Who flies this flag?

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby ohioboy » Sat Nov 02, 2013 4:18 pm

clampdaddy wrote:If the subject is to deep for an 8 year old then they should wait until the students are old enough to understand, not teach "history" that is convenient.

as my post pointed out, what if that is never for some folks? you do realize there are a lot of not so smart people out there?

CD, what age do think could handle the following:
Civics: Democratic skills and attitudes; relationships among rights, responsibilities, and democratic ideas; organizations and leaders help the community; effects of personal choices.

i pick civics because it is my area (history).
User avatar
ohioboy
hunter
 
Posts: 2168
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: MoCo, MD


Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby possumfoot » Sat Nov 02, 2013 4:26 pm

ohioboy wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:BTW-possums post illustrates the fact that the civil war was economic very clearly....

you trust a guy who cant spell tariff? :yes:



i did not spell fueled correctly either..

but yea, pick at the spelling..

ignore the fact that way too many people are ignorant of their own country's not so distant past..

2 things won the war for the north... and imho, the industrialization was the 2nd reason, not the first.. if not for the Irish potato famine, the north would have run out of soldiers.. the people of the south were fighting for their homes.. the people of the north were fighting because they were told. the number of irish that made up the ranks of the US army was crazy, and nearly all were practicly and in alot of cases literally conscripted.. all the guns in the world will do you no good if there is no one to use them..
WTN10 wrote:He was funny like a Pomeranian getting kicked over a fence.


pgquackstacker wrote:I actually started bringing a gun with me on dates, so I bring the girl's father out to my car and tell him if he tries to cock-block me I'll kill him.
User avatar
possumfoot
hunter
 
Posts: 5075
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 5:13 pm
Location: making sesbania my bitch

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby clampdaddy » Sat Nov 02, 2013 4:54 pm

ohioboy wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:If the subject is to deep for an 8 year old then they should wait until the students are old enough to understand, not teach "history" that is convenient.

as my post pointed out, what if that is never for some folks? you do realize there are a lot of not so smart people out there?

CD, what age do think could handle the following:
Civics: Democratic skills and attitudes; relationships among rights, responsibilities, and democratic ideas; organizations and leaders help the community; effects of personal choices.

i pick civics because it is my area (history).

Honestly, it was my favorite subject in school so I don't know if that would skew the useable info for your question. We had a great teacher and that really helped too. I would say that the 7th grade was about when I was ready to start getting into the real meat and potatoes of history and government.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3359
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby ohioboy » Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:30 pm

clampdaddy wrote:
ohioboy wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:If the subject is to deep for an 8 year old then they should wait until the students are old enough to understand, not teach "history" that is convenient.

as my post pointed out, what if that is never for some folks? you do realize there are a lot of not so smart people out there?

CD, what age do think could handle the following:
Civics: Democratic skills and attitudes; relationships among rights, responsibilities, and democratic ideas; organizations and leaders help the community; effects of personal choices.

i pick civics because it is my area (history).

Honestly, it was my favorite subject in school so I don't know if that would skew the useable info for your question. We had a great teacher and that really helped too. I would say that the 7th grade was about when I was ready to start getting into the real meat and potatoes of history and government.


that is for the first 9 weeks of second grade in my system. the problem is that if we wait, we run out of time, and by the time they get to me in 9th grade, i am shocked at the stuff they know and dont know. they are forced early on to grasp issues and ideas that i have problems with and are not agreed upon by certain groups. my point is that i know we are all very passionate about certain areas of history/math/science/literature but we can not teach it all to the point of clarity that we of the CI would like.

so when someone says civil war=slavery, dont be shocked. or when you ask the average joe what newtons 2nd law of gravity is (did i spell his name right?), they might not know. unless you are an expert in that area, you probably have limited knowledge. and THAT is what some people on the CI forum have trouble grasping.

back to grading, yes on a saturday night. :fingerhead:
User avatar
ohioboy
hunter
 
Posts: 2168
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: MoCo, MD

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby clampdaddy » Sat Nov 02, 2013 7:19 pm

Civil war in second grade? Second graders still sing "the wheels on the bus" and have not yet learned to write in cursive. The civil war seems like a lot for a second grader to grasp. Unless the whole lesson is summed up in the four words of "Lincoln freed the slaves".
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3359
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Who flies this flag?

Postby vincentpa » Sat Nov 02, 2013 7:33 pm

ohioboy wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:If the subject is to deep for an 8 year old then they should wait until the students are old enough to understand, not teach "history" that is convenient.

as my post pointed out, what if that is never for some folks? you do realize there are a lot of not so smart people out there?

CD, what age do think could handle the following:
Civics: Democratic skills and attitudes; relationships among rights, responsibilities, and democratic ideas; organizations and leaders help the community; effects of personal choices.

i pick civics because it is my area (history).


So what you're saying is colored folk are too dumb to understand that Cleopatra was really of Macedonian decent and was absolutely not black?
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby ohioboy » Sat Nov 02, 2013 7:42 pm

vincentpa wrote:
ohioboy wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:If the subject is to deep for an 8 year old then they should wait until the students are old enough to understand, not teach "history" that is convenient.

as my post pointed out, what if that is never for some folks? you do realize there are a lot of not so smart people out there?

CD, what age do think could handle the following:
Civics: Democratic skills and attitudes; relationships among rights, responsibilities, and democratic ideas; organizations and leaders help the community; effects of personal choices.

i pick civics because it is my area (history).


So what you're saying is colored folk are too dumb to understand that Cleopatra was really of Macedonian decent and was absolutely not black?


what? vince, you hit the JD a little early? i need to catch up. where did you get colored from what i said? and where did you learn(or not learn) about cleopatra. dude, you seem a little obsessed.
User avatar
ohioboy
hunter
 
Posts: 2168
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: MoCo, MD

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby Einstein » Sat Nov 02, 2013 9:02 pm

For those who say it's just about slavery, I want to ask a question, but first, don't forget a little known fact. The Emancipation Proclamation was signed in September of 1862, and went into effect in January of 1863, and only freed slaves in "STILL REBELLIOUS STATES". Lincoln wanted the confederacy to come back into the union and said as long as they did so before 1-1-1863, they could keep their slaves. If ALL it was about was keeping slaves, why did they not just rejoin the union?
Einstein says: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

NRA Life Member
User avatar
Einstein
hunter
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 7:51 pm
Location: Foothills, NC

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby Indaswamp » Sat Nov 02, 2013 9:07 pm

Einstein wrote:For those who say it's just about slavery, I want to ask a question, but first, don't forget a little known fact. The Emancipation Proclamation was signed in September of 1862, and went into effect in January of 1863, and only freed slaves in "STILL REBELLIOUS STATES". Lincoln wanted the confederacy to come back into the union and said as long as they did so before 1-1-1863, they could keep their slaves. If ALL it was about was keeping slaves, why did they not just rejoin the union?

because it was not about slavery, it was economics. But you obviously already know this.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 54621
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby slowshooter » Sat Nov 02, 2013 10:01 pm

LOL! :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby clampdaddy » Sat Nov 02, 2013 11:21 pm

slowshooter wrote:LOL! :lol3:

Come on Slow. You started the thread and then pop in once in a while to reply with Lol!'s and :lol3: 's. Why not engage in the conversation you initiated?
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3359
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby blackduckdog2 » Sun Nov 03, 2013 1:19 am

Just for the record, I agree with everything in this thread. Except the "It wasn't about slavery part", because that's delusional. And the degree to which the delusion is frantically promulgated is telling. Yes, we all know there were a great many contributing factors that drove the country into near suicide. But slavery, SLAVERY was obviously not one of them. Carry on
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6286
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby slowshooter » Sun Nov 03, 2013 3:22 am

Watching folks play selective history so they can reinforce what they already believe is hilarious.

When you're a kid and you're taught that the Civil War was started over slavery, it doesn't mean that when you find out later that there were a lot of decisions made to get to the point that the winter of secession happened - that slavery wasn't an issue.

