Fake News: Nikki Haley Did Not Just Defend the Confederate Flag

  
Via:  badfish-hd-h-u  •  one month ago  •  85 comments

Fake News: Nikki Haley Did Not Just Defend the Confederate Flag

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Former Gov. Nikki Haley (R-S.C.) said that the white supremacist terrorist Dylann Roof "hijacked" what people thought of the Confederate battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia in his heinous manifesto. In an interview with Glenn Beck, she explained that many people in South Carolina saw the flag as a symbol of "service, sacrifice, and heritage." Media Matters published a clip of her interview, and liberals responded with predictable outrage.

"A reminder that Nikki Haley is just as despicable as every other Republican, and coverage of her should always reflect that," Patheos' Hemant Mehta tweeted.


CNN's W. Kamau Bell said Haley — the former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. under Trump — was not smarter than an 8th grader.

"Remember that brief period of time when Nikki Haley was considered the adult in the Trump Administration? Welp, she just failed 8th grade social studies with this take," he tweeted. "Unless there is another Dylan Roof who was a confederate general or a KKK grand wizard in 1915.



The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart tweeted out an op-ed he wrote in 2013 declaring that the "Confederate flag is no better than a Swastika."

State Senator Marlon Kimpson made it personal. He claimed that Haley "was a sideline Mon(day) morning cheerleader at best" when it came to the removal of the flag. Yet she called for its removal on June 22, 2015, while the State Senate did not vote to remove it until July 6, and the State House followed on July 9. Haley signed the bill that very day.

Former Gov. Deval Patrick (D-Mass.) — now a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate — accused Haley and others of having hijacked the Confederate flag.

"The symbol of the Confederacy was hijacked long ago. It was hijacked by people who tried to make it into something other than a symbol of slavery, white supremacy, and rebellion," Patrick tweeted.


Patrick went on to claim that Haley's ostensible effort "to try and perpetuate a different story today is irresponsible and ignores the message of hate and division intended by many and received by more, in South Carolina and beyond."



The video traces back to Media Matters researcher Jason Campbell. "Nikki Haley says the Confederate flag was about 'service, and sacrifice, and heritage' until Dylan Roof 'hijacked' it," he tweeted.

Yet in context, Haley was not defending the flag. Instead, she was defending the people of South Carolina.

She starts the clip by describing the victims of Dylann Roof's terrorism in 2015. "This is one of the oldest African-Americas churches. These twelve people were amazing people, they loved their church, they loved their family, they loved their community. And here is this guy that comes out with his manifesto holding the Confederate flag and had just hijacked everything that people thought of."

Haley continued, "We don’t have hateful people in South Carolina. There’s always the small minority that’s always going to be there. But you know people saw it as service, sacrifice, and heritage. But once he did that, there was no way to overcome it."

Then she recalled the media firestorm. "And the national media came in in droves, they wanted to define what happened. They wanted to make this about racism, they wanted to make it about gun control, they wanted to make it about the death penalty," she explained. Yet the people of South Carolina proved their worth. "We didn’t have riots, we had vigils. We didn’t have protests, we had hugs."

As liberals attacked her, Haley retweeted messages from conservatives who set the record straight.

"To be clear, she wasn't saying she viewed the flag that way, but arguing many South Carolinians viewed it that way. (she says 'people saw it as...') She used a similar equivocation in her announcement on removing the flag," The Washington Examiner's Philip Klein tweeted.

The Confederate flag is a sticky issue. While the South seceded in order to protect the expansion of slavery into federal territories, a revisionist version of history has painted the South as a heroic "lost cause," claiming secession was about state's rights and tariffs. Many southerners now see this Confederate flag, once championed by the KKK, as a symbol of their heritage.

Deval Patrick was right to say that those who celebrate the Confederate flag as a symbol of heritage are the ones "hijacking" its historic meaning. However, many Americans who celebrate this flag do not support slavery, white supremacy, or racism. Many see the flag as a historic symbol and an expression of southern pride. Haley was defending this perception, not the flag itself.

Haley called for the Confederate flag's removal from State House grounds early after the shooting. She signed the bill to remove the flag on the very day the State House passed it.

The suggestion that Nikki Haley supports the Confederate flag is false and shameful. Mehta, Bell, Capehart, Patrick, and especially Kimpson should apologize.

Click on the seed link to see the smear campaign in tweets



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
 
 
The People's Fish
1  seeder  The People's Fish    one month ago

Will she get an apology for the fake news, the out right false lies in tweet? Of course not. This is what the media and their left masters do. Will anyone retract their fake news or debunked seed? Of course not.

Very sad, she needs to sue for defamation, it's an easy win and it will put their wallets where their lying mouths are.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1  Texan1211  replied to  The People's Fish @1    one month ago

No, the idiots in the MSM media and their acolytes who swallow everything they state will double down on their stupidity and deviousness.

