Posted on 02/03/2010 8:57:04 AM PST by cowboyway
The Sons of Confederate Veterans (S.C.V.) is a fraternal organization composed of male descendents of the men who served in the Confederate Armed Forces during the War for Southern Independence. Their emblems include the controversial Confederate battle flag. Their core responsibility is articulated in a charge given to them by Lt. General Stephen D. Lee which calls on them to defend the heritage, honor, and reputation of the Confederate soldier and the Cause they fought for.
The Cause they fought for was individual liberty, state's rights, the original Constitution and the right to secede. In essence, Confederates fought an aggressive Union which would not allow the states to exercise an accepted right of secession. This right had been exercised by all the original states when they withdrew from the government of the Articles of Confederation, and entered the present day United States of America. Further, the Tenth Amendment reserved all powers not addressed in the Constitution to the States and people respectively. And lastly, the new union was formed as each individual state entered the union.
(Excerpt) Read more at nolanchart.com ...
Another common liberal tactic: when you're busted saying something stupid, counter attack by questioning your opponents education and intelligence. (Sarah Palin gets this all the time.)
did you see that part that said "Ron Wilson"
Did you see this part? " and Kirk Lyons,"
I know you yankee liberals aren't real bright but do you know what the work 'and' means, don't you?
If you want to give an alternative version of what has happened in the SCV in the last decade,
Another liberal tactic: imply that I said something that I didn't. (your mentor, NS, tried that same tactic on this very thread by stating unequivocally that I 'hate the United States')
Once again you've been exposed as a liar. Your attempts to deny your dishonesty are lame and pathetic.
Give some details of the rest of your warped picture. For instance, is the lynch mob white? What color is the person being lynched? (I mean, you do know, with your superior education and intelligence, that other races, including whites, were also lynched, right?)
But your statement stands for what it is: your narrow mindedness and irrational hatred of Southerners automatically assumes that anybody with Confederate symbols is a racist, including the white kid in the photo above.
First, in all the pictures of lynchings that I've seen (they were often sold as souvenir postcards), I've never seen a black face in the mob, and white victims have been few and far between. (e.g. the Leo Frank case). If you'd like, I can post some pictures.
Let's do the numbers:
Lynchings, United States, 1882-1968: 4773
Black Victims Nationally: 3446
White Victims Nationally: 1297
Lynchings, 11 Southern States: 3531
Black Victims, 11 Southern States: 3029
White Victims 11 Southern States: 492
Lynchings, 39 Non-Southern States: 1202
Black Victims, 39 Non-Southern States: 427
White Victims, 39 Non-Southern States: 775
So nearly two-thirds of all documented lynchings were of blacks, in the south. Lynching of blacks in the remaining 39 states are a little less than 9% of all lynching victims. Black victims in the south outnumber white victims 6 to 1. In the other states, white victims outnumber black victims almost 2 to 1.
A case can be made that southerners are more egalitarian in their lynching. Forty percent of all white victims of lynching came from those 11 states.
Your lack of self-awareness is awe-inspiring. Have you actually read your own posts?
Did you see this part? " and Kirk Lyons,"
The operative conjunction is "and." I know it's a small word, but you really must try to read them all. If I say that Barack Obama and George Soros conspired to take over leadership of the the US, are you really going to shout, "George Soros wasn't actually elected to be president, therefore he has no influence"?
Another liberal tactic: imply that I said something that I didn't.
Now you really have gone around the bend. The sentence fragment that you quote, "If you want to give an alternative version of what has happened in the SCV in the last decade..." doesn't imply that you've said anything. Quite to the contrary. You haven't actually said anything about the recent history of the SCV and its leadership. You asked for my version of the events. I gave it. That sentence is an invitation for you to give your version.
Post #183 proves you can use da google......wow.............we're too awestruck to continue.....................
(what does any of that have to do with you implying that the white kid was a racist?)
And so you did. We're all so very grateful that we have a true google master in our midst.
Of course, like NS, you have the tendency to cherry pick certain words and phrases in a lame attempt to make your case but you seem to forget that the rest of us have da googles also.
Why don't you take your lying ass back over to DU? I'm sure that NS is missing you.
Your paranoia knows no bounds. I never implied that the kid in the picture is racist. I don’t know anything about him. What I’m doing is mocking your apparent belief that merely being photographed with a black person is incontrovertible evidence that the person isn’t a racist.
You, on the other hand, seem to be unable to make any case at all except through bullying and bluster, despite your claim to be able to conduct a Google search.
Well, it was a polite invitation to honesty.
I ended my last post with a calculated accusation which I will restore: "You ... both have concluded posts with the claim that any occurrence of segregation within the South makes the institution "Southern" regardless of its scope." You did not bother to deny this. Would you like to do so now?
And you are so fair and honest that the fact that you ignored the Virginia and South Carolina parts of the case in your haste to try and bash the North with it was no doubt simple oversight. But by all means check my facts. Research is to be encouraged among the Southron contingent.
Here, you prove the above accusation to be truthful. If the Brown case testifies to the existence of segregation in South Carolina, Virginia, Kansas, Delaware, and the District of Columbia, then I take from it that segregation was present in South Carolina, Virginia, Kansas, Delaware, and the District of Columbia. Your takeaway is that it existed in South Carolina and Virginia and fault any who cite Kansas. I anticipated this when I prefaced my previous post with a refusal to deny that segregation existed in South as it did elsewhere, yet you accuse me of ignoring South Carolina and Virginia precisely because I brought up Kansas. Your recitation only supports your conclusion ("Southern honor at its finest") if, indeed, your standard of proof is "any occurrence...within the South makes the institution 'Southern'". I did not, for my part, refer to the Boston riots to suggest that forced segregation should be considered 'Northeastern'.
It is largely imaginary, according to the Southern representatives who post here.
If you would explain what your standard of proof is, exactly, you could prove them wrong.
Liar.
A case for what? That you're a liar?
That's been done so many times be me and everybody else that you have become nothing more than a sick joke.
NS never, ever admits when he’s wrong.
He just runs away.
Surely you've got something in your argument other than insults and bluster.
Your detachment from anything resembling the real world continues. I never even mentioned the kid. What I said was "By the standards of likesboysway, the mob of people photographed at a lynching couldn't possibly be racist, because there's a black person in the picture. "
I already did, dumbass. You claimed that Lyons had taken over the SCV and when challenged to prove it you start doing the liberal cha-cha to say that you really didn't say what you had said.
Surely you've got something in your argument other than insults and bluster.
'Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience.'
Hmmm...nope, nothing’s changed on this POS post of your’s...not that I expected it to...bydee-bye.
Keep burying your head in the sand about the SCV. Anyone who does the research (a group that clearly doesn't include you) will see that what I say is true. I've spelled it out too many times now, but apparently the only way that you'll believe that Kirk Lyons held a position of great influence within the SCV is if he actually occupies the Commander in Chief slot. Somewhere, George Soros laughs.
For anyone else reading this thread, savethescv.org has the whole story, from former members of the group.
'Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience.'
And yet I persist. Because arguing with idiots like you is actually fairly entertaining.
Sounds like sour grapes to me not to mention that he's caught the PC.
If you and Hilderman and the rest of you PC yankees think that 'education' and 'public relations' is going to change the hearts and minds of the NAACP, the New Black Panthers, etc. then you're dumber than an anvil.
Sounds like the SCV is catching up with me in that they don't give a damn what the NAACP, Obama, you damnyankees or anybody else thinks about me, the Stars and Bars, the Confederacy or anything else concerning the South and our Southern heritage.
Put that in your bong and smoke it, bubba.
arguing with idiots like you is actually fairly entertaining.
Yep.
Yawn...................
What kind of dance is that? The Clinton waltz? The John F'n Kerry shuffle? The Obama spin?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.