States Rights? The Southern States wanted to keep their Slaves. That was their idea of States Rights in a nutshell.

Hindering the spread of slavery… As new territories were added to the US, the South wanted them to be Slave States. The South felt that to keep their economy viable they needed to expand the economic model of slavery which had made plantation owners rich. That the Abolitionists and the incoming President didn't like that idea infuriated the Southern slave owners.

Speaking of economy? The cotton gin made processing cotton more profitable. But it also increased the demand and cost of slaves. Imagine being a landholder, making bank and seeing that soon your business model predicated on treating other humans like chattel was soon going to end. Why, you might inflame the public with talk of States Rights, vilify the incoming President and even talking about leaving the Union. Because you know… Money.

Here's what I see when I hear people talk about the South and the civil war not being about slavery. All I see are revisionist cowards that can't admit their states at one time marched under a traitorous flag, and their entire understanding of history is geared to either excuse or minimize the idea that the bloodiest conflict in U.S. history was instigated because a bunch of rich white guys didn't want to give up their slaves - and the revenue they made.

Prior to the war, one of the primary issues for Lincoln that the use of slaves into the future was either going to be nationwide or or not at all. The South knew it was not going to go their way as the Abolitionists were gaining ground. So succession began before Lincoln even occupied the office.

Could the South have changed? Yes, but for Plantation owners and those profiting from slavery, keeping pockets their lined with money was more important than being a part of the USA... The decision to leave the Union was to keep Slavery as the practice of the land and all other rationale falls before that idea.

The South's secession only gave Lincoln (once in office) more fuel to demand that the South free the Slaves - and with that he won the messaging war from the moral high ground… If you look at the end result, the Southern states actions actually contributed to Black being wholly free. That's some irony.

So, while Lincoln's primary goal to keep the Union together, doesn't at all mean that Slavery played no part. In fact, all Lincoln did was react to those that decided that money was worth more than being in the United States citizen. The very same folks that followed up that rationale with the quaint notion that the lives of their neighbors and their sons were expendable as well.

The South never had the money to sustain that war - it was for all purposes the biggest waste of lives this country has ever seen… And only incompetents like McClellen, Burnside, Butler and Bragg kept the war going as long as it did.

With that, please continue the circle jerk that tries to paint the traitors of yesteryear in a better light, so today's Southerners can try to protect their self image.

Just remember, there are three conquered people in the USA. The Natives, the Blacks and finally, the Southerners.

The Natives were going to lose because they weren't equipped to fight. The Blacks were enslaved so they never had a chance. The Southerners? They were just money hungry idiots that betrayed the nation, knowing their actions would start a war that they knew from the beginning they were bound to lose.

…And they destroyed themselves anyway.

That's history for you. It's never kind.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby assateague » Sun Nov 03, 2013 3:27 am

Slow, just because your opinion's different doesn't mean you're not in a circle jerk as well.

Why didn't Lincoln apply the emancipation proclamation to the slaves in the northern states?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby slowshooter » Sun Nov 03, 2013 4:11 am

LOL!

Protecting the pride of the South is a lot easier than admitting that the past leaders of the Southern States decided that they liked Slave money more than the USA isn't it? It's also easier than swallowing the fact that those States tried to leave the Union and precipitated the worst war in American history.

Heck, if you guys like Slavery so much that you can't even say that it was a morally objectionable then and today? Well, that defines YOU. Maybe you can point out that some of the founding fathers had slaves so it must be okay. LOL! That might help your cause, right?

:lol3:

Regarding the EP? Why the heck should it have done anything but what it did?

The Confederacy surrendered the Moral High Ground to Lincoln and he used it to craft a message that not only energized the Northern States but the Southern Slaves as well. It was and will remain targeted to the rebellious states.

Honestly, secession provided Lincoln with an advantage and he used it fully... He made slavery a moral issue and a guiding principle of the war. That he kept his eye on the ball and was primarily concerned with preserving the Union - while basically using the South's own action and arguments against them is a remarkable thing. Depending on where you live and how many confederate flags you own... YMMV on that opinion. :lol3:

Sure, you could argue that I'm incorrect... But just to confirm what I've said, tomorrow you can drive down the local Post office and check out that nifty flag that's flying out front. :hi:

Results matter and Honest Abe delivered them.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby assateague » Sun Nov 03, 2013 6:29 am

So, in summary, Lincoln cared only about preserving the union, which is why he started the war, using slavery as a moral hammer. Thus, it was a tool, not a cause.

Thank you for the rather wordy confirmation of exactly what others have already said.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby vincentpa » Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:36 am

blackduckdog2 wrote:Just for the record, I agree with everything in this thread. Except the "It wasn't about slavery part", because that's delusional. And the degree to which the delusion is frantically promulgated is telling. Yes, we all know there were a great many contributing factors that drove the country into near suicide. But slavery, SLAVERY was obviously not one of them. Carry on


Even the post about teaching colored folk that Cleopatra was black because its too complicated to teach her that she actually was of Macedonian decent?
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby cartervj » Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:42 am

http://www.newenglishreview.org/DL_Adams/Saul_Alinsky_and_the_Rise_of_Amorality_in_American_Politics/


Alinsky and his method negate and reject morality and ethics. The denial of history is an important component of the denial of ethics and morality. Alinsky writes in the dedication to Lucifer that history cannot be known.

“…Who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which…”

Without a knowable historical record there can be no learning from past events, and no trust in previous knowledge. The result of the denial of history is the denial of learning, because no existing knowledge can be trusted. Denial of the capability of people to attain knowledge and understanding from existing sources of information is a component of nihilism. This leaves the future open to radicals and de-constructionists like Alinsky who have made a definitive break with the past.

The institutions of society, the old institutions upon which society and morality are built, are therefore illegitimate and are to be brought down. This distrust in the idea of knowledge itself is a totalitarian, anti-intellectual concept.

Alinsky’s worldview is built then on new knowledge only and experience as the old cannot be known or trusted. This shattering of old orders is completely revolutionary and destructive as the past is therefore inherently unworthy because it cannot be trusted (myth and history are the same). The result of the rejection of the past and of knowledge can best be seen in Pol Pot’s Cambodia where knowledge and wisdom and those who possessed such things were destroyed to make way for the revolutionary Utopia of the Khmer Rouge.

Beginning on the day in 1975 when his guerrilla army marched silently into the capital, Phnom Penh, Pol Pot emptied the cities, pulled families apart, abolished religion and closed schools. Everyone was ordered to work, even children. The Khmer Rouge outlawed money and closed all markets. Doctors were killed, as were most people with skills and education that threatened the regime. (New York Times)

The rejection of morality and ethics and the embrace of total pragmatism to achieve the goal of power is characteristic of the “radical” Lucifer so respected by Alinsky. It is not important to Alinsky that Lucifer is the embodiment of the idea of evil and opposition to good; what matters is that Alinsky sees Lucifer as effective; the trains always run on time when Satan runs the show. Effectiveness and success are divorced from issues of morality and ethics; success is its own morality for Alinsky and his followers.
Morality and ethics have no value for the "radical" who wants to overturn the institutions of society and save the world. Alinsky was a Utopian dreamer who turned his formidable intellect to de-construction and removed morality from the equation for operational purposes. There can be no place for morality and ethics when the world must be transformed to a Utopia – for Alinsky and his followers this purpose is superior even to any "supreme being" and the morality and ethics which may have originated from such a being.

In fact, this rejection of accepted morality means that anything goes; any "action" is acceptable if it destroys or undermines the "status quo" and brings “change.” This is radical anti-stability for the sake of Utopianism.

rulesforradicals_dedication_3.jpg
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 6927
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby vincentpa » Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:52 am

assateague wrote:So, in summary, Lincoln cared only about preserving the union, which is why he started the war, using slavery as a moral hammer. Thus, it was a tool, not a cause.

Thank you for the rather wordy confirmation of exactly what others have already said.



Slow was too dumb to realize he made the case for your position in his last two posts when he argues the economic reasons for the war. LOL!

He was wrong in stating Lincoln used the slavery issue as a moral hammer. In fact it wasn't as big an issue as he or BDD2 would like to believe it was. Lincoln would never have been able to recruit soldiers if he had sold the war as a war to free slaves. Like most of slow's post it's based on his own ignorance and completely unsubstantiated.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby cartervj » Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:56 am

continued….

Utopians live in a fantasy realm outside of context and history, as if history and its cycles and challenges do not apply to them. Mr. Obama is at war, but not in the way that you might expect.

Our president does not appear to be seriously interested in war in Iraq or Afghanistan, these are but distractions to the main issue which is the homeland. With his oath of office taken on Abraham Lincoln's personal bible the American people thought that the long circle of racism had finally been closed with Obama's inauguration, but it is not so. We thought that we had entered a new era of openness, bi-partisanship, and post-racialism. It is not so; not since Jefferson Davis has an American president been so divisive. The Civil War allusion to Lincoln is appropriate but it is not accurate, our leadership is purposefully divisive because they are Utopians first, Americans second, third, or fourth, or fifth. We live in a time of disunity and radicalism foisted upon us by our leadership. This is not the future for which Abraham Lincoln had labored.

“A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.”

“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature. (Lincoln, 1st Inaugural Address)

“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.” (Lincoln, 2nd Inaugural Address)

We live in a time of unprecedented domestic upheaval and not any that has been brought upon us by circumstances or international conflagrations but because our Alinsky-influenced, post-modern leadership believes that conflict and struggle is the path to human evolution.

The Obama administration is the embodiment of the failure of politics because it is not about politics - politics involves concession and compromise - it is about victory at any cost. The American people expected hope and change, as that is what they voted for but what they really wanted was stability and prosperity.

"Thus Alinsky begins his text by telling readers exactly what a radical is. He is not a reformer of the system but its would-be destroyer. In his own mind the radical is building his own kingdom, which to him is a kingdom of heaven on earth. Since a kingdom of heaven built by human beings is a fantasy - and impossible dream- the radical's only real world efforts are those which are aimed at subverting the society he lives in. He is a nihilist.

This is something that conservatives generally have a hard time understanding. As a former radical, I am constantly asked how radicals could hate America and why they would want to destroy a society that compared to others is tolerant, inclusive and open, and treats all people with a dignity and respect that is the envy of the world. The answer to the this question is that radicals are not comparing America to other real world societies. They are comparing America to the heaven on earth - the kingdom of social justice and freedom - they think they are building. And compared to this heaven even America is hell." (Horowitz, pp.16-17, Barack Obama's Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model)

The United States was founded upon the concept that “the people” rule not the elites; that is why there are checks and balances built into our system of government. The Alinsky followers, now that they hold the levers of power, are seeing a popular opposition to their endless agitations. The rise of the Alinskyites has been a rude awakening for most Americans, but it has also energized a vocal opposition.
We must return to our roots, our moral, ethical and legal roots, Constitution and Bill of Rights. We must see ourselves in an historical context which the Harvard and Yale dhimmis in positions of authority will not. Our culture and our country are of great value and are worth protecting and saving. We live in a confused time, but the confusion is clearing away; it is clearing away through knowledge and understanding of the motivations of those in power.
The Alinsky ideology of nihilism and deconstruction must be repudiated. Those who are his sycophants and fellow travelers must be exposed and shamed for waging war on their own country and their own people in the name of Utopianism and endless struggle.
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 6927
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby possumfoot » Sun Nov 03, 2013 8:02 am

slow how does stating a fact that the civil war was not about slavery = you must support slavery?? please, in a rational thought, explain that one for me?? i know, i know, rational might be too much to ask, but try to humor me...
WTN10 wrote:He was funny like a Pomeranian getting kicked over a fence.


pgquackstacker wrote:I actually started bringing a gun with me on dates, so I bring the girl's father out to my car and tell him if he tries to cock-block me I'll kill him.
User avatar
possumfoot
hunter
 
Posts: 5075
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 5:13 pm
Location: making sesbania my bitch

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby ohioboy » Sun Nov 03, 2013 8:30 am

vincentpa wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:Just for the record, I agree with everything in this thread. Except the "It wasn't about slavery part", because that's delusional. And the degree to which the delusion is frantically promulgated is telling. Yes, we all know there were a great many contributing factors that drove the country into near suicide. But slavery, SLAVERY was obviously not one of them. Carry on


Even the post about teaching colored folk that Cleopatra was black because its too complicated to teach her that she actually was of Macedonian decent?


soooooooooooo confused......
User avatar
ohioboy
hunter
 
Posts: 2168
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: MoCo, MD

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby blackduckdog2 » Sun Nov 03, 2013 8:41 am

vincentpa wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:Just for the record, I agree with everything in this thread. Except the "It wasn't about slavery part", because that's delusional. And the degree to which the delusion is frantically promulgated is telling. Yes, we all know there were a great many contributing factors that drove the country into near suicide. But slavery, SLAVERY was obviously not one of them. Carry on


Even the post about teaching colored folk that Cleopatra was black because its too complicated to teach her that she actually was of Macedonian decent?

Well, I gotta admit I missed that part (it's a long thread) Macedonian doesn't seem particularly complicated, though
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6286
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby macdaddy » Sun Nov 03, 2013 9:12 am

ohioboy wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
ohioboy wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:If the subject is to deep for an 8 year old then they should wait until the students are old enough to understand, not teach "history" that is convenient.

as my post pointed out, what if that is never for some folks? you do realize there are a lot of not so smart people out there?

CD, what age do think could handle the following:
Civics: Democratic skills and attitudes; relationships among rights, responsibilities, and democratic ideas; organizations and leaders help the community; effects of personal choices.

i pick civics because it is my area (history).

Honestly, it was my favorite subject in school so I don't know if that would skew the useable info for your question. We had a great teacher and that really helped too. I would say that the 7th grade was about when I was ready to start getting into the real meat and potatoes of history and government.


that is for the first 9 weeks of second grade in my system. the problem is that if we wait, we run out of time, and by the time they get to me in 9th grade, i am shocked at the stuff they know and dont know. they are forced early on to grasp issues and ideas that i have problems with and are not agreed upon by certain groups. my point is that i know we are all very passionate about certain areas of history/math/science/literature but we can not teach it all to the point of clarity that we of the CI would like.

so when someone says civil war=slavery, dont be shocked. or when you ask the average joe what newtons 2nd law of gravity is (did i spell his name right?), they might not know. unless you are an expert in that area, you probably have limited knowledge. and THAT is what some people on the CI forum have trouble grasping.

back to grading, yes on a saturday night. :fingerhead:


And I will be grading mine while watching the Steelers lose.

What so many on this thread don't know is that ohioboy & I have to follow a curriculum. 9 times out of 10 that curriculum is based on textbooks. Can't find a stated fact in the text? Well then, it ought not be stated! If a textbook says nothing about the high import tariffs on Southern cotton, and moreover how New England textilers benefitted, then the topic is outside of the curriculum.

I learned that Cleo was a Macedonian in high school (back when there was no "curriculum"). Then in college I learned that she was a Ptolemy; her greatX5 grandpa was one of Alexander's generals.
I'm the guy your Mother Goose warned you about.
macdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:18 am
Location: Mercer/Lawrence Co's. W. Pa

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby blackduckdog2 » Sun Nov 03, 2013 9:35 am

cartervj wrote:http://www.newenglishreview.org/DL_Adams/Saul_Alinsky_and_the_Rise_of_Amorality_in_American_Politics/


Alinsky and his method negate and reject morality and ethics. The denial of history is an important component of the denial of ethics and morality. Alinsky writes in the dedication to Lucifer that history cannot be known.

“…Who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which…”

Without a knowable historical record there can be no learning from past events, and no trust in previous knowledge. The result of the denial of history is the denial of learning, because no existing knowledge can be trusted. Denial of the capability of people to attain knowledge and understanding from existing sources of information is a component of nihilism. This leaves the future open to radicals and de-constructionists like Alinsky who have made a definitive break with the past.