 
 
 
The People's Fish
1.1.1  seeder  The People's Fish  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    one month ago

Once again it explains the daily hysteria we all have to endure since that fateful night when sad Rachel Maddow called the election with tears.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.1.2  KDMichigan  replied to  The People's Fish @1.1.1    one month ago

They need to fake a picture of her in blackface then the left will find her more acceptable. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.1.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    one month ago

Typical of the progressive liberal left plwing in that they religiously follow the mantra that says "never let the truth get in the way of a good scandal"!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  The People's Fish @1    one month ago

Why in the world would anyone apologize to Nikki Haley? Are you serious? 

State Senator Marlon Kimpson made it personal. He claimed that Haley "was a sideline Mon(day) morning cheerleader at best" when it came to the removal of the flag. Yet she called for its removal on June 22, 2015, while the State Senate did not vote to remove it until July 6, and the State House followed on July 9. Haley signed the bill that very day.

If Haley actually had a desire for the confederate flag to be taken down from her state capitol, she should have said so in the course of the 1650 or so days she was governor of South Carolina before Dylan Roof came along. 

 
 
 
WallyW
1.2.1  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    one month ago

 However, many Americans who celebrate this flag do not support slavery, white supremacy, or racism. Many see the flag as a historic symbol and an expression of southern pride. Haley was defending this perception, not the flag itself.

This is the truth you find inconvenient..

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  WallyW @1.2.1    one month ago

As an educated person, presumably Nikki Haley knows better. 

What is the confederate flag a historical symbol of that would justify flying it over one of our state capitols? 

Any official flying of the flag represents official approval of it. 

=============================================

confederate-flag.jpg?w=300&h=200

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.3  Ozzwald  replied to  WallyW @1.2.1    one month ago
However, many Americans who celebrate this flag do not support slavery, white supremacy, or racism.

So it is okay with you to celebrate the flag of one of the greatest enemies of America throughout history?  How would you feel about the ISIS flag being flown at a government facility?

Roughly 620,000 Americans died during the civil war.

Postcard_Conferate_FLag_2550x.jpg?v=1556

ISIS is responsible for around 1,200 deaths worldwide (all nationalities)

isis-flag.jpg?w968h681

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.3    one month ago

There is only ONE thing that the rebel flag represents, and that is the cornerstone, the very foundation of the civil war as spelled out by then Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens:

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. [...] Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell.

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science." - Vice President of the Confederacy Alexander Stephens March 21, 1861

That is what the rebel flag stands for. That is what the confederacy was truly founded on and was created for, the support and protection of slavers and their desire to own other humans they see as inferior like cattle. Anything else that was included in their complaints was miniscule by comparison. Those claiming it was about something else, about "States rights", are LYING to you. It was not. And it was no mystery at the time what the civil war and the confederacy was all about. It's why so many Americans today see the rebel flag for what it is, a flag supporting the ownership of humans as animals, a flag that dehumanizes other Americans and calls them inferior, a flag that proclaims the rebels indifference to and rejection of the rule of law, equality and justice for all.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.4    one month ago
There is only ONE thing that the rebel flag represents, and that is the cornerstone, the very foundation of the civil war as spelled out by then Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens:

Slavery...

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.2.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.3    one month ago

You apparently don't know the history of the "confederate" flag.  

1.  That design was come up with during the civil war to distinguish between Union forces and the Confederate forces.  It's a MILITARY FLAG and a part of US History. 

2.  The flag you are all up in arms against isn't really a "flag".  The confederate flag layout looked more like the existing state flag of states like North Carolina, Mississppi and a few others.

3.  It was "hijacked" by the likes of the KKK for their twisted little displays and has been kept that way by the little minded people all over the place. We cannot forget that they also fly the current US flag.  Is that racist too? 

How would you feel about the ISIS flag being flown at a government facility?

Now you are just being childish.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.2.6    one month ago
It's a MILITARY FLAG and a part of US History. 

The military of what country? 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.2.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.7    one month ago

American history...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.2.8    one month ago
American history...

Nah. Not even a nice try. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.10  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.2.6    one month ago
You apparently don't know the history of the "confederate" flag.  

I do, thank you very much.

That design was come up with during the civil war to distinguish between Union forces and the Confederate forces.  It's a MILITARY FLAG and a part of US History.

That design has never been an official United States flag or even a substitute US flag. It was the flag of treasonous slavers who thought they could overthrow our government and attacked United States soldiers at Fort Sumter April 12, 1861.

The flag you are all up in arms against isn't really a "flag".  The confederate flag layout looked more like the existing state flag of states like North Carolina, Mississppi and a few others.

Why don't you tell that to the worthless pieces of shit who were waving it like a flag along with swastika flags in Charlottesville before one of their right wing members rammed his car into the crowd of peaceful protestors.

 It was "hijacked" by the likes of the KKK for their twisted little displays and has been kept that way by the little minded people all over the place. We cannot forget that they also fly the current US flag.  Is that racist too?

It wasn't 'hijacked' at all. It was picked up and carried by those who felt the same as the designers, that their "white race" was somehow superior even though they were dumb as sin. Obviously, those who revere the confederate flag couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.2.11  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.9    one month ago
Nah. Not even a nice try. 

No try.  Just because it doesn't fit YOUR narrative doesn't mean it's wrong.  You should really find out the real history.  You'd be surprised what kind of garbage you have been fed over the years.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.12  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.2.11    one month ago

I think I know enough about it. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.2.13  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.10    one month ago

Apparently your "knowledge" is limited by what you have been told.  Try to put your bias aside and do some real research and you'd be surprised at what you find.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.2.14  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.12    one month ago

Yeah, maybe not enough and not from the right resources.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.2.15  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.10    one month ago
That design has never been an official United States flag or even a substitute US flag. It was the flag of treasonous slavers who thought they could overthrow our government and attacked United States soldiers at Fort Sumter April 12, 1861.

Apparently your "knowledge" ISN'T as thorough as you thought if you keep with this.  And I don't have the time, patience or crayons to explain it in a way you would understand.

Why don't you tell that to the worthless pieces of shit who were waving it like a flag along with swastika flags in Charlottesville before one of their right wing members rammed his car into the crowd of peaceful protestors.

Still stuck on that are we.  It's obvious you are stuck at a certain level on this.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.16  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.2.6    one month ago

Yep. The actual national flag of the Confederacy is a whole different design alltogether.  What many say is the Confederate flag was nothing more than a battle flag. And the left calls the right uneducated!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.17  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.16    one month ago
The actual national flag of the Confederacy is a whole different design alltogether.  What many say is the Confederate flag was nothing more than a battle flag.

Did I say that there weren't other treasonous confederate flags? I don't recall ever having made that statement considering I've known there were many other confederate flags used, the stars and bars simply became the most popular years after the war. However, does this make the rebel flag any less confederate or treasonous? Of course not. Just like the swastika wasn't the only symbol used by the Nazi's, the rebel flag wasn't the only symbol used by worthless treasonous bigots.

I find it hilarious that some of you are saying things like "still stuck on that" parade of conservatives waving swastikas along side their confederate flags while they marched in the streets shouting "Jews will not replace us!". I'm not stuck on it, I just never thought I'd see that kind of thing in American streets. And when sane Americans stand up and reject that kind of disgusting display, the conservatives shout back that there were many "fine people" among that crowd and that there's nothing wrong with confederate flags and we shouldn't be removing the monuments to the treasonous bigots who attacked the United States. So it's apparently the worthless confederate bigots descendants who are stuck on stupid and seem to imagine protecting confederate heritage is something worthwhile. We should never forget the civil war just like we should never forget the holocaust, and in both cases there were those on the side of equality, justice and truth and the other based on owning or treating humans as animals. The confederates were no better than the Nazi's which is no doubt why so many enamored with the confederacy also revere swastikas and other Nazi symbols, all of which represent to them their ridiculous belief in their own supposed racial superiority or others supposed racial inferiority. I see little difference between someone now trying to protect monuments to confederate generals or someone trying to protect a monument to Hitler.

So while I was well aware of the many different confederate battle flags, that in no way changes anything in my comment as I never claimed it was the only symbol of hate used by the treasonous confederate bigots who started the civil war and murdered hundreds of thousands of dedicated American soldiers. As soon as the confederacy declared war on America, they were no longer Americans, they forfeited their right to call themselves Americans and any flags they flew are enemy flags directly challenging the US constitution and the very foundation of our nation and would remain such today.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.2.18  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.17    one month ago
I'm not stuck on it,

Yes. You. Are.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.2.19  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.16    one month ago

That's why I mentioned existing State Flags that resemble the national flag of the Confederacy.  I tried to explain the origin of the "Stars and Bars".  

Both time met with ignorance and unwillingness to hear a FACT that differed from their opinion based on partial information.  Although I'm not surprised.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.20  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.2.19    one month ago
I tried to explain the origin of the "Stars and Bars".  

The people of the time knew very well what it meant.

"On April 23, 1863, the Savannah Morning News editor William Tappan Thompson, with assistance from William Ross Postell, a Confederate blockade runner, published an editorial championing a design featuring the battle flag on a white background he referred to later as "The White Man's Flag." In explaining the white background, Thompson wrote, "As a people we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause".

The "stainless banner", the confederates 2nd official flag was the Army of Northern Virginia's battle flag (what we know of as the 'confederate flag' today which was first seen in 1862) on a white background.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America

I guess I shouldn't be surprised so many today try and twist, contort and weasel out of the facts behind their precious flag based on hate, slavery and treason. Many of those descendants of the confederates apparently still share those beliefs so they fly their racist flag, fight any removal of their confederate monuments while proclaiming they're really only doing it to "preserve history". It truly is shameful to watch so many supposed Americans cling to such an obvious symbol of hate. And even if there was some innocent origin behind it, which there wasn't, it would still be seen today by millions of black Americans as a symbol of slavery to them as it was flown by those fighting to own them as cattle.

