Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Boycott the History Channel's Advertisers
Coach Is Right ^ | 12/20/10 | Bruce Karlson

Posted on 12/20/2010 8:07:19 AM PST by brucek43

Recently the History Channel proved that it is as snarky as those of who watch it thought.

To wit: the Georgia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) wanted to run some ads on the History Channel. These ads pointed out the legal basis for secession and, quite accurately, that the North invaded the newly configured Confederacy (Manassas/Bull Run is, after all, in Virginia). Another pointed out that Northern interests essentially ran the Federal government, frequently to the advantage Northern supporters at the expense of the South. The most accurate ad of all simply stated that ANY STATE had the right to remove itself from the Union. It is fair to opine that, if our Founders had put an ominous clause in the Constitution forbidding an exit, our nation would have started out with many fewer states…including Virginia,... … Continue Reading:Boycott the History Channel’s Advertisers!!

(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: antiamerican; boycott; confederacy; hisrorychannel; historychannel; itsaboutslaverydummy; kukluxklan; partyofsecession; partyofslavery; proslaveryfreepers; secession; treason; whitehoodscaucus; whitesupremacists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-108 next last
To: CharlesWayneCT
First, saying one ad is “the most accurate” pretty much admits that the other ads have innacuracies.

Accurate is one of those words, like unique, that can't be modified. It either is or it is not accurate, period. One thing can be more nearly accurate than something else but it can't not be more accurate or less accurate.

81 posted on 12/20/2010 11:25:51 AM PST by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
We should try to understand the past for what it may be able to teach us about the present and future. When we manipulate the story of the past to try to impose our view of what the present and future should be, we defeat the purpose of history. Many of the posts on these Civil War threads illustrate this point perfectly.

Since 90% of the lies and BS about the WBTS comes from the "victors" perspective, I whole heartedly agree.

82 posted on 12/20/2010 11:57:54 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: central_va

I agree with you that there are a lot of lies and BS on these threads. I see it on both sides, but I must respectfully disagree with you as to which side provides the majority.


83 posted on 12/20/2010 12:00:56 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: central_va

What’s the matter vag, run out of people to slander on the homo-bash threads?


84 posted on 12/20/2010 12:21:57 PM PST by rockrr ("I said that I was scared of you!" - pokie the pretend cowboy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
What’s the matter vag, run out of people to slander on the homo-bash threads?

There is always time for the punkrr....

85 posted on 12/20/2010 1:31:01 PM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Logic n' Reason

What? You don’t like Chumley??


86 posted on 12/20/2010 2:06:47 PM PST by doberville
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch

A great idea!!!

California first??


87 posted on 12/20/2010 2:08:14 PM PST by brucek43
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Opinionated Blowhard

The SCV does not believe that secession is still a viable option. As a matter of history, however, the discussion is the way wannabe historians spend some of their time.

And...even though it is of no practical use, I would argue tta the Feds do not have the right to put anything in anything that we consume. 9th and 10th Anmendments.

teh HC has deeriorated into a ot of mush punctuated by substance. I simply found theunctous dismissal of the SCV request to be worth a few words on “paper”.


88 posted on 12/20/2010 2:14:30 PM PST by brucek43
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

For an “honest” man he told a ton of lies and many half truths. Probably no worse that FDR who one
ly managed to get 400,000 killed as opposed to AL who caused 620,000.


89 posted on 12/20/2010 2:31:51 PM PST by brucek43
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: brucek43

For your 620,000 you can look directly to your jeff davis and his thugs.


90 posted on 12/20/2010 2:33:46 PM PST by rockrr ("I said that I was scared of you!" - pokie the pretend cowboy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Thidwick

Agree that THC has become a junk store. Given that, its attitusde toward a genunie historical issue besomes even less supportable.


91 posted on 12/20/2010 2:34:31 PM PST by brucek43
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Given that, one imagines ther should be room for a few ads reviving an unresoleved historical issue.

Agree that the show on National Socialist Germany was worhwhile.


92 posted on 12/20/2010 2:37:05 PM PST by brucek43
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.

Even linocln lovers will agree that eh FORCED the attack as he needed (like FDR) the “enemy” to fore the first shot.


93 posted on 12/20/2010 2:38:41 PM PST by brucek43
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: brucek43

Ah, the “Linkum tricked us” ploy. Sorta tread-bare doncha think?


94 posted on 12/20/2010 2:41:18 PM PST by rockrr ("I said that I was scared of you!" - pokie the pretend cowboy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
"So what you’re saying is “everything is relative”?"

Not at all.

You can find history in many varieties of writings, but that doesn't make them ALL accurate whatsoever.

I believe that we now have very few CURRENT History Books in public schools that accurately reflect history. What we have is the politically-correct, sanitized, agenda-driven Liberal drivel of so-called "Intelligent Scholars", just as EVERY report on issues that we care about are agenda-driven hit pieces to further the Agenda, when a Government sponsored "report" on a situation is given.

You might as well depend on the State Run Media to give you the "facts".

That's what I'm sayin'.

95 posted on 12/20/2010 2:41:27 PM PST by traditional1 ("Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: brucek43
Sorry my friend, I'm not buying it. I usually am on the other side of the fence on the North-South, Blue-Grey, Yank-Reb,Union-Confederacy issue and have found myself defending Lee, while castigating Grant and calling Sherman a war criminal.

But to say that the south was "invaded" by the North, well lets just say that is a bit self serving to the cause.

Once the south seceded the war was on, for all intense and purposes. The location of the War just had to be determined and the North decided first.

96 posted on 12/20/2010 2:53:08 PM PST by Michael.SF. (Current count of friends/family who have abandoned Obama: 11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Logic n' Reason
With over 5,000 years of history, one must wonder what possessed the folks at the History Channel to air these two pieces of ofal??

1. They are really cheap to produce.

2. They get the same ad rates as anything else they air in the same time slot.

97 posted on 12/20/2010 3:13:52 PM PST by surely_you_jest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven
Of all the problems facing the country today, is the question of whether or not states have the right to succeed from the Union at the top of the priority list?

I'd buy at least a little bit of property there right away, and see what kind of government they set up.

98 posted on 12/20/2010 3:39:17 PM PST by c-five
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
jeff davis and his thugs

Always nice to see an accurate description of Boss Jeff and his minions. If DiLorenzo really was interested about writing biographies of tyrants, ol' Davis would be a perfect subject.

99 posted on 12/20/2010 3:42:59 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: brucek43
These ads pointed out the legal basis for secession and, quite accurately, that the North invaded the newly configured Confederacy (Manassas/Bull Run is, after all, in Virginia). Another pointed out that Northern interests essentially ran the Federal government, frequently to the advantage Northern supporters at the expense of the South. The most accurate ad of all simply stated that ANY STATE had the right to remove itself from the Union.

Gee, these ads are even worse than I'd imagined. I'd assumed they were just a "heritage" thing: "We're proud of our ancestors."

No responsible cable outlet would broadcast divisive junk like this. It's sort of like La Raza or the New Black Panther Party or the Fruit of Islam were to try to buy ads to spread their own historical fantasies.

For the record, Southerners dominated the federal government in the years leading up to the Civil War. Certainly White Southerners had more power in Washington DC than their numbers alone would have warranted.

Eight of the fifteen presidents before Lincoln were Southerners (nine if you include Virginia-born Harrison), and since that includes every president who'd won reelection up until 1860, a Southerner was in the White House more often than not before the Civil War.

Southerners dominated the Democratic Party, and in the years from 1800 to 1860 the Speaker of the House came from a slave state considerably more often than not. The Supreme Court was led first by Chief Justice John Marshall and then by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney from 1801 to 1864. They were both from slave states, and while I haven't been able to check all the justices, it looks like half the associate justices in the 1840s and 1850s were Southerners. Washington was a Southern city in those days.

Southerners had great power in the pre-Civil War federal government. Do you think they didn't use it to advance their own interests? Do you think that rather than being victims of powerful Northerners, Southern politicians may have been afraid of losing their own considerable power and that they supported secession for that reason, not out of victimhood? And why does the SCV feel it has to lie about history?

100 posted on 12/20/2010 4:55:32 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-108 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson