Quiz -- Which was the original flag of the Confederate States of America?

Quote: AZDuffman

It is a part of history where displayed. Besides, the government has no problem spending tax money to display and fund things many people find offensive. Confederate Soldiers are USA soldiers, they deserve the same respect.

That's debateable, depending on if you see the CSA's separation as de jure and not just de facto. Those fighting for the CSA weren't USA soldiers at the time of War. They were before and after. Not that they don't deserve respect.

I don't understand the banning of the flag either based on the actions of one psychopath. I certainly don't understand the whitewashing it from history. For a while, Civil War games got banned due to the flag being used on some sites.

Quote: TheCesspit

That's debateable, depending on if you see the CSA's separation as de jure and not just de facto. Those fighting for the CSA weren't USA soldiers at the time of War. They were before and after. Not that they don't deserve respect.

They were made US Soldiers by an Act of Congress.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: TheCesspit

That's debateable, depending on if you see the CSA's separation as de jure and not just de facto. Those fighting for the CSA weren't USA soldiers at the time of War. They were before and after. Not that they don't deserve respect.

They were made US Soldiers by an Act of Congress.

Well, there we go, new thing learned, cheers.

Quote: TheCesspit

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: TheCesspit

That's debateable, depending on if you see the CSA's separation as de jure and not just de facto. Those fighting for the CSA weren't USA soldiers at the time of War. They were before and after. Not that they don't deserve respect.

They were made US Soldiers by an Act of Congress.

Well, there we go, new thing learned, cheers.

I just learned last week myself.

Quote: odiousgambit

I would be ready to argue that the flag can and does represent something else, something respectable, certainly not "slavery" to the people flying it IF the history of it was merely that it originated in the ACW on the Confederate side. Unfortunately, that is not the entire history of it. People who object to it can legitimately say that the use of it by the KKK and other hate groups has made it impossible for them to think of it as a quaint historical artifact. It's use generally by those opposing the civil rights movement [waving it at rallies etc.] was bad enough. The hate groups use finalized what the symbol means to way, way too many people.

I get what you're saying, I just don't agree. "What it means to way, way too many people" ain't my problem. Many, many people find homosexuality to be an abomination, yet the White House went all rainbow. Many people equate the Gadsden with crazy survivalists, or Cliven Bundy, or the Tea Party. That ain't got nothin' to do with me. And AZD is right. There is that weird disconnect with "IT AIN'T ALL (insert minority here)", yet in this case, there was instant action. Not a bit of any of it sits well. And for the record, I've lived at 42* longitude my entire life, and have never owned the Stars and Bars (save for the General Lee Matchbox).

Quote: terapined

Its just that it should not be prominently displayed using our money (taxes) on our (public) property.

But where does it end? I asked you before; not sure if you missed it or just ignored it.

As I offered before, there are some 100 monuments to the Confederacy around the country. The creation and maintenance is all paid by your tax dollars. I spoke of Cornplanter in another thread. He fought for the British, you know? And his monument was erected by the Commonwealth of PA, where it still stands. Tax dollars paying for a monument to an enemy combatant on US soil. Crazy, huh?

There are hundreds of examples that fall within your issue with the flag, yet you don't mention them. That's odd to me. If things which are controversial shouldn't stand, we should take them all down. Is that what you want? Looking from the outside, it seems a little shortsighted, maybe even disingenuous.

Took tax dollars to make the White House colorful, too. You can't have it both ways.

Quote: terapined

Its just that it should not be prominently displayed using our money (taxes) on our (public) property.

Saw a news item the other day about a segregationist who changed his mind when he had a discussion with a black guy in his town who said his father fought in WW2, but when his father came back from the war his family still had to drive 2 miles past several places who wouldn't serve them to go to a place that would.

Fighting for the same freedom? Guess not.

Quote: Face

But where does it end? I asked you before; not sure if you missed it or just ignored it.

As I offered before, there are some 100 monuments to the Confederacy around the country. The creation and maintenance is all paid by your tax dollars. I spoke of Cornplanter in another thread. He fought for the British, you know? And his monument was erected by the Commonwealth of PA, where it still stands. Tax dollars paying for a monument to an enemy combatant on US soil. Crazy, huh?

There are hundreds of examples that fall within your issue with the flag, yet you don't mention them. That's odd to me. If things which are controversial shouldn't stand, we should take them all down. Is that what you want? Looking from the outside, it seems a little shortsighted, maybe even disingenuous.

Took tax dollars to make the White House colorful, too. You can't have it both ways.

All the confederate monuments should be maintained with private money.
With an infrastructure of roads and bridges falling apart, the money is best spent here.
I would rather have a well maintained bridge then ANY monument.
Monuments are a waste of money, unless you charge admission and make it profitable. Otherwise, they should be privately supported.
Making the white house rainbow was a waste of tax payers money. We won, no need to rub it your face Face :-)

Quote: terapined

Quote: Face

But where does it end? I asked you before; not sure if you missed it or just ignored it.

As I offered before, there are some 100 monuments to the Confederacy around the country. The creation and maintenance is all paid by your tax dollars. I spoke of Cornplanter in another thread. He fought for the British, you know? And his monument was erected by the Commonwealth of PA, where it still stands. Tax dollars paying for a monument to an enemy combatant on US soil. Crazy, huh?

There are hundreds of examples that fall within your issue with the flag, yet you don't mention them. That's odd to me. If things which are controversial shouldn't stand, we should take them all down. Is that what you want? Looking from the outside, it seems a little shortsighted, maybe even disingenuous.

Took tax dollars to make the White House colorful, too. You can't have it both ways.

All the confederate monuments should be maintained with private money.
With an infrastructure of roads and bridges falling apart, the money is best spent here.
Making the white house rainbow was a waste of tax payers money. We won, no need to rub it your face Face :-)

So the Union monuments should be kept with government money? Really? Half of Gettysburg will be paid for by government, the other half by private individuals?

That makes no sense at all to me.

The Bannoch Burn memorial in Scotland is maintained by National Trust for Scotland... as is the Culloden memorial and the Glen Finnian memorial. The 1745 was a rebellion against the rightful British monarch, but the monuments are kept up by some tax payers money. Marston Moor, where the round heads fought against the Royalists (and who knows who was really 'right' in the English Civil War?).

Quote: TheCesspit

Quote: terapined

Quote: Face

But where does it end? I asked you before; not sure if you missed it or just ignored it.

As I offered before, there are some 100 monuments to the Confederacy around the country. The creation and maintenance is all paid by your tax dollars. I spoke of Cornplanter in another thread. He fought for the British, you know? And his monument was erected by the Commonwealth of PA, where it still stands. Tax dollars paying for a monument to an enemy combatant on US soil. Crazy, huh?

There are hundreds of examples that fall within your issue with the flag, yet you don't mention them. That's odd to me. If things which are controversial shouldn't stand, we should take them all down. Is that what you want? Looking from the outside, it seems a little shortsighted, maybe even disingenuous.

Took tax dollars to make the White House colorful, too. You can't have it both ways.

All the confederate monuments should be maintained with private money.
With an infrastructure of roads and bridges falling apart, the money is best spent here.
Making the white house rainbow was a waste of tax payers money. We won, no need to rub it your face Face :-)

So the Union monuments should be kept with government money? Really? Half of Gettysburg will be paid for by government, the other half by private individuals?

That makes no sense at all to me.

The Bannoch Burn memorial in Scotland is maintained by National Trust for Scotland... as is the Culloden memorial and the Glen Finnian memorial. The 1745 was a rebellion against the rightful British monarch, but the monuments are kept up by some tax payers money. Marston Moor, where the round heads fought against the Royalists (and who knows who was really 'right' in the English Civil War?).

Sorry, I was editing my post as you quoted and thought about all monuments and decided to add a couple sentences.
I added this
"I would rather have a well maintained bridge then ANY monument.
Monuments are a waste of money, unless you charge admission and make it profitable. Otherwise, they should be privately supported."

Quote: terapined

We won, no need to rub it your face Face :-)

Who's "we"? Sounds sort of non-inclusive, as if "you" won and "I" lost. I can assure you, this is an incorrect statement. And who is rubbing what in my face? I feel like you assume I am anti gay or anti gay marriage. I am anti marriage, period. The fact that the gays now have it is something I see as nothing but a positive. Either they manage to do it right and inject some credibility back into it, or they f#$% it up as bad as we straights and continue to erode it. Either way it's a change, and if I can't destroy it, I'm all for changing it.

Quote: terapined

All the confederate monuments should be maintained with private money.

Hey AZD! You're rubbing off on people ;)

That's an idea. Cut funding to all monuments. But have you thought it through?

I have some weird ideas. I have oft been called "un-American" by my peers because of them. But things mean something. I hate NY. I despise everything about the cesspool of NYC. But what if some private entity found that scrapping Lady Liberty was more cost effective than maintaining it for tourism? You cool with that? I ain't. What if some corp. folded, and now Mt Rushmore has no steward. Just gonna let the weeds overgrow it and weather erase the faces? I ain't cool with that either.

I am not the forum's history buff, but I've been some places. Being able to walk into the forts of the coastal south was special. Remembering the men and women killed at Pearl Harbor is important. Honoring those of 9/11 likewise. History is important. Pearl Harbor wasn't pretty, but it's important to memorialize and remember it. Vietnam was ugly, but it's important to memorialize and remember it. I am the last person to ask the Fed for anything, but where these things are concerned, I want that guarantee that these things will be maintained to shiny perfection.

Would you really picket 1 World Trade Center and call it a "waste of money"? Would you see your beliefs through and attempt to prevent its funding? I wouldn't. I pay for Pearl Harbor and I'll likely never see it in my life. I still want it there. I visited 9/11 in March of 2002. It is not a happy memory. I still want something to memorialize it. When I come to power and hand you a hammer, would you take the Vietnam War Memorial down, piece by piece, with your own hands?

Unless you answered "yes" to all these questions, your views bother me and is the reason for me jumping all over your ideas. I find it hard to believe you'd say "F#$% Lady Liberty, raze her into the ocean", yet you'd have no problem doing it to Lee or Churchill or Davis. That's wrong to me, especially from someone who I've come to view as a member of "the party of tolerance". You're obviously pro gay rights and anti discrimination. If you'd ask for tolerance from others, why do you not extend it to them?

Add on: Anyone may feel free to chime in