I also find it interesting that many of those defending their reverence for a flag that their fellow Americans view as a symbol of hate and slavery also consider themselves Christians. I'm no longer a Christian but I remember well the admonition Paul gave the Corinthians when some were questioning their faithful buying meat that had been sacrificed to other Gods then cut up for sale at a discount.

"Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol's temple, won't that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall." - 1 Corinthians 8:9-13

So even though you have a "right" to fly whatever symbol you want, should you really be exercising that right if it offends your fellow neighbor who sees your symbol as many in the past used it, a symbol of slavery and hate? If you fly your battle flag for your supposed "right" reasons but your neighbor is a white supremacist and sees this as an acknowledgement of your support for his beliefs, would that not potentially "embolden" him? Might your choice to fly such a divisive symbol "embolden" someone like Dylan Roof to walk into a church and murder 9 black Americans in cold blood? Ah, but I likely waste my time trying to get some to see reason when they are so blinded by partisan hate.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.21  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.2    one month ago
What is the confederate flag a historical symbol of that would justify flying it over one of our state capitols? 

Most of the southerners who died under that flag didn't own slaves, nor were they concerned with much more than seeing Union troops in their respective states. Today many residents of South Carolina had ancestors who died in battle during the Civil War. Everything dosen't center around the obnoxious outrage of angry progressives. I'm outraged at what the liberal policy know as "welfare" did to destroy many black families. I say down with progressives!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.2.22  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.20    one month ago
"On April 23, 1863, the Savannah Morning News editor William Tappan Thompson, with assistance from William Ross Postell, a Confederate blockade runner, published an editorial championing a design featuring the battle flag on a white background he referred to later as "The White Man's Flag."

You're getting there.  Keep digging and you'll find the real purpose of that flag (or as it's actually called - a guideon)

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.23  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.2.22    one month ago
Keep digging and you'll find the real purpose of that flag

No more digging needed, I know all I need to know about that worthless rag, what it represents, and those who continue to revere and respect it. There are those who want to "inform" everyone as to the benign origins of the swastika symbol, but that doesn't really matter today, the swastika is a symbol of genocide and hate no matter how much some sniveling Reich historian tries to claim it's not. The confederate flag is exactly the same. Even if there was some innocuous origin it doesn't matter one bit, today that flag represents nothing but slavery and racist hate around the world.

 
 
 
devangelical
2  devangelical    one month ago
she needs to sue for defamation

pffft, good luck with that...

Former Gov. Nikki Haley (R-S.C.) said that the white supremacist terrorist Dylann Roof "hijacked" what people thought of the Confederate battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia in his heinous manifesto. In an interview with Glenn Beck, she explained that many people in South Carolina saw the flag as a symbol of "service, sacrifice, and heritage."

white supremacy was what the confederate battle flag stood for, as well as did the confederate constitution. service, sacrifice, and heritage on the losing side of a  war with the US 155 years ago doesn't count for shit now. 

Many see the flag as a historic symbol and an expression of southern pride. Haley was defending this perception, not the flag itself

that perception is unique to confederate sympathizers. that flag is nothing but a dog whistle to white supremacists now.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @2    one month ago

You aren't from the South, are you?

 
 
 
devangelical
2.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    one month ago

born there. I guess the antebellum heritage bullshit didn't take hold.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @2.1.1    one month ago

Or common sense.

 
 
 
devangelical
2.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.2    one month ago

legislated white supremacy isn't common sense

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @2.1.3    one month ago
legislated white supremacy isn't common sense

Now, that sounds like something old Republicans would have had to tell the Southern Democrats!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.4    one month ago

Now, that sounds like something old Republicans would have had to tell the Southern Democrats!

You are correct, but then the Southern Democrats switched sides and became Republicans to oppose civil rights.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.5    one month ago
You are correct, but then the Southern Democrats switched sides and became Republicans to oppose civil rights.

Still repeating that left wing myth, eh?

 
 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.7    one month ago

Sure--which must be why the Democrats kept getting elected in the South for several decades. Explains it all perfectly

/SSSSSSSS

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.8    one month ago
Sure--which must be why the Democrats kept getting elected in the South for several decades. Explains it all perfectly

You can claim what you want, but you cannot rewrite history...

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.9    one month ago
You can claim what you want, but you cannot rewrite history...

What I claimed is the verified truth. Look it up for yourself since you are calling me out on it.

Look at the Southern state legislatures and Senators and Representatives and tell me what you find out on your own.

If you want the truth--seek it!

 
 
 
KDMichigan
2.1.11  KDMichigan  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.9    one month ago
You can claim what you want, but you cannot rewrite history...

