489 réponses à ce sujet

[Dobbysaurus]

how dumb

[Katiefrost]

Yes, the confederate flag needs to go. It's a symbol of a defunct rebel state with a rigid social agenda that endorsed the buying and selling of human beings. Keeping it as part of any U.S. states flag is as inappropriate as flying the Nazi flag over in Europe. The "old south" was not glorious.
That said, I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it in a history based RPG or reenactment, though. Sadly, it is an indelible part of our country's past. History is what it is.

[Br3admax]

It's really sad to see people who live nowhere near this state care more about what happens in it than I do. Homeless roam the parks a few blocks down, but that flag, that was already removed from the top of the State House. needs to be removed off a monument because that's way more important. Removing the flag from anything, software based or otherwise, won't make them look better or solve any problems. I wish a lot more people will realize this. 

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

I wanted to post this in the other thread but now it's gone...

 

This is a Putin thread now!

My favorite Pro-Putin Youtube comments:

 

A real man not a wishy washy liberal.He will conquer the whole world one day and I like it.Glory to Russia.Slava Rossya! Niet banana from obama.

 

long live putin..greetings from turkey

 

He's the Chuck Norris of the Political World.

 

സംഭവം പ്രൊപഗാണ്ട ആണെങ്കിലും സത്യം ഇല്ലാതില്ല. ഇങ്ങേർ ഒരു സംഭവം തന്നെ ആണു. പഴേ കെജിബി പുലി അല്ലേ.

 

All hail Vladimir Putin!! :3 Putin-sama is the best meow!! :3 I love Russia and its martial arts. My favorites are, muay thai ,systema, sambo and my own, garyuu. I hope to befriend and spar Putin-sama someday.

 

The more I learn about this man, the more I am amazed.  "You must never cling to things, nor to failure nor to success. If you start thinking about yourself as important and special, it is the beginning of your fall. But if you stay with people, if you think about their interests and make it your mission to make their lives better, God will remain on your side." Vladimir Putin

 

If Russia decides to invade America I'll welcome them, not with open arms but I'll welcome them as are allied and neighbor, etc. they will probably save us from this ass wipe that's in office. Help us Russia you're our only chance to restore America and help us get United again, etc.

 

They hate him because he tells the truth.  Anyone who tells the truth is a threat to the interests of those who thrive on lies!

 

Obama's a chill guy, but Putin is just so badass that he beats chill to death with a toenail strapped to an axe. Why, Putin, why you so cool?

 

I know putin is sort of against the whole "One World Government" and all that but.......surely he should be King of Earth by now. I mean, everybody loves him. Surely having the whole world (who aren't brainwashed by the western media around them) supporting you would make it sort of accepted to rule everything

 

It's very simple. Putin is not a puppet like his pathetic two predecessors were. That's why west fears him. But my personal opinion about Putin is different. As a Finn knowing the Russian tradition of soul, it's relatively easy to understand that he is probably the last traditional European CONSERVATIVE - saving and defending his country, not radically changing like so called neo cons are doing in west. He is sharp, pragmatic, well educated, brilliant knowledge, understanding geopolitics and military facts much better than his mediocre opponents.

 

I think the reason westerners, especially Americans (this is coming from and American) admire Putin in some way is that he is actually powerful, he has this auro of power and even fear about him, something that our leaders don't have.

 

Putin deserves the respect of the world. There is no other statesman on this planet that shows true and righteous character as Putin. I would take a bullet for him and I'm not even Russian.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Pfft about not having the southern pride!

 

Just by listening to this song I get the Southgasm!

 

[Inquisitor Recon]

I wanted to post this in the other thread but now it's gone...

 

This is a Putin thread now!

My favorite Pro-Putin Youtube comments:

 

A real man not a wishy washy liberal.He will conquer the whole world one day and I like it.Glory to Russia.Slava Rossya! Niet banana from obama.

 

long live putin..greetings from turkey

 

He's the Chuck Norris of the Political World.

 

സംഭവം പ്രൊപഗാണ്ട ആണെങ്കിലും സത്യം ഇല്ലാതില്ല. ഇങ്ങേർ ഒരു സംഭവം തന്നെ ആണു. പഴേ കെജിബി പുലി അല്ലേ.

 

All hail Vladimir Putin!! :3 Putin-sama is the best meow!! :3 I love Russia and its martial arts. My favorites are, muay thai ,systema, sambo and my own, garyuu. I hope to befriend and spar Putin-sama someday.

 

The more I learn about this man, the more I am amazed.  "You must never cling to things, nor to failure nor to success. If you start thinking about yourself as important and special, it is the beginning of your fall. But if you stay with people, if you think about their interests and make it your mission to make their lives better, God will remain on your side." Vladimir Putin

 

If Russia decides to invade America I'll welcome them, not with open arms but I'll welcome them as are allied and neighbor, etc. they will probably save us from this ass wipe that's in office. Help us Russia you're our only chance to restore America and help us get United again, etc.

 

They hate him because he tells the truth.  Anyone who tells the truth is a threat to the interests of those who thrive on lies!

 

Obama's a chill guy, but Putin is just so badass that he beats chill to death with a toenail strapped to an axe. Why, Putin, why you so cool?

 

I know putin is sort of against the whole "One World Government" and all that but.......surely he should be King of Earth by now. I mean, everybody loves him. Surely having the whole world (who aren't brainwashed by the western media around them) supporting you would make it sort of accepted to rule everything

 

It's very simple. Putin is not a puppet like his pathetic two predecessors were. That's why west fears him. But my personal opinion about Putin is different. As a Finn knowing the Russian tradition of soul, it's relatively easy to understand that he is probably the last traditional European CONSERVATIVE - saving and defending his country, not radically changing like so called neo cons are doing in west. He is sharp, pragmatic, well educated, brilliant knowledge, understanding geopolitics and military facts much better than his mediocre opponents.

 

I think the reason westerners, especially Americans (this is coming from and American) admire Putin in some way is that he is actually powerful, he has this auro of power and even fear about him, something that our leaders don't have.

 

Putin deserves the respect of the world. There is no other statesman on this planet that shows true and righteous character as Putin. I would take a bullet for him and I'm not even Russian.

You can say what you want about Putin but he manages to maintain an image as being an actual leader in an age when most so many national leaders appear as weak buffoons. And it is indeed just an image, carefully constructed and not entirely true, but there is talent in being able to achieve that. So many act surprised that Putin has so much support within Russia, that he can successfully silence the the opposition and get away with his international actions. Yet it really shouldn't be so surprising when you look at the state of our politics.

 

Putin loves power, he's completely ruthless, and not somebody who could be considered trustworthy. Yet somehow there is more to respect there than just about everybody else on the international stage these days.

[Garryydde]

No mutin' the Putin.

[Cainhurst Crow]

They're different, but not in any material respect when it comes to moral repugnancy. Each represents and was founded expressly for the sake of a disturbing and disguisting ideology, and in general in defence of genocide and crimes against humanity.

 

The civil war of the united states was fought over the southern states viewing the current government as illegitimate, and rebelling against it. Considering Abraham Lincoln lost the popular vote, and won because of the electoral college, which had been stacked in favor of the north in the first place, they had a point.

 

Lincoln, The North, and The Union Army couldn't give 2 shits about slavery or the plight of Slaves. They had to be forced due to low volunteer numbers to allow african americans to join, with the promise of emancipation. Even then, they treated them like crap, and when the war was done and the nation "united", the government went right back to treating them like crap.

 

If you think the Union and Confederacy were any better from one another, you're sadly mistaken. The south had its monsters, and its heroes. The north had its heroes, and also a general who decided mass indiscriminate killings and raiding were the way to win the war. Look up Sherman's March to the Sea.

 

It's a myth that the civil war was about slaves. It was about power, and african americans were just pawns, used and discarded. They would have been screwed, no matter which side won. But at least people could have the common courtesy not to ****** on their heads for 100 years and tell them it was just rain.

 

Banning the flag is another issue entierly, and must be looked at neutrally. Banning the symbol of a defeated power which can be a symbol of anamosity, is what's up for debate.

