Most South Carolina Governor Candidates Stand Firm On Flying Confederate Flag

(AP) - Only two of the six Democrat and Republican governor hopefuls say they would consider moving the Confederate flag that flies in front of the South Carolina Statehouse.

The flag has been in place since 2000 after a deal was brokered to move it from the Statehouse dome and the House and Senate chambers. Now the banner flutters beside a monument to Confederate soldiers, in view of a busy intersection in the capital city.

The candidates vying to replace term-limited Republican Gov. Mark Sanford shared their views on the perennial issue in recent interviews with The Associated Press. For his part, Sanford made it clear early on that he wouldn't spend political capital on an issue he believes was resolved before he took office.

Still, it raises ire. There's an ongoing boycott of the state by the NAACP because of the flag and the NCAA refuses to bring tournaments here because of it. Football coach Steve Spurrier has said he doesn't understand why it flies where it is.

Democratic state Sen. Robert Ford, a black Charleston lawmaker running for governor, played a key role in the flag compromise and said the monument deserves to have the flag where it is. "I like the way it is," Ford said.

The other two Democrats - Education Superintendent Jim Rex and Democratic state Sen. Vincent Sheheen - are open to talking about moving it. The four Republicans - U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett, Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, state Rep. Nikki Haley and state Attorney General Henry McMaster - said they doubt there's support to move the flag again.

"I think it's an issue that Republicans and Democrats, blacks, whites across this state had a compromise on and it's such a deep and divisive issue, I think there's other things we can do to move our state forward," Barrett said.

Moving the flag would take a minimum two-thirds vote in the House and Senate.

"It's a discussion that we shouldn't have because the votes aren't there to have it," Bauer said. "And so all we're doing is putting ourselves in a national spotlight again for a battle that the outcome's not going to be different."

Haley said there is not enough support for moving it to bring a healthy debate on the issue.

"The practical side of me says it takes two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate," said Haley who, as an Indian-American, noted she could try to make sure the state doesn't lose business to the ongoing NAACP boycott.

McMaster said he considers the issue resolved. "I don't know that if we reopened it, I don't know we could ever get as much agreement as we had when we resolved the issue and put it on the Soldier's Monument," he said.

Sheheen and Rex said more discussion is possible, however.

"I think it would be in the state's best interest to try to work together to resolve that issue in a way that helps us move past this fight that has continued forever," Sheheen said. "I would want to be a facilitator in that." However, he has no suggestion on where the flag might go.

Rex said it's time to look for another solution because he hears the flag may be costing the state economic development opportunities. The compromise "was acceptable when it was reached. I think there's some evidence that we need to revisit that compromise and see if there's another one now that is more acceptable," Rex said.

If there is evidence the state is losing jobs, that makes the need to act clearer, Rex said.

"If the flag ends up being a part of that reason, I think it's my responsibility to tell the citizens of South Carolina that this flag is not just an image problem, it's actually affecting negatively our ability to compete and our ability to have the kind of economic development that we say we want," Rex said.

Comments

[James Everett]

07:49 AM on 06/08/2010

Jim,
Throughout this discussion, you have revealed that you are nothing more than a Democrat partisan. Your hatred for the south as you have revealed is because they have trended Republican, thus not supporting your corporate and socialist views.
The Issue over the Confederate flag has been simply nothing more than a catalyst for you to badger the people of the South screaming racism, because they, are trending Republican.
You have revealed that do not believe in the Sovereignty of the States, and that the Interstate commerce clause gives the Federal government totalitarian power over the States.
You go against the principles of the Declaration of Independence in your belief that the people do not have the right to abolish their government or to sever their ties with their current government and institute a new one. This is a most sacred most fundamental Right.
Your use of the Slavery issue is simply to get the upper hand over the republican party in the South, by associating them with racism. I am not a democrat or republican. I have no part in your squabble to control your Federal empire. The truth is revealed.

[Jim Holbrook]

11:05 AM on 06/09/2010

And you've proven how crazy you are, so what?

You encourage the confederate flag, not caring how that it is interpreted by all other races as a symbol of racism, hatred and threat.

You think republicans were less corporate, despite they being the ones taking all the money from oil corporations, health care insurance monopolies, and all corporations seeking further and further de-regulation.

You believe in chaos, anarchy and the destruction of the grand experiment called American Democracy, because you believe that it is better for a nation to allow all of its' parts to just "leave" anytime they want to, leading to a loose network of states that would result in a weak defense. Of course, this would topple over even from the weak foriegn invaders that would have come from Mexico, Canada or world powers like Great Britian.

You defy the Constitution, ignoring the Commerce Clause, and lie about the "right" to leave the nation anytime you want to, blaming it on the Union rather than the racist policies of slavery. You even tried blaming it on the 17th Amendment, calling it a "coup d'etat" despite the fact it was voted in by a super-majority in a democratically elected government, and despite the fact that it happened after the Civil War.

And you've admitted that you don't even vote. So you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem, for many reasons. You're a racist, a liar and crazy person who doesn't even vote.

[James Everett]

02:24 PM on 06/17/2010

Jim, you say that I..." encourage the confederate flag, not caring how that it is interpreted by all other races as a symbol of racism, hatred and threat."
I cannot help how others interpret things, I interpret your Empires Federal Flag as a symbol of racism, hatred and threat. Your Empire exterminated Native American Indians, Just look at the massacres at Wounded Knee and Sand Creek for a couple of examples....
“ I saw the bodies of those lying there cut all to pieces, worse mutilated than any I ever saw before; the women cut all to pieces ... With knives; scalped; their brains knocked out; children two or three months old; all ages lying there, from sucking infants up to warriors ... By whom were they mutilated? By the United States troops ... ”

—- John S. Smith, Congressional Testimony of Mr. John S. Smith, 1865[17]
“ Fingers and ears were cut off the bodies for the jewelry they carried. The body of White Antelope, lying solitarily in the creek bed, was a prime target. Besides scalping him the soldiers cut off his nose, ears, and testicles-the last for a tobacco pouch ... ”

—- Stan Hoig
Of course Jim, still you proudly Fly your flag, not caring how others feel.
I do not think Republicans more or less corporate.

Part one of two.....

[James Everett]

02:32 PM on 06/17/2010

Both party's are owned by the corporate elite, creating a tyrannical duopoly built on the ashes of the destroyed union, both party's bought and paid for.
As for the " Grand Experiment called democracy", It no longer exists, it has been replaced by a corporate duopoly which decide which candidates you can choose from.
You say..."you believe that it is better for a nation to allow all of its' parts to just "leave" anytime they want to, leading to a loose network of states that would result in a weak defense. Of course, this would topple over even from the weak foriegn invaders that would have come from Mexico, Canada or world powers like Great Britian. "
Jim what you are advocating goes against the Declaration of Independence. You advocate Tyranny in order that the empire may have a strong defense. However you cannot use Tyranny to protect Liberty. A union is no longer united once force is used, when force is used "united" has been replaced with Tyranny.
The 17th amendment, as you say was voted on after the Union, was destroyed and replaced by a Corporately controlled duopoly, the 17th amendment replaced the balance of powers between the States and the central government with a two party system as a check and balance, the two party's now owned by the Corporate Elite, does not constitute a democratically elected government, it simply gives a choice between corporately owned party (A) or corporately owned party (B).

[Jim Holbrook]

03:21 PM on 06/05/2010

James,
Anyone who arrogantly posts post after post just to get attention is a fool.

I know it's not for a point... because we're not even talking about the confederate flag anymore.... you keep trying to change the discussion just in a desperate attempt at finding a way to "win" this argument.

Maybe it isn't about "winning or losing" the argument. Maybe it is about UNDERSTANDING each other, so that we both learn in the process. But you won't admit that the Civil War was fought over slavery.... you won't admit that the confederates claimed state rights that they did not have.... and you won't admit that the Union never violated any state rights. You're not learning anything, because you're not trying to understand the other person. You're a partisan hack! You think you can just keep yelling and MAKE people believe you. Well, forget it. It doesn't work in real life, and it doesn't work here!

Just make your point and await a response! Please keep it to a minimum... maybe two... but not a dozen! Most of us have a real life, and don't need to be double-checking this just to see if someone is talking to us without us knowing it!

Thank you kindly for a more mature enjoyment of this wonderful webpage!

[James Everett]

05:18 PM on 06/05/2010

Sure we are still talking about the Confederate Flag Jim, Just not in the limited context of the DEAD issue of slavery, every time we get to the real issue, Which is the same as it was in 1776,
" When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
You Scream Slavery, and racist !
You are a one worlder who by your statements prove that you believe LIBERTY exists at the will of government, NOT government at the will of the people .
You support the George H Bush Doctrine of a new world order under the United Nations.
As far as both of us learning, You have closed ears to the truth, " