The South Seceded from the US mostly because of Slavery, their new country was called the confederate states.

If by mostly, you mean entirely, then I agree.

marcus says

3)SOmehow anyone who honors those who fought in the war on the side of the south, or has feelings about the confederacy, monuments or sculptures referencing confederate soldiers, or the Navy Jack Flag, is saying something about their current beliefs (150 years later) about relations between African Americans and white folk.

Please forgive me for this analogy as I know the first person to bring up the Nazis loses the argument. But, couldn't you just as easily by your logic say it's OK to honor the swastika and statues of SS soldiers? They have respect for their ancestors and the fact that they were racist against Jewish people doesn't take away from their respect. But you don't see it because it's obvious that the flag represents a dark time in German history and is offensive to many people.

I'm not trying to win an argument any more than you are-I just don't understand your perspective--and you seem unwilling to answer even the simplest question.

tatupu70 says

and you seem unwilling to answer even the simplest question

I've actually tried pretty hard. Explaining emotions isn't easy. It's the same reason you cant prove #3 is correct. You didn't ever try. But I'm not going to act like a child about it.

SO I'm left to assume that you think the founding fathers, including Jefferson and Washington, were evil scumbags, because they owned slaves.

marcus says

It's the same reason you cant prove #3 is correct. You didn't ever try. But I'm not going to act like a child about it.

Good--I would expect that we could have an adult discussion about this issue. I thought I just did by way of an analogy. It seems to me that one who honors the Confederate flag is either ignorant of what it stands for, or is aware of what it stands for and believes in those same values.

What I don't understand is why people in the South try to associate their culture and heritage with that flag??

marcus says

SO I'm left to assume that you think the founding fathers, including Jefferson and Washington, were evil scumbags, because they owned slaves.

Why do you constantly try to tell me what I think--just make your point and let me say what I think. Obviously people have to be judged taking into account the norms of that time period. I think the fact that they owned slaves is not meaningless and does impact people's respect for them. But, they weren't perfect any more than any of us are. I wouldn't doubt that in 200 years, people will look poorly on some of the things society takes for granted now. But that's much different than what we're talking about. I'm talking about people today honoring a flag that represents the Confederacy.

Lester Flanagan had a Type A or B Personality Disorder, like many SJWs. "Persecution" complex.

That's my Psych 101 take :)

Don't forget the Southerners used the Supreme Court to impose THEIR will on the North. "Fugitive Slave Laws", or "my state's rights in your state too"

Also Border Ruffians.

tatupu70 says

Obviously people have to be judged taking into account the norms of that time period.

Ohhhhhhhh. I see. Thank you.

SO if I want to honor Jefferson and disregard that he owned a lot of slaves, that's okay with you ?

marcus says

Ohhhhhhhh. I see. Thank you.

SO if I want to honor Jefferson and disregard that he owned a lot of slaves, that's okay with you ?

Of course. Being a slave owner doesn't define his legacy.

marcus says

SO if I want to honor Jefferson and disregard that he owned a lot of slaves, that's okay with you. But if I honor people from 50 years later who fought and died to have the right to live exactly the way that Jefferson did, now we are no longer going to take into consideration "norms of that time period."

OK--I don't think you're following along very well. If you want to honor a person from the 1850s who fought in the Confederate Army and say that person wasn't defined by slavery--but was caught up in the times, I'm fine with that. I have never indicated otherwise.

marcus says

believe that you know, that honoring confederate monuments or flags, or dead ancestors that died in the war, in ones private life, says nothing about whether a person thinks we should have slavery now .

This is where we disagree. I think honoring confederate monuments and flags is offensive. The Confederacy stood for slavery. Honoring it is honoring slavery as an institution. You can honor the South and have Southern Pride without honoring the Confederacy and slavery. Do you see the distinction?

marcus says

I also believe that you know that if someone likes symbols from the confederacy, and associates them with their pride of being a southerner, or the song "sweet home Alabama" or whatever, it doesn't mean they are racists now, just because you can't relate to this, or because they don't have some rational explanation for why it's not about racism.

If you don't know that, and you think not being able to prove that it's not about racism is a decent argument that it is about racism, then I feel sorry for you for being that stupid.

For someone who wants to have an adult conversation, you sure like to throw around the insults. If your points are strong, there should be no need for name calling. Anyways, here's what I don't get. Why would one associate the Confederate flag with being a Southerner or Southern Pride. What is there to be proud of with respect to the Confederate Flag?? By all means, be proud of Southern culture, of the sacrifices of Southerners. But why be proud of a symbol of slavery?

tatupu70 says

For someone who wants to have an adult conversation, you sure like to throw around the insults. If your points are strong, there should be no need for name calling.

We started with you asking a question, that I attempted to answer with some thoughtful questions that were designed to help you understand something that's subtle and complex. You said no thanks (to questions that I put time into - and which were designed to answer a question that doesn't have a simple answer). Not that you were going to comprehend the point anyway. And you also said that it's not a difficult question, even though I believe your question was about my perception, my answer, as if possibly I could be correct. This was very thoughtless and arrogant.

You said later, repeatedly that I should be able to answer your simple question explaining what southern pride in the confederacy could possibly be if it's not about racism. I have not heard even a single argument as to why it must be about racism. You simply conflate the two.

tatupu70 says

The Confederacy stood for slavery. Honoring it is honoring slavery as an institution.

Why ? Because you say so ?

tatupu70 says

You can honor the South and have Southern Pride without honoring the Confederacy and slavery.

Why the "confederacy and slavery, rather than 'or' ?

I say you can honor the confederacy without honoring slavery, in the same way that I can honor Jefferson without honoring how he became extremely wealthy in part by utilizing slavery.

tatupu70 says

If you want to honor a person from the 1850s who fought in the Confederate Army and say that person wasn't defined by slavery--but was caught up in the times, I'm fine with that. I have never indicated otherwise.

Actually yes you did, implicitly. I'm done here. I'm not going to change your opinion, you aren't going to change mine.

SAy I move to Georgia 10 years from now. If I see someone with a Confederate flag sticker on their bumper, I'm not going to assume they are cool, and not a racist. I'm also not going to assume they are a racist asshole. I'm not going to judge them at all based just on that.

But maybe for a half a second or two I will think about my great great grandfather.

tatupu70 says

marcus says

believe that you know, that honoring confederate monuments or flags, or dead ancestors that died in the war, in ones private life, says nothing about whether a person thinks we should have slavery now .

This is where we disagree. I think honoring confederate monuments and flags is offensive. The Confederacy stood for slavery. Honoring it is honoring slavery as an institution. You can honor the South and have Southern Pride without honoring the Confederacy and slavery. Do you see the distinction?

Probably not the best idea for me to jump in, but as someone who has lived half my life in the West, and half my life in the South (and in the "Deep South" for close to a decade) I wanted to offer some perspective.

I have many friends and have in fact married into a family who has deep roots in the historical south and its culture. Over time, it has rubbed off on me too, where as I appreciate it, both from a historic perspective of what it was, and a nostalgic/romantic perspective of what it appears to be to many (either in the south or outside the south). The expression of the culture is deep and revered in terms of food, music, college football, etc. Same can be said too here in VA (the capital of the confederacy) as I am now surrounded by battlefields, statutes, and monuments - the whole thing is a fascinating mix of part of our nations history that (IMO) should never be forgotten.

All that said, the one thing that is indeed different (again IMO) is the "Confederate Flag" (i.e. the stars and bars, the navy jack, the army of northern va or any similar derivation). All my life in the south, the people who would display the flag either on their house, their car, or clothing, were often the most offensive and vile of any of the southerners I met. And for the most part, this has gotten worse over time. I did know a handful who did truly display it as a symbol of their heritage. However, as so many more of the people (in the total universe of people who displayed it) were bigoted and overtly racist, the ones who displayed it for heritage reasons, dropped it, because they did not want to be associated with the racial connotations it has for all intents and purposes taken on.

In recent times, it (again in my experience) I would even go so far as to say people have suddenly adopted it, for no other reason that to consciously symbol to outsiders that you are "in the club" so to speak. Now, in and amongst polite company, if you ask them about it, they will almost certainly say "oh no, I did it for pride" but as you spend more time around them and they let down their defenses, you hear much more "ni**er this" or "ni**er that". In a way, its almost like trolling before the internet.

Again though, at least amongst people I know who do still appreciate southern culture, they generally try to distance themselves from the flag rather than be associated with what many identify as a symbol of hate. Given their love of our fair city, my wife and mother in law, (both eligible for membership in Daughters of the Confederacy) have an affinity for our two native sons, George Washington and Robert E. Lee. Still, because of what it symbolizes to many, they even go so far as to hate the flag and spit in its direction for the overtly racial connotation it has taken on.

Politicians will never like voter ID laws. Because those prevent all sort of voter fraud, you can't just stuff a ballot box with random names anymore. All they need is a same system theme parks use for voting, that'll clear up all the voting fraud fast. They got it resolved, a simple finger print and a photo ID (both are free). But of course politicians, typically on the liberal side scream it's infringement on their right to commit voter fraud.

marcus says

SAy I move to Georgia 10 years from now. If I see someone with a Confederate flag sticker on their bumper, I'm not going to assume they are cool, and not a racist. I'm also not going to assume they are a racist asshole. I'm not going to judge them at all based just on that.

Wow Marcus, most people on the left tend to scream that confederate flag is racist and any white person carrying it must be viciously condemned and burned at the stake. Consider Dan as an example. You are starting to sound like a moderate here.

FortWayne says

Wow Marcus, most people on the left tend to scream that confederate flag is racist and any white person carrying it must be viciously condemned and burned at the stake. Consider Dan as an example.

1. The flag southerners fly is NOT the Confederate flag. We already went over this, you dumb ass. It's the Confederate battle flag. It's the Confederate counterpart to this flag:

2. No one flew the Confederate navy jack after the Civil War until, in the 1950s, the KKK adopted it as a symbol of fighting the race war. If the KKK didn't adopt the flag as their symbol, no one would have flown it for the past 150 years! So yes, people flying that flag today are racists supporting the KKK and race wars, plain and simple.

3. If you're so ignorant about the Confederate battle flag and it's association with the KKK and you still fly it, you should be condemned for your stupidity and ignorance. If you're not ignorant of those facts and you still fly it, you should be condemned for supporting the most significant TERRORIST organization in American history. Heck, either way, your supporting terrorism and you should be condemned.

4. I never said anything remotely like burning anyone at the stake. In fact, I've gone on the record saying people have the right to
- fly the Confederate battle flag
- fly the ISIS flag
- and burn the American flag
without any fear of reprisal from the government. That's what liberals believe, you dumb ass.

However, we also have the right to call you on your racist bullshit and stupidity if you do so.

So once again Fort Wayne has to lie about everything. Hey Fort Wayne, are you going to run away and be silent like you always do when I call you on your bullshit or are you going to try to defend your foolish position for the first time? I guess Fort Wayne's colors do run.

marcus says

tatupu70 says

The Confederacy stood for slavery. Honoring it is honoring slavery as an institution.

Why ? Because you say so ?

What else could it stand for? It was formed to preserve the institution of slavery. Period.

tatupu70 says

What else could it stand for? It was formed to preserve the institution of slavery. Period.

War wasn't fought over slavery. Slavery wasn't abolished when the war began just FYI. Please don't take those cute hollywood movies and dumbed down public education for reality.

The difference in Wayne and Dan is Dan and his ilk would truly mis those people in those pictures if they weren't around.
Ever notice those pics usualy show about 4 or 5 nuts in a monkey suit. Where's the huge KKK rally? Were's the KKK uprising rallys in other cities around America?
Where's the public Tweets to call for violence? Oh wait I'm thinking about the Liberal issues matters movement.

Dan himself would wear that monkey suit and probably does every day, before he would dare let them drift off into a closed chapter.
How many holes did you cut in the eye's Dan? How many eyes does prick like you have anyway?

FortWayne says

War wasn't fought over slavery. Slavery wasn't abolished when the war began just FYI. Please don't take those cute hollywood movies and dumbed down public education for reality.

You're kidding, right? The South seceded because of slavery. It was about whether new states entering the Union would be slave holding or non-slave holding. Learn a little bit of history.