Confederate flag was the flag of traitors

Corpy, I know you masturbate to a copy of Merriam-Webster's dictionary ... And jerking off aside, increasing one's vocabulary is one way to help oneself from welfare to work ... But you are one verbose motherfucker.

You could cut half of the words out of your posts and still be annoying, insulting and redundant.

You could cut ALL of the words out of your posts and live off your reputation.

Why not give us a rest, Meltdown Man? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Your inane comments far out number those of any other poster in this forum, so follow your own advice, you dumb-fuck golem jackass.

Really? I don't remember you proving you never attended a Tea Party rally. So how did you "refute" it? Since you're a congenital liar, the burden of proof was on you, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, and in the absence of such proof, your racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass was refuted.

Really? I don't remember you proving you never attended one. So how did you "refute" it? Since you're a congenital liar, the burden of proof was on you, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, and in the absence of such proof, your racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass was refuted.

Really? How did you "refute" that the Starts and Bars weren't worse? That is your OPINION stupid - not a fact. And it is a stupid opinion. The "micks" are fighting to preserve slavery. Then why have your mick-prick brethren been blowing up those living under the Union Jack for hundreds of years, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass? You're refuted, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.

Really? How did you "refute" it? Once again, you state your opinions like they are facts. The Stars and Stripes might have flown over a nation that had slaves, but the US was moving to eliminate slavery, which is why the Confederacy seceded. That is the only reason the Confederate flag even came into existence - to preserve slavery. Not according to Mr. Lincoln, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass: you're refuted.

Really? How did you "refute" it. Once again, you state your opinions like they are facts. And you need to check your "facts", tranny fuckee. I clearly stated that the Nazis were worse than the Confederacy. Only after you were pushed on the issue ... it wasn't your initial stance, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass: you're refuted, and you really shouldn't call your cheap, double-bagger, whoring-sister a "tranny".

And I said that it was arguable that living under slavery was worse (if you were black) than living communism in Russia or China. Living under communist rule in the U.S.S.R., the PRC, North Korea, Cambodia, Romania, etc., was "slavery", you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass: hundreds of millions suffered and died; so you're refuted.

I never said anything about whether living under slavery was worse than living under British rule. Your "absolute" made that abundantly clear, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, and your "absolute" was refuted, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.

The Irish might hate it, but that doesn't make it worse than slavery. You do know that micks like you were called "white n!@@3rs" don't you, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass? So you're refuted, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.

Once again, you try to obfuscate by changing the subject and trying to put words in my mouth. Proving that you're a factually ignorant, racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass isn't "changing the subject", and citing what you say isn't "putting words in your mouth", you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. So your racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass is refuted.

Really? How did you "refute" it. You substituted the Ordinances fo the Declarations to try to demonstrate that they didn't secede because of slavery. And you failed. Those documents your racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass cited didn't formally break the bonds of Union as you stated. Your directive to "Google" "Declarations of Secession" brought up the REAL "Declarations of Secession" -- the "Ordinances of Secession", you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. So your racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass is refuted.

Really? They "didn't formally break the bonds of Union" like the DoI? Those documents your racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass cited didn't formally break the bonds of Union as you stated; so your racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass is refuted.

What the fuck does THAT mean? It means, that the documents your racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass cited didn't formally break the bonds of Union as you stated; so your racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass is refuted.

And according to who? Check your source ... check any source, the documents your racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass cited didn't formally break the bonds of Union as you stated; so your racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass is refuted.

Do you have new special definition in your head about what breaking the bonds of Union means? The documents your racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass cited didn't formally break the bonds of Union as you stated; so your racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass is refuted.

Oh? Are you switching your discussion to the Ordinances now to try to win? The documents your racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass cited didn't formally break the bonds of Union as you stated. It was the "Ordinances of Secession" that formally broke the bonds of Union, so your racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass is refuted.

I never discussed them because the Ordinances generally didn't state any reason, although some DID refer to slavery. So how did you "refute" it? You claimed that the documents that broke the formal bonds of Union ALL made references to slavery, and finally your racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass is admitting that you lied. So your racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass is refuted.

Once again, you are switching your discussion to the Ordinances now to try to win. See above. Your directive to "Google" "Declarations of Secession" brought up the REAL "Declarations of Secession" -- the "Ordinances of Secession", you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. The FOUR -- not thirteen -- documents your racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass cited didn't formally break the bonds of Union as you stated. So your racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass is refuted.

Liar. I never said the war was "promulgate" to preserve slavery. You're a fucking liar, and your racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass is deflecting again, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, because you DID make that argument -- a false argument @ post 18 (http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1054333172&postcount=18) in YOUR thread -- about Mr. Lincoln's motives -- and it was Mr. Lincoln's decision to send troops against the South, not vice versa, and his cause was "Union", you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.

