Negotiators approve flag compromise (GA State Flag)

Atlanta Journal Constitution ^ | 04/04/03 | Jim Galloway

[WhiskeyPapa]

Negotiators approve flag compromise

By JIM GALLOWAY

Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer

Proposed new Georgia state flag.

Georgia's state flag would be changed immediately, with a public vote to follow, under a plan endorsed by a key House committee today.

The new flag would resemble the first national flag of the Confederacy -- three red and white bars, with a blue field in the top left corner. The state seal would be in the blue corner, and the words "In God We Trust" would be written to the right.

The bill adopted by the House Rules Committee calls for the Legislature to change the flag to the new design immediately. Then, in March 2004, a public referendum would be held to let voters decide whether they want to keep that flag.

Only if the new flag is rejected by voters would a second referendum be held, this time in July 2004, asking voters if they want to return to the Georgia flag dominated by the Confederate battle emblem, or the flag that flew before 1956. The current flag would not be on the ballot.

The Rules Committee proposal now heads to the full House for a vote next week, although the bill may be amended there and still requires Senate approval.

Gov. Sonny Perdue, who had proposed a statewide referendum on changing Georgia's flag, is endorsing the proposal.

"We believe this represents a compromise," said Rep. Glenn Richardson (R-Dallas), the governor's floor leader who sponsored Perdue's flag bill. "This will bring this to a conclusion."

The Legislature, led by former Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes, voted in 2001 to shrink the Confederate battle emblem on the state flag, which was added in 1956 as Georgia schools were being ordered to desegregate.

[HELLRAISER II]

I have never had much criticism from you so I am not quoting something that you have said, However there have been many who are alway's joking about the way we talk, what we eat or that we are racist jerks because of our support for the flag. Now with that said I will say that I don't think we're that much different, i'm sure you put your pants on the same way I do and i'm sure that we are both 100% American. But then again i'm not one of the guy's that's always bashing Northenors or Southernors.

[GOPcapitalist]

Uh, Walt. Those McPhernut cut n' pastes have been rebutted long ago. In practically every single one of them, the south is reflected negatively NOT because of its economic structure but rather because McPherson INTENTIONALLY CHOSE to use criteria that would make the south look economically backwards and, in doing so, took selective factual liberties that no credible economist would ever give any weight to.

Tell me Wlat - what do you think is a better economic indicator of a country: It's annual exports, or some vaguely stated description of where immigrants are settling?

For the record, McPhernut neglected the former and chose the latter.

You know why he did so? Because, in 1860, the south produced about 75% of the ENTIRE NATION's exports and citing that fact does not mesh with his ahistorical spin of a "backwards" southern economy. The south also led the nation in all the standard capital and wealth statistics at the time. But McPhernut has an agenda against the south, so instead of using standard economic measures like capital and exports, he trolls around for things like where immigrants settled, or, when possible, he measures the southern economy by the standards of the northern one.

Going to McPherson for economic analysis is like going to Marx for economic analysis - it's deceptive, misleading, arbitrary, incompatable with the real world, and completely screws up every functioning economy it touches. Perhaps this is because McPherson gets his economics, not to mention politics, from the exact same place as Marx.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Uh, Walt. Those McPhernut cut n' pastes have been rebutted long ago.

What Dr. McPherson said dovetails pretty nicely with what Bruce Catton and Dr. Freehling said.

Or can you tell us where locomotives were being produced in the south?

And that 75% of exports -- what was the total of exports from the so-called seceded states from 1862-65?

Walt

[GOPcapitalist]

What Dr. McPherson said dovetails pretty nicely with what Bruce Catton and Dr. Freehling said.

All of whom are historians trying to provide economic analysis. They are outside of their areas of expertise, hence another reason that they got it so screwed up.

McPherson's credentials as an economist are zilch to begin with and the fact that what little he knows about economic analysis comes from a bearded German guy who liked to rant about the proletariat diminishes those credentials even further.

Or can you tell us where locomotives were being produced in the south?

The site of locomotive production is not a substantial economic indicator for a country or region. Exports and capital are.

And that 75% of exports -- what was the total of exports from the so-called seceded states from 1862-65?

I believe the stat was from 1859 or 1860. About 75% of the entire United States exports came from the southern States. Walt

[Aurelius]

"No state has even been out of the Union for a single minute."

In your opinion, that is. I have tried and tried to explain to you the difference between fact and opinion, but you just don't seem to be able to get. Some people have the requisite matter between the ears and others don't. You, I'm sad to say, fall in the latter class.

[mac_truck]

To the contrary. Each of those facts are irrefutable. If you can show otherwise, do so. If not, you have no grounds to make the claim that they are straw men. Time to either put up or shut up. Walt, aka the poster known as WhiskeyPapa: 1. Blames 9/11 on George Bush (source) 2. Is a card carrying liberal Democrat voter (source) 3. Voted for Bill Clinton (source) 4. Says he would still vote for Clinton "ten times out of ten." (source) 5. Voted for Al Gore. (source) 6. Says he would vote for Gore again. (source) 7. Claims that Reagan was more corrupt than Nixon. (source) 8. Expresses hope and desire that Reagan's legacy will diminish over time. (source) 9. Claims that the ACJ, one of the most notoriously liberal papers in the nation, is not biased. (source) 10. Regularly claims that George W. Bush is an incompetant puppet. (source) 11. Regularly calls George W. Bush names including "a clown," "a figurehead," and "an idiot." (source, source) 12. Calls the Constitution a "pact with the devil." (source) 13. Attacks the Constitution as a tool of "rich white men." (source) 14. And proudly stands by each and every one of these facts when they are brought up. (source) I'll leave it to Whiskey Papa to share his opinion of the Virginia cross-burning case, but my money says there's not a dimes worth of difference between your two positions. As I said previously, even a broken clock is right two times a day. According to your logic, that means you agree with every word old Walt ever spoke. Now THAT is a classic example of a straw man argument. Nowhere did I ever assert or imply anything of the sort. What I did note, however, is the fact of YOUR inconsistency in posting. Specifically, you lobbed all sorts of accusations at another poster and suggested he go to DU for allegedly saying something about visiting Cuba. Your claim was that, by the alleged Cuba statement alone, he did not belong here and was not a conservative. Yet on a daily basis, you align yourself with and praise another poster who has said things 1000 times more liberal on many, many different occasions, stands by every one of those liberal things, and, by his own freely chosen partisan affiliation, would fit right in at DU. Yet never once do any of those things he said bother you to the point that you would suggest he go there. That is called inconsistency. That is called a double standard. You tell another poster to go to DU over a single allegedly liberal comment, yet when the guy you regularly praise and support here says things 1000 times worse, you are silent.

Bite me, you brainwashed Lew CRockwell Stepford wife

[Non-Sequitur]

What you have presented is a picture of an economy built on a agricultural exports alone, and that produces nothing for itself but instead imports everything. Isn't that a reasonable description of a colony?

[WhiskeyPapa]

What you have presented is a picture of an economy built on a agricultural exports alone, and that produces nothing for itself but instead imports everything. Isn't that a reasonable description of a colony?

That's pretty much what Dr. McPherson says.

The planters were deeply in debt to northern creditors. Secession was a good way to throw off that debt. That's what the secesh thought, any way.

Walt

[PeaRidge]

From the "Historical Statistics of the United States", 317.3 at your local library, US Documents Section, US Department of Commerce, pages 890-899 comes the following:

For 1859, total exports (less re-exports and specie) were $278 million. Of that, cotton and tobacco export value (at the export US Customs site)was $208m.

Just cotton and tobacco was 65% of the total value of exports for that year.

In 1860, it was the same percentage.

But that is not the whole story.

If the other Southern produced exports are added (sugar, flour, hemp, leather, fish, naval stores) and the value of Southern grown cotton used by northern mills to make finished cotton goods for export, then the value of Southern goods in export is over 75%.

And 98% of the US Treasury was funded by tariff revenue.

It was obvious that Lincoln would tolerate slavery but not the loss of revenue.

[Aurelius]

"Bite me, you brainwashed Lew CRockwell Stepford wife"

The brilliance of your repartie is just overwhelming! And the idea of reproducing the text and then striking through it! What genius! What profound originality!

[mac_truck]

No, you've got me confused with someone who gives a damn what you low life LR zombies think.

Cheers!

[PeaRidge]

You remind me of the character on Saturday Night Live that was the constant liar. He would run from one lie to the next and try anything to see if it would work.

So now, you want to use locomotive production as a measure of Southern industry. "That's the ticket".

So here>>>>"In the 1830's, the Tredegar Iron Works was born in response to these new circumstances (Southern railroad building) plus the opportunity to fill the growing need for railroad components. Tredegar's early products included spikes, rails, car wheels, and locomotives."

When prices on pig iron from Pennsylvania became too expensive, Southern companies bought locomotives from Britain. Then the government officals from Pennsylvania were successful in getting Congress to pass higher tariffs on English locomotives.

So, wouldn't you secede?

What's next Ticket Man?

[PeaRidge]

"What you have presented is a picture of an economy built on a agricultural exports"

Since 75% of American exports were Southern produced, and 98% of the US Treasury was funded by import tariffs, it would seem that your above sentence also described the entire US Treasury.

[PeaRidge]

"The planters were deeply in debt to northern creditors. Secession was a good way to throw off that debt. That's what the secesh thought, any way."

You got any documentation for that contention?

[PeaRidge]

Looks like you and GOP caused a meltdown.

[GOPcapitalist]

Bite me, you brainwashed Lew CRockwell Stepford wife

In other words, all namecalling and no substance. Simply drawing a line through irrefutable facts will not make them go away. Like it or not, you threw a fit and suggested another poster belonged at DU for a comment that was 1000 times less offensive and less liberal than what YOU tolerate from your buddy Walt. These are the facts, mac. Refute them if you dare.

Walt, aka the poster known as WhiskeyPapa:

1. Blames 9/11 on George Bush (source)
2. Is a card carrying liberal Democrat voter (source)
3. Voted for Bill Clinton (source)
4. Says he would still vote for Clinton "ten times out of ten." (source)
5. Voted for Al Gore. (source)
6. Says he would vote for Gore again. (source)
7. Claims that Reagan was more corrupt than Nixon. (source)
8. Expresses hope and desire that Reagan's legacy will diminish over time. (source)
9. Claims that the ACJ, one of the most notoriously liberal papers in the nation, is not biased. (source)
10. Regularly claims that George W. Bush is an incompetant puppet. (source)
11. Regularly calls George W. Bush names including "a clown," "a figurehead," and "an idiot." (source, source)
12. Calls the Constitution a "pact with the devil." (source)
13. Attacks the Constitution as a tool of "rich white men." (source)
14. And proudly stands by each and every one of these facts when they are brought up. (source)

[GOPcapitalist]

What you have presented is a picture of an economy built on a agricultural exports alone, and that produces nothing for itself but instead imports everything. Isn't that a reasonable description of a colony?

Not at all. It's a description of a country comparatively advantaged in X operating optimally by producing X instead of Y, which it is disadvantaged in.

[GOPcapitalist]

That's pretty much what Dr. McPherson says.

Too bad the good doctor has absolutely zero credentials in the field of economics...

...unless, of course, you count McPherson's familiarity with that bearded German guy he is so fond of...oh, what was his line again...something about the world's "proletariats" uniting, whatever that is...

[Non-Sequitur]

Say again?

[Aurelius]

"No, you've got me confused with someone who gives a damn what you low life LR zombies think."

I haven't got you confused with anything, I know exactly what you are.