birdog1960

it's been about a month since i suspended direct tv. the only time i missed it was watching the pga and missing the end of the tourney. not enough to make it worth the extra money. doing more reading, listening to and playing music and watching hbo and recently released movies (which still adds up to way less than direct tv costs). but, i've got to make the call to turn back on direct tv for the nfl and negotiate what i'll pay for direct ticket. interested to see how that plays out. btw, HBO now works great on apple tv. if anyone can break through the cable monopoly, i'd put my money on apple.

apparently you believe that the confederacy and slavery can be divorced from each other. they can't. we actually agree here. most successful people have better things to do then spend their time lamenting lost causes.

except that it really isn't. as it says, how can anyone disconnect slavery from liberty? it's self delusional.

no demographics on groups such as neo confederates and other racist hate groups come to hand but i think anecdote might lead towards the right conclusions in this case. came across this while looking however. it was an epiphany for me explaining why so many libertarians here seem to agree with neo confederates re the civil war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Confederate Historian Daniel Feller asserts that libertarian authors Thomas DiLorenzo, Charles Adams, and Jeffrey Rogers Hummel have produced a "marriage of neo-Confederates and libertarianism." Despite an apparent disconnect ("How can a lover of liberty defend slavery?"), Feller writes: What unites the two, aside from their hostility to the liberal academic establishment, is their mutual loathing of big government. Adams, DiLorenzo, and Hummel view the Civil War through the prism of market economics. In their view its main consequence, and even its purpose, was to create a leviathan state that used its powers to suppress the most basic personal freedom, the right to choose. The Civil War thus marks a historic retreat for liberty, not an advance. Adams and DiLorenzo dismiss the slavery issue as a mere pretext for aggrandizing central power. All three authors see federal tyranny as the war's greatest legacy. And they all hate Abraham Lincoln

just my truthful observation. the cars i've seen with flags in tow meet this description very well. not a lexus or infiniti among them.

i've seen a few more especially on the road. the usual suspects....beat up old pickups that need a muffler and driver and passengers in urgent need of dental work

my point is the some of the same people (and their heirs) that are complaining bitterly over the loss of official state acceptance of their commonly interpreted racist symbol, were the ones supporting much worse and more materially consequential injustices. it's ironic but justly poetic at the same time.

you want the supremes to rule on the confederate flag?

there was a democratically determined public action. elected legislators bvoted on it under onerous restictions on removing the flag and removal still won. the jim crow laws are relevant here bec ause you all are making the assetion that liberals are deciding how people (mostly white southern people) live there lives. compared to what the jim crow lows did to black southern people that constitute a mosquito bite vedrsus a bullwhip laceration.

the sc legislature vote was public. you can look at each reps vote very easily and it was very well covered by the media. perhaps you'd like to redifine the word "public" to better fit your argument.

your feigned ignorance (on this issue- prob not feigned for most others) is annoying. the sc legislature VOTED overwhelmingly to take down the flag. all the legislators will eventually also be up for reelection. but really what do you find more fascist? jim crow laws or taking down a flag?

you mean like the dixie chicks? you think good ole boys haven't determined what is acceptable for almost 200 years down south? you think they haven't destroyed peoples lives, jobs or businesses? at least the flag issue is being brought to public votes and there appears to be overwhelming national concensus. jim crow rules, not so much.

you really find this plausible, don't you?

as long as i've been a bills fan, i don't think i've ever met a Bill. closest i know of was after the last playoff game in Nashville. we're walking down the stadium ramp all dejected and i see a kid with a cowart jersey. i yelled hello to him and he didn't look up and then i heard his mom tell him "that man is talking to you" and he answered. was Sam's nephew and was probably more bummed out then me. His mom, presumably Sam's sister was also very nice. there used to be an ex defensive lineman for the steelers, Tom Beasley, that called on me in a pr role. had 3 Super Bowl rings and was always super nice but of course, that was part of his job. his kid played for virginia tech and when i asked him if he hoped he play in the NFL he said "no". he worried about his health which seems pretty wise. i'd bet he's genuinely nice guy though. no arrogance, smart, calm and friendly. last fall, my wife and another couple were entering a hotel in one of the dc suburbs to start a road trip weekend. a lanky, elegantly moving man stopped and asked if we were football fans. my buddy was in his childhood hometown and said yeah, he was a redskins fan. i told him i followed the bills. he pulled out 2 vintage, mint topps trading cards and signed them asking if we remembered roy jefferson. shook our hands and wished us a good time in dc. he was clearly looking to be recognized but we were impressed by his friendliness.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/world/americas/in-fiery-speeches-francis-excoriates-global-capitalism.html

yep. that's it. only took you 15 years to catch on and only 15 years concluded by a mass murder for sc to fix it.. and then you seem to find it amazing that many people ( i would suggest that would be the vast majority) would conclude that chanting "off the dome and in your face" at a largely black group of counterprotesters would be considered racist. this is just dishonest, plain and simple. but that's par for the course for the racists beginning with the states rights lie about the civil war.

honestly, it's such a deep seated problem in this country and such a malignant condition that i'm not sure it's curable. certainly not in a generation or 2. comments like this are disheartening. you can't fix an illness til you confirm its presence to the patient.

south carolina confirmed its desire to keep the flag on the capitol grounds only a few years ago. they made it impossible to even lower the flag temporarily in that legislation and made it so difficult to rescind the law that it took a catastrophe like this to make it happen. don't pretend this is a new issue. it was extremely contentios then, before then and in the interim. you are the history revisionist here. and in this case it's recent history, not the civil war which is also more than adequately documented. it's historic. at least for a state such as sc. sad but true.

and yet, it required a descendant of jefferson davis himself making an impassioned scolding of her colleagues and a threat of financial loss (morally sensitive investors pulling out of the state) to pass the bill unammended. why not try atrtacking the statement and not the author.

unfortunately, it's not everyone else. ample evidence here and read the comments under the speech in the sc house video. the flag is part of that legacy as is its defense.

no. it's pretty reasonable to consider a section of the country that waited almost 100 years after the first state to abolish slavery and has a sizable presence that wants to honor that legacy, as backwards. only a fool or a racist would argue otherwise.

if you can't understand that symbols connection to racism, you are either a moron or willfully ignorant. at any rate, the act of that racist punk resulted in just the opposite effect that he desired and something that should have been put to rest long ago. poetic justice which will only get better when he is sentenced to life without parole.

no idea what her previous opinion was. it doesn't matter. she clearly believes strongly now and was instrumental in getting it taken down. that's what matters. didn't know about bubba. good for him, as well. now i wish i'd watched him at the greenbrier last weekend. right after we pledged allegiance to the American flag at rotary weds, we reflected on the fact that on that day in 1777, vermont banned slavery. and that sc had not yet taken down the flag representing it.

Rock on Jenny: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/09/south-carolina-rep-jenny-horne-on-her-historic-and-surprisingly-personal-speech-it-needed-to-be-done/

except that it won't happen in a vacuum. be careful what you wish for. at any rate, i doubt they're related.