It is evident that the OP is ignorant of the Confederacy and the war for states rights.
He probably thinks it was a war over slavery. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Of course it was. Originally Posted by ExNYer

So your racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass is refuted.
I said the South seceded to preserve slavery. That isn't the same thing. Your racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass is refuted above. Both sides had different reasons for "promulgating" the war. The offensive war was promulgated by Mr. Lincoln, not vice versa, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. So your racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass is refuted.

And the Confederate states had ALREADY begun seceding to preserve slavery by that time. Your racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass deflection doesn't change the fact that several states that had voted to remain in the Union voted to leave the Union after Mr. Lincoln declared his intent to promulgate a war, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. So your racist, dumb-fuck Yankee ass is refuted.
Spin, spin, spin. Tranny fuckee.You really shouldn't call your cheap, double-bagger, whoring-sister a "tranny", you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.

The North was always complicit in the slave trade, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass, but you continuously try to ignore and hide that fact. Massachusetts rum runners procured their molasses for their rum from Caribbean plantations before the American Revolution, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass; not from plantations in the American South, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. Massachusetts textile mills procured their cotton for their mills from southern plantations, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. The slave trade was financed by New York Yankees who made a substantial profit off the so-called "southern" slave system, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. The ships used in the slave trade were financed by New York Yankees and built by New York shipwrights. Connecticut and Delaware men mastered those ships and made a considerable profit off the so-called "southern" slave system, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. Meanwhile, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana and Oregon passed black exclusionary laws. So you can take your pretentious, holier-than-thou, "Irish-Piers Morgan wanna-be-self" and shove it, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. Originally Posted by ExNYer

I would never ask anyone to die for a flag. Defending the homeland, fighting invaders bent upon murder and rape, yes - I would fight. Originally Posted by Bert Jones

And that pretty much defines what Southerners were doing throughout much of the war.

“What are you fighting for anyhow?”

“I’m fighting because you are down here.”
Confederate prisoner to Union soldier.

Martin, Iain C. The Quotable American Civil War. (p. 88) & McArthur, Elizabeth Hoole. Bound for Glory. (p. 16).

Fact is, none of you know how you would have reacted had you grown up in the early 1800s. You are judging a 19th century culture by 21st century standards. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

+1

Fact is, none of you know how you would have reacted had you grown up in the early 1800s. You are judging a 19th century culture by 21st century standards. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

We are judging a 21st century world power by an 18th century agrarian reformer document.

We are judging a 21st century world power by an 18th century agrarian reformer document. Originally Posted by Bert Jones

What does that mean?

+1 Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Spin, spin, spin, tranny fuckee.

What does that mean? Originally Posted by ExNYer

The constitution, ratified by the slave owning white male overlords of an agrarian society in 1789, purports to have the answers to today's incredibly diverse and complicated USA. The emphasis on individual rights, appropriate for people who dragged plows through the soil, is not applicable to industrial society and its future.

The constitution, ratified by the slave owning white male overlords of an agrarian society in 1789, purports to have the answers to today's incredibly diverse and complicated USA. The emphasis on individual rights, appropriate for people who dragged plows through the soil, is not applicable to industrial society and its future. Originally Posted by Bert Jones

Wow. There is a dopey, unsupported statement.

They de-emphasized individual rights in industrial societies under communist rule. 80 million dead people later...

The more I read your bullshit posts, the more I think you are Marshall/ ChoomCzar pretending to be a liberal in order to discredit them. Sort of a reverse Colbert.

If so, bravo! You have finally developed an entertaining persona, Marshall.

Wow. There is a dopey, unsupported statement.

They de-emphasized individual rights in industrial societies under communist rule. 80 million dead people later...

The more I read your bullshit posts, the more I think you are Marshall/ ChoomCzar pretending to be a liberal in order to discredit them. Sort of a reverse Colbert.

If so, bravo! You have finally developed an entertaining persona, Marshall. Originally Posted by ExNYer

that ain't Marshall ... this one can spell

Life's Good!

that ain't Marshall ... this one can spell Originally Posted by CJ7

So I guess you were a National spelling bee champ of El Paso? Dagnabbit. EIEIO.

If you ask me, they died for nothing more than the right of Mint Julep sipping slaveowners, the upper 1% of their day, to continue their way of life. It is a tragedy that slavery existed, and that 800,000 American boys were butchered fighting to end it.
I would never want to die for a flag, whether it be the US Flag, or the much lesser included flag of the confederacy, or the Union Jack, the Nazi Swastika Flag, etc.. I would never ask anyone to die for a flag. Defending the homeland, fighting invaders bent upon murder and rape, yes - I would fight. Originally Posted by Bert Jones

Yeah, I get what your saying and understand it I suppose. I guess either you or I are diminished....not sure which although I am pretty confident in saying it's you....I can't imagine anything more meaningful than giving my life in the way that the men on that field, both North and South, died that day. We all ought to be so lucky to have that opportunity as opposed to pissing ourselves while we die of old age.

