Posted on 11/29/2002 7:57:37 AM PST by End The Hypocrisy
Three MAJOR civil war cinema epics are due in 2003. 1) Robert Duvall plays Robert E. Lee in Gods & Generals, out Feb. 21; 2) Jude Law portrays a jaded confederate in Cold Mountain, due Dec. 25, 2003; and 3) Tom Cruise plays a Civil War veteran who witnesses the end of a Japanese culture in The Last Samurai, due Dec. 12, 2003. Gods & Generals is replete with special effects, although director Maxwell still used more than 10,000 extras to re-create battle scenes.
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
Mississippi flies it on their state flag.
Georgia did until last year when their 'rat governor struck a secret deal to remove it, and a good chance exists they will put it up in the future.
Here in Texas it flies in front of state buildings all over the place as one of the 6 flags over Texas. Also the first unofficial confederate flag, the Bonnie Blue, shares a common origin with the Texas flag. The Bonnie Blue is a white lone star on a blue background that came from its nearly-identical predecessor, the Republic of Texas lone star that became the current Texas flag in the 1830's.
Florida and Alabama incorporate the saint andrew's cross of confederate imagery into their state flags.
Arkansas' flag, which incorporates a diamond shaped band of blue lined with white stars on a red background, is based heavily on the confederate flag. It also contains a star in the upper center officially representing the confederacy.
Like it or not, the confederate flag and its prominent elements appear in state flags all over the south while flag itself flies throughout the south.
Sure they do. Based on the one they're waving the highest, it looks like they prefer the Jolly Roger. For the record, did you know that the largest Klan rallies in American history were held not in the south but in the middle of yankeeland? They were in Indiana, D.C., and, perhaps the most interesting, the one held just outside of New York City in 1924 to coincide with the 1924 national convention of the Democratic Party.
Collection rates on a protectionist non-revenue pre-Morrill tariff mean nothing economically without the full context of trade data. We've been over this before yet you keep posting incomplete data and declaring the issue to be settled. That you continue to do so despite having been informed of the inadequicy of your data leads me to conclude that you are willfully perpetrating a dishonest line here.
If you want to see who paid the tariff, look at the exports, look at the prices, graph it all out, and calculate the corresponding cost areas. Otherwise, don't shoot your mouth off by claiming to have demonstrated something you do not even understand.
Like them Democrats you voted for, Walt!
This information is a teensy bit incorrect. Gov. David Beasley was defeated because he supported taking the flag off the dome. Gov. Jim Hodges won that race because he said he didn't care either way and intended to do nothing. (Sound familiar? Lincoln said he intended to do nothing about slavery, yet made it the sole purpose for killing 600,000 people...after the fact.)
The flag was removed from the dome in 2000, under Jim Hodge's watch. Jim "one-term" Hodges was defeated in 2002.
Gov. Barnes was from GA, not SC.
Where did you get your education? K-mart?
Since the pictures I posted are much more recent than 1924 it looks to me like the Klan has returned to their roots, so to speak, and have readopted the flag of their founding fathers.
And I would rightly argue that everyone of those pictures were taken
A)after the Confederate Flag became public domain (by court decision) and was no longer protected just for the SCV and
B)after 100+ years of propaganda from our yankee supressors leaving us with many here in the South that don't understand the true meaning of what that flag stands for giving way for the racists to step in and take our symbol of heritage and misuse it
Seriously Non, I'm shocked. That's quite a liberal tactic from you. Purposefully using what you know not to be the truth.
Is it true that you hold the Confederate flag in contempt, that it and it's supporters are only worthy of derision, and because of their support for the Confederate flag, that they and the flag itself are deserving of contempt and worthy of abuse?
It it true that you hold that the right of lawful, legal, unilateral secession does not exist, that the political bonds cannot be severed, and especially that the right to self-government cannot be extended to a group that condones slavery and practices the same? That a government predicated on such a foundation is not only immoral but also unlawful, and their prior allegiance cannot be rescinded, regardless of any alleged breaches of their compact?
Using Yankee logic, no interior state EVER pays any part of a tariff, and those collection points pay it themselves, without passing it on to the final consumer. Furthermore, Yankees would have us believe that they favored taxing THEMSELVES even more than before. John Stossil would opine, "Give me a break!"
Unless of course you are implying that their founding fathers were pirates as the highest flying flag in your photo would indicate, to suggest that they were returning to "roots" in Dixie is peculiar considering that the modern Klan is headquartered in Indiana. Persons from that state aren't exactly the types with confederate heritage or backgrounds, you know.
That is precisely the problem with your claim. When you look there you are looking at incomplete data and therefore in the wrong place. The economic costs of a tariff are NOT calculated strictly in the physical revenue collection, and especially not when the tariff is protectionist in nature. To see who bears those costs requires more economic data and mathematical analysis of that data. I've told you this repeatedly and asked you to seek out that data yet you refuse to do so and instead you knowingly post the same misleading and inconclusive data. Why could that be, other than my strong suspicion that you are trying to perpetrate a fraud with it?
If all those goods were destined for southern consumers then why weren't they shipped directly to the southern ports?
Why would they necessarily need to be if the tariff's very nature was to discourage their importation and instead ship domestic goods south? It's a simple matter of economics. You cannot weigh the entirity of a tariff by simply listing physical locations of revenue collection. To do so would be foolish and any credentialed economist would tell you so.
So why don't you graph it out, post the prices, and show some evidence that the burden of the tariffs lay with the south.
If you like. I recall attempting to guide you into doing this with me previously. You refused then and continued ignorantly spouting misinformation. If you wish to consider this further may I have your assurance that you are truly interested in an examination of the tariff's burdens and costs? If so, please indicate it and indicate the specific item of trade you wish to consider and we'll procede from there.
Until then stop shooting your mouth off on claims you can't back up.
To cease doing so would require that I were doing so in the first place, which is simply not the case. Other than pointing out that your little charade of listing tax collection locations and calling it economics doesn't make it so, I have made no claims for which you may lodge your grievance against. Hence your grievance is itself as unfounded as the fraudulent stat pushing you promote in place of real economic trade analysis.
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.