 

The discussion is difficult since as a native hawaiian, my state's own flag is one of a conquered people by the united states. It has been used by many movements to reinstate the hawaiian government, albeit laughably underfunded and under-supported movements. Will it be banned next, since it meets the same criterias as that of the Confederate flag?

 

And the banning of historical games using the imagery. What comes next? Should we ban the flag from any textbook depictions as well? Should we go in and digitally remove the flags from films? Just erase it and pretend it never happened, that the united states was perfect and never fought a civil war over state powers dressed up in the guise of helping black people? What's next? Erasing the Japanese Internment Camps from existence because they to are a symbol of offense and racial insensitivity? Just bulldoze them down and lie about what the US did to the Japanese in WWII?

 

That's what I don't trust. Once you let the removal of imagery and historical context into the mix, you're just asking the revisionists to go on a retconning spree.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Another enlightening comment by Jeni Bro!

[Cainhurst Crow]

Looking back at the some of the posts in this thread, I noticed the American flag was mentioned...and some apparently see it as hypocrisy that Confederate flags are associated with racism while the American flag is not.

 

For those people I suggest reading the speech given by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens in 1861, where he lays out the differences between his new 'nation' and the United States they had seceded from.

 

 

 

 

Cornerstone Speech

 

There is no question that racism existed in the United States long before the Civil War, and continued to exist long after it. The United States however was not explicitly founded on a doctrine of white supremacy, unlike the Confederacy, and in many ways it can be argued that America's failings were in not living up to the country's highest ideals. The Declaration of Independence declared, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The Confederates rejected this, and instead attempted to found a nation based on the doctrine that all men are not created equal.

 

The Confederacy was one of the more vile governments in human history, and it richly earned its place in history's garbage heap. It would be fitting if its flags followed suit. 

 

Isn't that the same Founding Constitution of the United States which says black people are 3/5ths a person, and Indians don't even count as people?

[Jehuty]

Okay.

 

Some of these comments about how the flag is a symbol of hate and all that.... 

 

"Facepalm." 

 

Now I am going to ask a question, what does a swastika stand for? 

 

Someone is going to answer, "It's the Nazi symbol." 

 

WRONG

 

The swastika merely was a tribal symbol for "Cannot be conquered,"  if I recall correctly. Hitler simply chose to adopt it. But what if he adopted a star or something like that? 

 

I was born in the south and I live in the south. I will fly my confederate flag proudly, and if you say I'm celebrating traitors, remember this. We separated from Britain and rebelled.

 

That, would make us traitors as well. I don't believe we are, but if anyone wants to use that logic on me, that is my response. 

 

Just my two cents, and I know there's no point in arguing. 

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

^ I like your attitude my anime fellow!

[Billy-the-Squid]

It's really sad to see people who live nowhere near this state care more about what happens in it than I do. Homeless roam the parks a few blocks down, but that flag, that was already removed from the top of the State House. needs to be removed off a monument because that's way more important. Removing the flag from anything, software based or otherwise, won't make them look better or solve any problems. I wish a lot more people will realize this. 

 

Unfortunately that is because the world is replete with dumb mother-fuckers and perpetual victims.

[Billy-the-Squid]

Okay.

 

Some of these comments about how the flag is a symbol of hate and all that.... 

 

"Facepalm." 

 

Now I am going to ask a question, what does a swastika stand for? 

 

Someone is going to answer, "It's the Nazi symbol." 

 

WRONG

 

The swastika merely was a tribal symbol for "Cannot be conquered,"  if I recall correctly. Hitler simply chose to adopt it. But what if he adopted a star or something like that? 

 

I was born in the south and I live in the south. I will fly my confederate flag proudly, and if you say I'm celebrating traitors, remember this. We separated from Britain and rebelled.

 

That, would make us traitors as well. I don't believe we are, but if anyone wants to use that logic on me, that is my response. 

 

Just my two cents, and I know there's no point in arguing. 

 

 

You are traitors to the crown, you vile rebels!

[Ridwan]

Completely retarded to ban a flag. But whatever, "Muh feels" is more important than culture and history it seems. 

[Jehuty]

You are traitors to the crown, you vile rebels!

Revolution! 

[Torgette]

George Santayana :- “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”

 

What about revisionist history?

[Dermain]

True, but that doesn't validate what is a chintzy PR move, and there's no better way for history to repeat than pretend the past doesn't exist. Hell, the baby boomers were joking about Nazi Germany by the 50s in comedy and TV, yet the wilting violets of today can't handle a flag?

 

In the late 1960's when the show Hogan's Heroes first started airing there were numerous cries of outrage about how the show featured Nazis and was a comedy in a German PoW camp. It is also worth noting that all of the main "Nazis" in the show were played by Jews that had fled Germany before the war, and who all were forced to defend the show from it's critics.  

 

You can say what you want about Putin but he manages to maintain an image as being an actual leader in an age when most so many national leaders appear as weak buffoons. And it is indeed just an image, carefully constructed and not entirely true, but there is talent in being able to achieve that. So many act surprised that Putin has so much support within Russia, that he can successfully silence the the opposition and get away with his international actions. Yet it really shouldn't be so surprising when you look at the state of our politics.

 

Putin loves power, he's completely ruthless, and not somebody who could be considered trustworthy. Yet somehow there is more to respect there than just about everybody else on the international stage these days.

 

Well Putin also has the help of a vast secret police network that keeps an eye on any "trouble makers", and a vast propaganda network controlled by the government. It really should not be a surprise that he has a lot of "support" from the "people" of Russia/Ukraine/other former Soviet satellite states. 

 

If the West (actually) had a system like that in place, all of the Western leaders would have a similar image.

 

1: The civil war of the united states was fought over the southern states viewing the current government as illegitimate, and rebelling against it. Considering Abraham Lincoln lost the popular vote, and won because of the electoral college, which had been stacked in favor of the north in the first place, they had a point.

 

2: Lincoln, The North, and The Union Army couldn't give 2 shits about slavery or the plight of Slaves. They had to be forced due to low volunteer numbers to allow african americans to join, with the promise of emancipation. Even then, they treated them like crap, and when the war was done and the nation "united", the government went right back to treating them like crap.

 

If you think the Union and Confederacy were any better from one another, you're sadly mistaken. The south had its monsters, and its heroes. The north had its heroes, and also a general who decided mass indiscriminate killings and raiding were the way to win the war. 3: Look up Sherman's March to the Sea.

 

It's a myth that the civil war was about slaves. It was about power, and african americans were just pawns, used and discarded. They would have been screwed, no matter which side won. But at least people could have the common courtesy not to ****** on their heads for 100 years and tell them it was just rain.

 

Banning the flag is another issue entierly, and must be looked at neutrally. Banning the symbol of a defeated power which can be a symbol of anamosity, is what's up for debate.

 

The discussion is difficult since as a native hawaiian, my state's own flag is one of a conquered people by the united states. It has been used by many movements to reinstate the hawaiian government, albeit laughably underfunded and under-supported movements. Will it be banned next, since it meets the same criterias as that of the Confederate flag?

 

And the banning of historical games using the imagery. What comes next? Should we ban the flag from any textbook depictions as well? Should we go in and digitally remove the flags from films? Just erase it and pretend it never happened, that the united states was perfect and never fought a civil war over state powers dressed up in the guise of helping black people? What's next? Erasing the Japanese Internment Camps from existence because they to are a symbol of offense and racial insensitivity? Just bulldoze them down and lie about what the US did to the Japanese in WWII?

 

4: That's what I don't trust. Once you let the removal of imagery and historical conte4xt into the mix, you're just asking the revisionists to go on a retconning spree.

 

1: That is the official reason for the secession, but slavery was a major contributing factor to the war.  

 

2: The "plight of the slaves" only became a major issue during the middle of the war when public support for the war was extremely low. I consider it purely a propaganda move. This becomes more apparent when you consider the lack of support that former slaves received from the federal government during the Reconstruction period following the war.

 

3: Sherman was determined to put an end to the war, and to do that he engaged in "total war". He had his men commit numerous war crimes with the intent of destroying the supply lines, forcing Confederate troops to desert to protect their families, and pretty much destroying everything that was in his way. It is also clear that he did  not hold African Americans in high regard, but I do not recall him explicitly giving orders to harm them. Although, there is the one incidence where Sherman was being pursued by the first Grand Wizard of the KKK (a cavalry commander who's name I forget at the moment), and (the unfortunately named) Jefferson Davis (I forget his rank) destroyed a bridge over a river crossing before the slaves following the army could cross. Which of course led to them all being recaptured or drowned.

[Draining Dragon]

Isn't that the same Founding Constitution of the United States which says black people are 3/5ths a person, and Indians don't even count as people?

Here's the section: "“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”

They weren't saying that black people are only 3/5 of a person. In fact, the 3/5 clause only applied to slaves, so free blacks were still counted fully, at least in theory. With regards to that, bear in mind the historical context:

In the Constitution, representation is proportional to the population of a state. More representation equals more voting power, and therefore more control over the federal government. The North wanted slaves to not be counted at all, because if they were, it would give the slave-holding states an unfair amount of power. The South wanted slaves to be counted fully for the same reason. The 3/5 clause was a compromise to appease both sides.

The Founders also weren't saying that Indians aren't people. Note that the clause only excludes "Indians not taxed." This is because direct taxes are also linked to the population. Basically, the more people you have, the more representation you get AND the more taxes you pay. That's why they excluded the people who weren't paying taxes.

So basically, this clause had nothing to do with the racism of the Founding Fathers.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

George Santayana :- “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”

 

Maxis thanks you for playing Civilization.

[X Equestris]

The civil war of the united states was fought over the southern states viewing the current government as illegitimate, and rebelling against it. Considering Abraham Lincoln lost the popular vote, and won because of the electoral college, which had been stacked in favor of the north in the first place, they had a point.
 
Lincoln, The North, and The Union Army couldn't give 2 shits about slavery or the plight of Slaves. They had to be forced due to low volunteer numbers to allow african americans to join, with the promise of emancipation. Even then, they treated them like crap, and when the war was done and the nation "united", the government went right back to treating them like crap.
 
If you think the Union and Confederacy were any better from one another, you're sadly mistaken. The south had its monsters, and its heroes. The north had its heroes, and also a general who decided mass indiscriminate killings and raiding were the way to win the war. Look up Sherman's March to the Sea.
 
It's a myth that the civil war was about slaves. It was about power, and african americans were just pawns, used and discarded. They would have been screwed, no matter which side won. But at least people could have the common courtesy not to ****** on their heads for 100 years and tell them it was just rain.
 
Banning the flag is another issue entierly, and must be looked at neutrally. Banning the symbol of a defeated power which can be a symbol of anamosity, is what's up for debate.
 
The discussion is difficult since as a native hawaiian, my state's own flag is one of a conquered people by the united states. It has been used by many movements to reinstate the hawaiian government, albeit laughably underfunded and under-supported movements. Will it be banned next, since it meets the same criterias as that of the Confederate flag?
 
And the banning of historical games using the imagery. What comes next? Should we ban the flag from any textbook depictions as well? Should we go in and digitally remove the flags from films? Just erase it and pretend it never happened, that the united states was perfect and never fought a civil war over state powers dressed up in the guise of helping black people? What's next? Erasing the Japanese Internment Camps from existence because they to are a symbol of offense and racial insensitivity? Just bulldoze them down and lie about what the US did to the Japanese in WWII?
 
That's what I don't trust. Once you let the removal of imagery and historical context into the mix, you're just asking the revisionists to go on a retconning spree.

You're blatantly wrong about the election of 1860. Lincoln had the highest number of votes, at 39.8%. Douglas had 29.5%, Breckinridge had 18.1%, and Bell had 12.6%. And Lincoln utterly swept the electoral college. Even if all of his opponents combined their electoral votes, they would have lost. Not to mention that Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in some southern states because southern politicians were afraid of him.

Lincoln absolutely cared about slavery, but as a politician he had to keep his views on the down low so that he didn't spark more resistance. After all, border states like Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri were very close to seceding. And a lot of people in the north didn't like slavery, but that doesn't mean they thought black people were actually people. As for the Union Army, it varied quite a bit. In the beginning, it was about restoring the Union for everyone but abolitionists. Later it became a bigger issue for the common soldier. You can look at various Union songs from the period to see that.

Were black people, especially black veterans, left high and dry after the war? Absolutely. That was mainly a product of President Johnson's Reconstruction plans, and how Reconstruction was ended prematurely a few presidents later. If Lincoln had lived, things might have worked out better.

The Civil War was absolutely primarily about slavery. The southern states were afraid Lincoln would move against slavery after he was elected. Many of the Confederate States cited their desire to keep slaves when they seceded, as has previously been shown in this thread. The Confederate Constitution ensures slavery will continue. To deny this is to perpetuate the Lost Cause narrative.

[Heimdall]

What bothered the south more about the election of 1860 was that Lincoln had been elected despite not winning a single southern state.  They thought they would be marginalized and oppressed by the North.

 

That's what bothered many in the south about a federal emancipation of the slaves, they saw it as the federal government violating their private property rights and they didn't think they would stop at slaves.  That's why the Confederacy had a great deal of support among the populous despite only a relatively small percentage of the population owning the majority of the slaves.

[Han Shot First]

Isn't that the same Founding Constitution of the United States which says black people are 3/5ths a person, and Indians don't even count as people?

 

The 3/5 compromise was enacted purely to appease the slave states of the south. You know, the ones who later rebelled and formed the Confederacy. It is also somewhat misunderstood. The clause wasn't stating that the slaves weren't fully human. In fact the delegates from the north, including abolitionists, didn't want the slaves to count for anything at all. Including slaves in the head count, which determined a state's representation in the House of Representatives, granted more political power to the southern slave states. It was also somewhat ridiculous considering the slaves weren't allowed to have public opinions. A slave wasn't a citizen...he or she couldn't vote against their own enslavement for example. The southern slave states wanted the slaves to count just as much as any free man, as it gave them more political power. The dispute was settled by allowing the slave states to count their slaves as 3/5 a free person.

 

In any case I already covered the difference between the Confederate States of America and nearly every nation founded before the 19th Century. The Confederacy wasn't unique in having had legal slavery in its history. That was also true of the United States she was rebelling against, as well as every European colonial power. The difference is that the United States and all of those European powers were not specifically founded as slave states. The Confederacy on the other hand was. Slavery was both the sole reason for its existence and the cause for which it fought. The American Revolution was not fought over slavery. The American Civil War was. The rebels who drafted the Declaration of Independence were unhappy with taxes and what they saw as a lack of due representation in British Parliament. Slavery was not mentioned once in their list of grievances. In contrast slavery dominates the Confederate declarations of secession and is repeatedly mentioned as the chief grievance. The declaration of Independence opens with the declaration that all men are created equal. In contrast Alexander Stephens, in his cornerstone speech, declares that the Confederacy is righting the flaw in that system by creating a state built upon the principle that all men are not created equal. The U.S. Constitution, never decreed that the states making up the United States could not make slavery illegal within their borders. The Confederate Constitution, in contrast stated, "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in n3gro slaves shall be passed." It also declared that any new territory admitted to the Confederacy must also allow slavery within its borders. 

[X Equestris]

What bothered the south more about the election of 1860 was that Lincoln had been elected despite not winning a single southern state.  They thought they would be marginalized and oppressed by the North.
 
That's what bothered many in the south about a federal emancipation of the slaves, they saw it as the federal government violating their private property rights and they didn't think they would stop at slaves.  That's why the Confederacy had a great deal of support among the populous despite only a relatively small percentage of the population owning the majority of the slaves.

Yeah. And another issue was the sectionalism common to the time. A lot of people considered themselves citizens of their states first, and Americans second. After all, if Virginia hadn't seceded, Robert E. lee probably would have commanded the Union's army.