But, no offense.....The idea that all those soldiers who were shot to pieces as they walked across that field died so somebody could sip a mint julep is fucking stupid. I get your analogy but nobody walking across that field, enduring what they endured, was thinking that way....and you cheapen it by making that comparison. No offense.

I understand that you just don't get it. Not unusual. Most folks don't these days. I will tell you, maybe I am being more apologetic about it than I should be...because quite frankly, your viewpoint is silly. The men who died on that field didn't die for mint juleps. In fact, I can virtually guarantee that virtually none of them had ever even had one. And, they didn't die for the 1% you reference who were drinking mint juleps.

They died there because, unlike you, they understood the concept of duty...and honor...and country. They may have been fighting for the wrong cause. In fact, there is no doubt that they were. But, their willingness to ruck up, pick up their rifles, to stand a post and walk into the storm of fire that was that ridge at Gettysburg, walking behind that confederate battle flag, is just not something I am ever going to be willing to condemn. And, you know what is interesting....very few of the members of the Union Army that opposed them did either.

Life's Good! Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

How would you know? Did you see it on YouTube?

Yeah, I get what your saying and understand it I suppose. I guess either you or I are diminished....not sure which although I am pretty confident in saying it's you....I can't imagine anything more meaningful than giving my life in the way that the men on that field, both North and South, died that day. We all ought to be so lucky to have that opportunity as opposed to pissing ourselves while we die of old age.

We have wars going on right now - nothing is stopping you from signing up and dying for the cause.

But, no offense.....The idea that all those soldiers who were shot to pieces as they walked across that field died so somebody could sip a mint julep is fucking stupid. I get your analogy but nobody walking across that field, enduring what they endured, was thinking that way....and you cheapen it by making that comparison. No offense.

I understand that you just don't get it. Not unusual. Most folks don't these days. I will tell you, maybe I am being more apologetic about it than I should be...because quite frankly, your viewpoint is silly. The men who died on that field didn't die for mint juleps. In fact, I can virtually guarantee that virtually none of them had ever even had one. And, they didn't die for the 1% you reference who were drinking mint juleps.

They died there because, unlike you, they understood the concept of duty...and honor...and country. They may have been fighting for the wrong cause. In fact, there is no doubt that they were. But, their willingness to ruck up, pick up their rifles, to stand a post and walk into the storm of fire that was that ridge at Gettysburg, walking behind that confederate battle flag, is just not something I am ever going to be willing to condemn. And, you know what is interesting....very few of the members of the Union Army that opposed them did either. Originally Posted by timpage

I suppose you eat your breakfast 400 yards away from 3000 Cubans who want to kill you.....
Look, they may have believed in your glorious version of the mythical magic of war, rather than the economic interests of the wealthy planter class, but more likely, they knew what a lousy deal they had and that ole Stonewall Jackson's Officers would have shot them if they didn't fight. General MacArthur had this to say about war,
"It has been said, in effect, that I was a warmonger. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me is more revolting. I have long advocated its complete abolition, as its very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes"

Wow. There is a dopey, unsupported statement.

They de-emphasized individual rights in industrial societies under communist rule. 80 million dead people later...

The more I read your bullshit posts, the more I think you are Marshall/ ChoomCzar pretending to be a liberal in order to discredit them. Sort of a reverse Colbert.

If so, bravo! You have finally developed an entertaining persona, Marshall. Originally Posted by ExNYer

The Chinese and their practice of collectivism versus individualism I'm referring to is placing the needs of the group ahead of the needs of the individual. You might notice that the Chinese are predicted to surpass our economy sometime this century. This is why I think we need to rescue the inner cities from another generation of despair, and wasted human capital.
If you wish to think I'm Marshall, go right ahead, but I'm not him.

Sounds like Mr. Spock to me.

The Chinese and their practice of collectivism versus individualism I'm referring to is placing the needs of the group ahead of the needs of the individual. You might notice that the Chinese are predicted to surpass our economy sometime this century. This is why I think we need to rescue the inner cities from another generation of despair, and wasted human capital. Originally Posted by Bert Jones

The Chinese economy won't be passing us for any reason other than there are about 1.2 billion of them and 300 million of us. So, they have about 4 times as many people.

Even if each of them has, on average, about one third of the wealth of the average American, their economy will be still bigger.

But their per capita wealth will still be a fraction of ours.

And the only reason they have grown as much as they have is they stopped putting so much emphasis on the collective and started letting people have more economic freedom. It is amazing how much more productive people are when they can keep what they earn.

Oh, and since you are talking about how much China puts the interests of the group ahead of the individual, you might want to look at the way they are turning their entire country into a toxic cesspool in order to grow the economy. They will be moving hundreds of millions inot the cities from the countryside over the next 30 years and in they are becoming an environmental wasteland in the process.