No you can't, I just love when the left spews their dixiecrats all became republican bullshit, Name 6 dixiecrats that became republican, I'll even help you out with the 1st 3

The fact is that over 90% of dixiecrats remained in the Democrat party but you just keep believing your fairytale.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  KDMichigan @2.1.11    one month ago

Just the usual feeble attempt to distance themselves from their very own Democratic Party's sordid past and the party that looked the other way for decades when it kept them in power.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.2    one month ago
'Or common sense.'

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.13    one month ago

Very good, Tssy.

Looks like you have mastered copying and pasting.

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
3  Tacos!    one month ago
To be clear, she wasn't saying she viewed the flag that way

Which should have been OBVIOUS to everyone because she supported taking it down. More than that, she led the charge!  Nikki Haley was governor of South Carolina and asked the legislature to make a law to take it down . They did, and she signed it. Here is a quote from her at the time:

“In South Carolina, we honor tradition, we honor history, we honor heritage, but there’s a place for that flag, and that flag needs to be in a museum, where we will continue to make sure people will honor it appropriately,” Haley said Friday morning on NBC’s “Today” show . “But the statehouse, that’s an area that belongs to everyone. And no one should drive by the statehouse and feel pain. No one should drive by the statehouse and feel like they don’t belong.”

So, if you think today in 2019 that Nikki Haley is defending the rebel flag, I'm sorry but you're ignorant.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
3.1  KDMichigan  replied to  Tacos! @3    one month ago
So, if you think today in 2019 that Nikki Haley is defending the rebel flag, I'm sorry but you're ignorant.

I don't know how to respond without my comment being labeled with the new hot ticket taunting...

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  KDMichigan @3.1    one month ago
"So, if you think today in 2019 that Nikki Haley is defending the rebel flag, I'm sorry but you're ignorant."                                                                                                                                           
"I don't know how to respond without my comment being labeled with the new hot ticket taunting..."

I have no trouble responding.  Not just ignorant, but vicious as well and attempting to blacken anyone who isn't a Democrat.  The lesson of the reason Jean Chretien won a landslide election in Canada is lost on them, and it will bite them in the ass just as it did the political party in Canada that opposed him.

I hope I live long enough to see Nikki Haley elected POTUS. 

 
 
 
devangelical
3.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.1.1    one month ago
I hope I live long enough to see Nikki Haley elected POTUS.

good luck with that.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.1.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  devangelical @3.1.2    one month ago

Well, thank you, devangelical, and you, Tessylo, for agreeing with him, for wishing me the good luck of living long enough to see Nikki Haley elected POTUS.  I really didn't think either of you liked her, OR me.  LOL

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.1.3    one month ago

Get over it Buzz.

Not going to happen

You're right about one thing though

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.1.5  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.4    one month ago

Oh, you can be sure our feelings are mutual about THAT.  LOL

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @3    one month ago
“But the statehouse, that’s an area that belongs to everyone. And no one should drive by the statehouse and feel pain. No one should drive by the statehouse and feel like they don’t belong.”

Unfortunately, you really dont have a case. Haley became governor of South Carolina at the beginning of 2011.  The Roof murders happened 4 1/2 years later. 

“But the statehouse, that’s an area that belongs to everyone. And no one should drive by the statehouse and feel pain. No one should drive by the statehouse and feel like they don’t belong.”

If this was something that Haley actually cared about she would have said something during the previous 4 1/2 years.  Or was no one feeling pain from seeing the confederate flag proudly displayed on South Carolina state grounds until Jun 22. 2015 ? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    one month ago

You’re changing the subject by talking about priorities and timing. I never claimed it was the most important thing on her agenda. That’s a different topic. I said it was wrong to say she was defending it and the proof is that when it came time to get rid of the flag, she led the way. It’s evident that your agenda involves demonizing her as much as possible by doing everything you can to disregard the simple fact that she is the one primarily responsible for getting rid of the flag ignorant people say she is defending. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.1    one month ago
That’s a different topic. I said it was wrong to say she was defending it and the proof is that when it came time to get rid of the flag, she led the way.

What do you mean when it came time she led the way? 

She reacted to the FACT that a citizen of her state had massacred 9 black people and was then seen in earlier photographs waving a confederate flag.  She reacted in a way that was not only obvious but there was almost nothing else she could do in the circumstance. 

Why was Jun 22 2015 "the time to get rid of the flag" ?  Why not Jun 2014 ? Haley was governor for 4 1/2 years before she "led the way". 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.2.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    one month ago
"If this was something that Haley actually cared about she would have said something during the previous 4 1/2 years.  Or was no one feeling pain from seeing the confederate flag proudly displayed on South Carolina state grounds until Jun 22. 2015 ?"

I don't recall it being an issue until more recently.  Nor was the removal of Confederate statues.  I don't think it's up to you to rewrite history to say that years ago it was such a big issue and use that to pour blame on Haley.

 
 
 
bbl-1
4  bbl-1    one month ago

Haley did not defend the Confederate flag. 

But she did defend the historical value of 'that time in American history', the honor, chivalry and sacrifice.  It is to bad the right wing and neo-conservatism has dishonored and stained 'Old Dixies' place in our history. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5  JohnRussell    one month ago

I have a couple questions 

Nikki Haley asked the South Carolina legislature to write a law requiring the removal of the confederate flag from from the South Carolina capitol grounds on what day again?  That would be Jun 22, 2015, 2 or 3 days after this image appeared on news worldwide

dylann-roof-splc_1.jpg

Dylan Roof , the mass murderer posing with the confederate flag, was born in South Carolina and lived in South Carolina at the time of the killings. 

So let's get something straight.  On Jun 22 , 2015, Nikki Haley had been governor of South Carolina for 4 1/2 years. 

Suffice it to say that in those 4 1/2 years she didnt show interest in taking down the confederate flag. 

Only when there was evidence that a white supremacist mass murderer from South Carolina was seen waving the flag and humiliating her state did she decide the flag had worn out its welcome.  We can safely assume that if Roof hadnt killed anyone, the confederate flag might still be flying on the grounds of the South Carolina state capitol. 

Nikki Haley's interview with Glenn Beck was simple pandering. She wants to signal to deplorables that she's their girl for the future. Of course she also wants to appeal to non deplorables, hence all the double talk. 

There is no place for the confederate flag in public, other than in museums.  The Confederate States of America, which the flag represents , was a white supremacist entity that was willing to leave the Union and take part in causing hundreds of thousands of deaths in order to preserve the right to own Negroes. 

There is no way to make that palatable to the point where it should be commemorated through displaying that flag. 

Those who want to remember great great great grandpa who fought at Gettysburg can fly it in their basements or in their back yards, and thats it. 

 
 
 
WallyW
5.1  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @5    one month ago

This is one the opening shots in the left's war on Nikki Haley

It will continue up to her election in 2024.

 
 
 
lib50
5.1.1  lib50  replied to  WallyW @5.1    one month ago

Serious question.  Would you feel that way about a Muslim memorial at 9/11 for 'historical purposes'?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  WallyW @5.1    one month ago

Are you capable of addressing the issue? 

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.3  Kathleen  replied to  lib50 @5.1.1    one month ago

That actually depends. If there were Muslim people working in the World Trade Center and in that area in New York that were killed, I would not mind. If if was for the hi-hackers that murdered all those people.... it sure as hell better not be there for them. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.2  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @5    one month ago

So what? People commonly pay little mind to traditions until they have a glaring reason to re-examine them. It takes substantial character to be willing to do a thing like that, especially when you have a lot of people around you who maybe aren’t so willing.

But you want to disregard this virtuous act by checking the calendar. How petty!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @5.2    one month ago
It takes substantial character to be willing to do a thing like that, especially when you have a lot of people around you who maybe aren’t so willing.

Oh please.   You are more believable when you are endlessly defending Trump. 

Now you are telling us Nikki Haley was a hero when she asked for the flag to come down.  It should have come down a long time before that, PARTICULARLY if the people of South Carolina were as righteous as she said they were. 

But there is more 

after the massacre at the church she said

“But the statehouse, that’s an area that belongs to everyone. And no one should drive by the statehouse and feel pain. No one should drive by the statehouse and feel like they don’t belong.”

Are you telling us that it took the killing of nine people for Nikki Haley to decide that no one should drive by the statehouse and feel pain (from seeing the confederate flag)? 

She couldnt see that or reach that conclusion before the nine people were murdered? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.2.2  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.1    one month ago
You are more believable

I really couldn't care less what you judge as believable because it's abundantly clear that you will believe what you want to believe in spite of what anyone else has to say.

Now you are telling us Nikki Haley was a hero

Didn't use the word "hero" just like I didn't talk about white supremacy before. Is there no limit to the things you will invent about me?

She couldn't see that or reach that conclusion before the nine people were murdered? 

I have already addressed this change in subject by you. You're clearly determined to be antagonistic in this discussion. You have people you need to demonize and the facts be damned. 

Simple issue: Is it reasonable to say in 2019 that Nikki Haley endorses the rebel flag? Answer: The facts show it is not reasonable.

Simple question for you John. See if you can answer honestly without getting physically ill: Do you support Nikki Haley's move to take down the rebel flag or not?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @5.2.2    one month ago
Now you are telling us Nikki Haley was a hero

So what?  You said she deserved credit for leading the way on taking the flag down.  I dont have to quote you word for word every time I comment on somehting you said. Thats not the way it works. Do people here quote me word for word? lol. That'll be the day.. 

Just defend your positions.  She had 4 1/2 years to "lead the way" on the flag before the shooting. Did she?   Uh, no. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.2.4  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.1    one month ago
It should have come down a long time before that

If your petty calendar obsession means that there is no virtue in doing the right thing, then how do you feel about Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton refusing to endorse gay marriage? How do you feel about Chuck Schumer making speeches about controlling the border and limiting illegal immigration? How about Bloomberg's stop-and-frisk policy? How about every Democrat who endorsed the Clinton crime bill?

I can give you a long list of Democrat politicians who have changed their position on issues, but I bet you would give 100% of them a pass. I bet you would give them 100% credit for holding (in your mind) the "correct" position on an issue today, rather than whine incessantly about why they didn't say such-and-such a few years before.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.2.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @5.2.2    one month ago
Do you support Nikki Haley's move to take down the rebel flag or not?

That is not even close to being the question. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.2.6  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.5    one month ago

So you refuse to answer. Then I'll just assume you don't support it. How bout that?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.2.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @5.2.4    one month ago

Your entire role here is to defend Trump and whatever else comes up about conservatives, and to do so in a "reasonable" way.  And I will say this - you stick to your role. 

No, Haley deserves no credit for asking South Carolina to remove the confederate flag AFTER one of its citizens killed  9 black people and that killer was found to have waved the confederate flag in photos.  She was embarrassed to death about it. 

It's too bad she didnt ask to remove the flag before the massacre at the church, then she would have taken a principled stand. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.2.8  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.3    one month ago
Just defend your positions.

I have defended my position. You want me to defend an imagined, invented position that you made up and attributed to me. 

My position is that it's not reasonable to say that Nikki Haley is defending the flag. My proof is that she's the one who'd it taken down.

Pretty simple. 

But then you want to invent shit like I said she was a hero and demand that I defend that. Sorry, but that's horseshit.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.2.9  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.7    one month ago
No, Haley deserves no credit for asking South Carolina to remove the confederate flag AFTER one of its citizens killed  9 black people and that killer was found to have waved the confederate flag in photos.  She was embarrassed to death about it. 

Then no Democrat deserves credit when they call for gun control after a shooting.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @5.2.9    one month ago

That is an excellent point--one I am sure is completely lost on the person you posted it to.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.2.11  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.10    one month ago

No, he gets it. It’s why he never responded. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
6  Thrawn 31    one month ago

The confederate flag is the flag of traitors, pure and simple. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
6.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Thrawn 31 @6    one month ago

Since I'm not an American and never studied much about American History, I thought that the Confederate flag was the flag of American citizens south of the Mason-Dixon line who back in the days of the Confederacy were not traitors, but if you mean now and not historically, I understand what you are trying to say.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
6.2  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Thrawn 31 @6    one month ago

And the U.S. flag is the flag of oppressors and invaders of a sovereign nation. You seem to forget that secession was not deemed illegal until AFTER the end of the Civil War in another court case:  Texas vs White,   so at the time the South was within their rights to leave a Union they had voluntarily entered into. They exercised that Right and formed their own Nation. The Northern forces were ordered to withdraw, and they refused to do so in some cases, whereas in others, they complied. In one case in particular, the refusal to surrender and retreat actually led to the beginning of the Civil War when Fort Sumter was fired upon.  Keep in mind that Secession had already taken place well before then and not ONE single person took the South to court to challenge their right to secede simply because there was no law being broken.

Therefore, your comment is False.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
6.2.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @6.2    one month ago

Because American History was only lightly touched upon in Canadian schools, I'm thankful for the lessons I'm learning now.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
6.2.2  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.2.1    one month ago

In the South, the Civil War was actually called the War for Southern Independence while it was ongoing, or The Second American Revolution. While many want to paint the Civil War as being "all about ending slavery", it wasn't.

 
 
 
devangelical
6.2.3  devangelical  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @6.2.2    one month ago

it wasn't, for the majority of brainless goobers that ended up taking a lead induced dirt nap by the end of it. it was, for the only people in the south that could afford to buy congressmen at the time and wanted to expand their areas of operation. texas, SC, georgia, and mississippi all included slavery as the primary reason for their declarations of secession.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
6.2.4  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  devangelical @6.2.3    one month ago
all included slavery as the primary reason for their declarations of secession.

A study was conducted and with the help of a word cloud which denotes how many times certain words appeared in the various secession documents, we can better see what the actual main concerns were with those that chose to leave the Union:

all-word-cloud.jpg

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @6.2.4    one month ago

There is no actual argument about what caused the Civil War. 

http://cobrienhistoryportfolio.umwblogs.org/the-secession-commisioners-and-their-reasons-for-secession/

The Secession Commisioners and Their Reasons for Secession

Clare O’Brien

The Secession Commissioners and Their Reasons for Secession

            In the winter leading up to the outbreak of the Civil War, the South had begun to preach a secessionist message. Commissioners were sent from Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia, and some from Louisiana to preach the secessionist message to other southern states (Dew, 18). Before examining their cause, it is important to recognize who the commissioners were.

            The commissioners were a group of men who were widely unknown and therefore, could likely relate to the common people of the other Southern states (Dew, 19). However, these men had an incredible aptitude for speaking, which made them valuable in persuading undecided states to secede (Dew 19). Often, the commissioners were born in the state which they were sent to represent, strengthening their position as a Southern figure (Dew, 19).

            These commissioners spread the message of secession because of a few key reasons. They believed that the election of Abraham Lincoln was essentially “an open declaration of war” (Dew, 54), in that he would emancipate the south of slavery. This would destroy the racial structure of the South, degrade the white population, and destroy their economic prosperity (Dew, 32). It is true that states rights were a factor in secession, but the South focused on the states’ right to continue slavery (Dew, 11). These two ideals are so interconnected that it is impossible to separate them when discussing causes of secession.

            First and foremost, the Commissioners were concerned with the collapse of the racial structure of the south. With the emancipation of slavery would come the equality of both white and black men, an ideal that completely went against the Southern view that white men were naturally superior (Dew, 55). The South believed in this principle so strongly that the vice president, Alexander H. Stephens, went so far as to say the founding fathers were wrong in saying the enslavement of Africans was morally wrong (Dew, 14). If the South were to remain part of the union, they believed they would face not only racial equality, but race war and racial amalgamation (Dew, 78-79). These possibilities strongly go against the South’s belief that their “fathers had made this government for the white man” as described by William Harris, a commissioner from Mississippi (Dew 85). Harris also went as far to say that the South would rather “see the last of her race, men, women, and children, immolated in one common funeral pile, than see them subjugated to the degradation of civil, political, and social equality with the Negro race” (Dew, 89).

            The commissioners were very concerned with this degradation of the southern population, not only by being made equal with the Africans they would have once repressed (Dew, 98), but by being inferior to the North (Dew, 63). Another commissioner, Fulton Anderson, stated that the North held “Southerners in contempt…that [they were] a race inferior to them in morality and civilization” (Dew, 63). This sentiment did not sit kindly with the proud South (Dew, 63). Both William Harris and Stephen Hale, secession commissioners, describe further problems with the north in their addresses. Harris claimed that the North had not upheld law concerning the return of fugitive slaves (Dew, 86). Hale went further to state that the North essentially had stolen property from the South by harboring fugitive slaves and further insulted the South by its claim that no crime was committed (Dew, 94).

            Finally, the commissioners were angered that the emancipation of slaves would cause the South to lose four billion dollars in property (Dew, 13). Not only would this cause a face value loss on the amount that slaves were worth, but would also cause a loss in future profits since slavery was the foundation of the entire Southern economy (Dew, 53). Losing the institution of slavery would completely collapse the economic prosperity of the South and, in the words of Stephen Hale, have “her civilization destroyed” (Dew, 101).

            The outrage of racial equality, social degradation and the loss of the foundation of the economy of the South were the main reasons the Commissioners preached a message of secession. The commissioner Jacob Thompson best described the differences in the North and South (Dew, 43). He stated that one society was made of one race, free labor, and equality, while the other was made of two races, slave labor, and the rights of equals only (Dew, 43). With these drastically different societies, secession was simply inevitable, as the union of the two would only cause problems.

 
 
 
MUVA
8  MUVA    one month ago

What is a brainless goober please explain.

 
 
 
devangelical
8.1  devangelical  replied to  MUVA @8    one month ago

any southerner that put on a gray uniform and took a slug thinking he was protecting his goober state from a northern invasion, when in reality, he was risking his life for plantation owners that were pissed off they couldn't have safe passage to the west with their human property thru non-slave states and territories. here's the virginia ordinance of secession. note the last sentence of the second paragraph in the transcript.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
8.1.1  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  devangelical @8.1    one month ago
any southerner that put on a gray uniform and took a slug thinking he was protecting his goober state from a northern invasion,

I see you didn't study history very well or read my comment concerning the Right to Secede. The Constitution was very specific when it said that ONLY the Rights granted by it to the Federal Government as enumerated were the ones that the Federal Government had.  ALL the other Rights were reserved to the States, which included the Right to quit a pact with other States they no longer shared a desire to be in.  Or maybe you believe that once you join a group, you can never leave it because its values, or yours, have changed. I would love to see an able Constitutional lawyer take up this aspect to clear the air once and for all, simply because it is an affront to a Free Society to force people to remain under the jurisdiction of a Government which is working against their best interests.

According to White v Texas ruling:

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners.The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

Namely, had the South actually won the War, then the Right to Secede would have been recognized.  What I find so amusing in this ruling is that the very same Court noted in the paragraph immediately preceding this one that:

The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation,except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Isn't that exactly what happened? A revolution!

This is why I would love to see this issue challenged again in the SCOTUS by a capable lawyer.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

bbl-1
GregTx
Sean Treacy


23 visitors