Voters salute current flag (Georgia-GOP Purdue wins, Dem Barnes loses)

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 3/3/04 | Ben Smith

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Can you post for me an article out of the Atlanta newspaper from 1956 that states that defiance was the reason the flag was changed?

Seems like all the "evidence" linking the 1956 GSF to segregation is pretty recent.

Why do you think that is?

And no, you did not not refute my original contention, wishful thinking on your part not withstanding, and you can get as simple as you want, and as unpleasant as you think you need to be to make whatever point you think you have. You cannot condemn one flag for flying over a state which practiced segregation for 8 years, but give another flag which flew over a nation which practiced slavery for 89 years a pass and remain intellectually consistent.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Yeah right, and next you'll claim that the poll tax was just a means of raising revenue?

That's why you flag obsessors have zero credibility.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

I am not a "flag obsessor." I deny the allegation and confound the alligator.

Poll taxes have not been a subject of this conversation until you just now brought it up in an attempt to deflect attention from your inability to find any 1956-era admissions that defiance was the reason for the 1956 GSF and your discomfort with applying the same rules to the Stars & Stripes as you apply to the GSF.

Intellectual consistency is a bitch. Many people never trouble themselves with it.

When the NAACP and President Hillary declare the US Flag offensive, what logical argument will you have to defend it? The very creation of the flag itself was an act of defiance against our lawful King. And half of those old, dead, white dudes were slave owners.

Is slavery not more heinous than segregation?

[Diddle E. Squat]

Naw, you invoked a diversionary technique, and I threw it back in your face with a similar example. Are you really claiming that southern states attempting to change their flags in the civil war movement was not a defiant act tied to issues of segregation and civil rights?

If so, that is simply denial. I'm not going to waste time creating a thesis of refutation.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Are you really claiming that southern states attempting to change their flags in the civil war movement was not a defiant act tied to issues of segregation and civil rights?

See post 32 above. Georgia did not have a state flag to change during "the civil war movement."

I'm not going to waste time creating a thesis of refutation.

I asked for contemporary, 1956-era evidence that the creation of the 1956 GSF was a defiant act tied to issues of segregation and civil rights.

You have provided none.

Your time is precious. Waste no more of it trying to convince me of things you cannot prove.

I believe I have made my point.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Yes, you caught a typo in my response, 'civil war movement' should be 'civil rights movement'.

So I'll repeat my post, corrected for that typo.

---

Naw, you invoked a diversionary technique, and I threw it back in your face with a similar example. Are you really claiming that southern states attempting to change their flags in the civil rights movement was not a defiant act tied to issues of segregation and civil rights?

If so, that is simply denial. I'm not going to waste time creating a thesis of refutation.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

First National, Stainless Banner (Second National), Third National

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Apparently your time isn't that valuable.

Do you have any contemporary, 1956-era evidence that the pre-1956 GSF was changed in 1956 as a defiant act tied to issues of segregation and civil rights?

This is a simple, yes or no question.

If you do, post it.

[Diddle E. Squat]

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:N5-iyUQ4RsIJ:www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2003/04/07/editorial3.html+1956+georgia+%22denmark+groover%22+segregation+%22flag%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

"Denmark Groover, the governor's floor leader in 1956, conceded 45 years later: "I'm positive that to some degree [the confrontation with the federal courts] was a motivating factor in myself and others." "

From the mouth of the man who sponsored the 1956 change. Something ever flag obsessor is by now aware of, yet still the ridiculous attempt at denial and feigned ignorance.

Now I'm done. You can try all the debate tricks you want, the truth is pretty obvious.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Thank you.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Denmark Groover, the governor's floor leader in 1956, conceded 45 years later

Yes, the truth IS pretty obvious. What Denmark Groover says 45 years later is obviously NOT the contemporary, 1956-era evidence I have repeatedly asked you to provide. One might wonder whether good ole Denmark was lying in 1956, or in 2001. There was no politically correct constituency to suck up to in 1956.

Obviously, your failure to provide contemporary, 1956-era evidence clearly indicates the non-existance of such.

Which has been my contention all along.

It is good that you are done now.

If you really are.

[stand watie]

LYING is a REAL threat!

if we can't trust his word of honor (and that is PRECISELY what he gave us!) on this, why should we/you/anybody believe anything else he says?????

free dixie,sw