The institutions of society, the old institutions upon which society and morality are built, are therefore illegitimate and are to be brought down. This distrust in the idea of knowledge itself is a totalitarian, anti-intellectual concept.

Alinsky’s worldview is built then on new knowledge only and experience as the old cannot be known or trusted. This shattering of old orders is completely revolutionary and destructive as the past is therefore inherently unworthy because it cannot be trusted (myth and history are the same). The result of the rejection of the past and of knowledge can best be seen in Pol Pot’s Cambodia where knowledge and wisdom and those who possessed such things were destroyed to make way for the revolutionary Utopia of the Khmer Rouge.

Beginning on the day in 1975 when his guerrilla army marched silently into the capital, Phnom Penh, Pol Pot emptied the cities, pulled families apart, abolished religion and closed schools. Everyone was ordered to work, even children. The Khmer Rouge outlawed money and closed all markets. Doctors were killed, as were most people with skills and education that threatened the regime. (New York Times)

The rejection of morality and ethics and the embrace of total pragmatism to achieve the goal of power is characteristic of the “radical” Lucifer so respected by Alinsky. It is not important to Alinsky that Lucifer is the embodiment of the idea of evil and opposition to good; what matters is that Alinsky sees Lucifer as effective; the trains always run on time when Satan runs the show. Effectiveness and success are divorced from issues of morality and ethics; success is its own morality for Alinsky and his followers.
Morality and ethics have no value for the "radical" who wants to overturn the institutions of society and save the world. Alinsky was a Utopian dreamer who turned his formidable intellect to de-construction and removed morality from the equation for operational purposes. There can be no place for morality and ethics when the world must be transformed to a Utopia – for Alinsky and his followers this purpose is superior even to any "supreme being" and the morality and ethics which may have originated from such a being.

In fact, this rejection of accepted morality means that anything goes; any "action" is acceptable if it destroys or undermines the "status quo" and brings “change.” This is radical anti-stability for the sake of Utopianism.

rulesforradicals_dedication_3.jpg

Here's a somewhat different spiritual take on the matter, vj……..at the time of the Civil War, slavery as an institution was beginning to be seen for the evil that we would all eventually come to understand it as. Compared with much of the civilized world, we were behind the curve for a whole lot of reasons (and yeah, here I'll give you economics as chief among them. We were committed, especially in the south) But in very much the same way as an alcoholic knows that eventually his disease is gonna do him in, but cannot admit it to himself, we knew we would have get beyond slavery if we were going to move forward as a legitimate and civilized culture.
We know these things long before we can actually admit them to ourselves. We know these things even farther before we can muster the strength to do anything about them, and the interim period is one of moral confusion and spiritual angst. It isn't a matter of merely lacking the strength of one's convictions, it's more an issue of growing into an awareness of just what those convictions are going to be.
When individuals are in this state of spiritual confusion, it's really common for them to rail against any sort of change (just think of all the conversion stories, like Saul to Paul, where the soul was mired in moral destitution and rebellion right up until the time he gets religion) and depending on the scope and grip of the problem, they become extremely dangerous to themselves and those around them. It's a common story among addicts' families, a sort of raging against the light, although even that only happens in the final stages because the act of seeing the light (and being willing to see it, perhaps more poignantly) is such a long and gradual process.
These are not my ideas, actually, and I'm trying to present them as coherently as I can, but since the priest who presented them to me over a whole lot of Irish in a Southie bar is no longer among us (RIP Father Tom), I have to work from memory, which is, as you might guess, a little cloudy.
Anyway, Father Tom's historical expertise was in the colonial era and especially King Philip's War (which embraced, in its own circumscribed way, a level of cultural iniquity unseen in any of the European wars that then served as a reference point) But he would have qualified by most of your standards as a CW buff, I think. And ever since I heard him expound on the matter, I've never been able to see that conflict against the backdrop of any other issue besides slavery. Which is not to say I don't see, and appreciate how well articulated are the ideas and causes and factors that others are throwing out in this thread. But I see them as raisins in the pudding, not the pudding itself
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6286
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests