House drops Confederate Flag ban for veterans cemeteries

politico.com ^ | 6/23/16 | Matthew Nussbaum

[ColdOne]

A measure to bar confederate flags from cemeteries run by the Department of Veterans Affairs was removed from legislation passed by the House early Thursday.

The flag ban was added to the VA funding bill in May by a vote of 265-159, with most Republicans voting against the ban. But Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) both supported the measure. Ryan was commended for allowing a vote on the controversial measure, but has since limited what amendments can be offered on the floor.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: "How one can rationalize that kind of carnage by simply changing the premise of a question demonstrates the degree of self righteousness of the ignorant."

And you, sir, are a master of nonsensical word-salad.
Moral responsibility for Civil War belongs 100% to the Deep South Fire Eaters who first declared secession then started & declared war on the United States, while sending aid to pro-Confederates in Union states.

They then refused to end their war on terms any better than "unconditional surrender".

So if your soul absolutely requires you to blame somebody, they are who you should blame.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "It wasn't concern for the slaves that prompted them to assemble an invasion army.
That point is consistently lost on the Union apologists."

Nobody on these threads except you pro-Confederate apologists is in the least confused or deluded about the facts & reasons for Civil War.

[DiogenesLamp]

Northerners' reasons for accepting slavery in the South had nothing to do with its profitability, or lack of, but rather with their commitment to the Constitutional compromises engineered in 1787.

Do you think the power masters of the New York elite gave a crap what the general public thought?

Don't be naive. The people that mattered wanted that 200 million dollars per year.

[DiogenesLamp]

Sorry, but it's DiogenesLamp who's oblivious to truth, even when it slaps him silly upside the head. DL you're just full of pro-Confederate fantasies & propaganda.

You mean what Non-cultist would regard as "the truth." Yes, the TRUTH is very much pro-Confederate.

So the Confederacy in early 1861 represented a more existential threat to the United States than Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan ever dreamed of being 80 years later.

And here you go off into crackpot territory, so I am just going to skip the rest of what you wrote. I'm finding it just saves me a lot of time to not bother reading your stuff. Like I said, i'm not dressed for Church.

[DiogenesLamp]

So the Confederacy in early 1861 represented a more existential threat to the United States than Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan ever dreamed of being 80 years later.

No, the war was the fault of that man (and his masters) that sent 35,000 men into other people's land to force them back under the subjugation of Washington DC and it's masters, the Wealthy Elite of New York.

The wealthy elite of the Empire City of New York are still running the show today.

[DiogenesLamp]

Spoken like a true anarchist.

You are one of those that like imposed order? You should be thrilled with our modern Obama government and it's flirtation with Fascism. Very Lincolnesque I must say.

[rockrr]

You are one of those that like imposed order?

You're tin-earred and wooden brained as usual.

You should be thrilled with our modern Obama government and it's flirtation with Fascism.

Nope.

Very Lincolnesque I must say.

I've noticed that about you - no matter how thimble-brained or imbecilic the "thought", you feeeeeeeel compelled to say it.

[jmacusa]

Hey, big mouth. You went quiet. Boy, old Bro Joe K knows his stuff, huh?

[DiogenesLamp]

Hey, big mouth. You went quiet. Boy, old Bro Joe K knows his stuff, huh?

What he "knows" reminds me of what Regan said:

"The trouble with our opponents is not that they are ignorant... it's that they know so much which isn't so."

That's BroJoeK in a nutshell.

I've gotten to where I don't bother reading most of his long posts. They are usually just repetition of the same old dogma he normally spouts.

[jmacusa]

One never more accurately describes the nature of themselves then when they attempt to describe the nature of another. That's you all over chump. I notice you don't try to attempt to refute what he says. You take the cowardly way out and refuse to debate him, feigning some kind of either moral superiority, intelligence or self-righteousness. You know Lampster, self-righteousness is just a phony form of respectability.

[DiogenesLamp]

I notice you don't try to attempt to refute what he says.

I occasionally fire back at him, but debating a cultist is usually a waste of time. Nothing you say, no evidence you present, no logic or reason, will dent the wall of protection people place around their dogma.

Seriously, a guy that equates Pearl Harbor to Ft. Sumter is simply too far "out there" to spend much time on.

I have put forth what I believe is a very reasonable and easily demonstrable argument as to what caused the civil war. (boils down to money) BroJoeK even sent me a link that makes almost exactly the same argument I am making, but with more scholarly references and such.

Presumably he read it, and if *THAT* man's citations and quotes won't persuade him, how can I hope to do so just by pointing out where all the money came from, and where it ended up?

This is not a reality based discussion we are having. With BroJoeK it's always "Rah Rah the Union!" and nothing else.

[jmacusa]

Cut the crap sonny. The man is handing your head to you and he’s making you look more like the fool you are. You’re carrying the torch for the cause that split the nation in two and caused the bloodiest war in American history all to support the right of one human being to own another and in my book that makes you someone who supports slavery.

[DiogenesLamp]

Cut the crap sonny. The man is handing your head to you and he’s making you look more like the fool you are.

No my friend, he's posting a large and constant stream of unrelated facts that are irrelevant to the points being made. This is a well known fallacy debate tactic, and one which I don't feel is worthy of a response.

He cannot "spin" the truth away. New York was bringing in 200 million / year from Southern products, while the entire Union was producing only 78 million in export value.

The export value of the Southern trade was almost three times that of the Northern production. Talking about railroads and ports and comparing Sumter to Pearl Harbor are all irrelevant to that essential fact.

The North Eastern part of the nation (Where the Wealthy elite lived) badly needed that money stream produced by Southern products, and it was more than sufficient cause to induce them to start a war to get that money back.

The war was started over Money. That which was lost by the New York Power Broker elite (same people controlling us now) and would have been gained by the Southerners had their efforts to become independent remained successful.

You just don't like the fact that your ancestors assisted in the subjugation and oppression of others for a vile cause, and so you and others glom on to the issue of slavery in the manner a drowning man clings to a life preserver, for indeed, that long after the fact "change", is the only justification you have for murdering so many people who just wanted to be free of the Washington and the New York power brokers who were controlling their lives. (Same people who are controlling our lives today.)

[jmacusa]

You moron, my ancestors fought for the Union, not the South. You dont have the good sense to know you’re an idiot defending a lost and evil cause. Remember this: The South started the war and lost. Your side lost.

[CodeToad]

“all to support the right of one human being to own another “

Still ignorant of the facts of the period I see. Great public school education you have there.

Did you know a black man started black slavery in the colonies??

[DiogenesLamp]

You moron, my ancestors fought for the Union, not the South.

Yes, your ancestors fought for the New York power barons who controlled Washington D.C. through their agent, Abraham Lincoln, and he launched a war against the South, not to end slavery, but to regain that money they lost from European Trade when the South became independent.

You dont have the good sense to know you’re an idiot defending a lost and evil cause.

Ditto, right back at you. Your ancestors are responsible for the Corruption in Washington we have today, because the same people who forced that war upon the nation, (Wealthy Elite New York Power Barons) are still wrecking the nation today with their money influence in politics, and with their toady media still reporting "news" slanted to represent the interests of this same Washington/New York power cartel.

I do not know of a modern conservative who is unaware of just how much money and influence is put forth from New York (and now other wealthy Cities) to push Washington D.C. spending and monopolistic protectionist practices.

The corruption of our nation began in the early 1800 with that New York elite / Washington D.C. Politicians AXIS OF EVIL. We are still suffering from it today.

And you think *I'm* the idiot. :)

[DiogenesLamp]

all to support the right of one human being to own another

And the hypocrisy of this statement is just unbelievable! As has been demonstrated countless times, the war was not started to "end slavery." In fact, Slavery continued in the Union longer than it did in the Confederacy.

Even Lincoln's own cabinet member, Secretary of State Seward said of the Emancipation Proclamation:

"We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

Even Seward thought it was a cynical ploy to placate the rubes who were foolish enough to believe it justified the murders they committed in stopping Southern Independence.

The British were not fooled either. The London Spectator wrote:

The Government liberates the enemy's slaves as it would the enemy's cattle, simply to weaken them in the coming conflict....The principle asserted is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.

That the war was fought to end slavery is just a Liberal Con-Job lie to justify the bloodshed they caused, AFTER THE FACT.

It was a propaganda, and that is all.

[jmacusa]

No, I don’t think you’re an idiot. I know you’re one.

[jmacusa]

I went to Catholic schools bozo. You going to knock Catholics? Go ahead, I dare you.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: "You asked about the meaning of flags.
What flags were flying over the ships from Rhode Island that were trading guns and rum for slaves in 1806?"

Sorry, FRiend, but your argument here is ludicrous.
In fact, by the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 most northerners had already begun to abolish slavery in their own states.
By 1804 all Northern states had begun abolition and by 1840 that process was essentially complete in the North.

But in 1787 constitutional recognition of slavery was the price imposed by Southern states as their pre-condition for joining the United States, and so Northerners accepted it, in the South and continued to accept right up through the election of 1860.

What Northerners did not accept was the continued expansion of slavery into western territories or, via the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, into their own states.
That's just what the election of 1860 was all about, and it drove Deep South Fire Eaters insanely berserk, first declaring their secessions and then war on the United States.

So the United States flag is the flag under which slavery was first abolished peacefully in the North and then after bloody war, also in the South.

The Confederate battle flag lead those forces opposed to abolition and Union.

Nevertheless, in the North we love our rebels and sometimes fly their flags side-by-side with our own.
Here, for example: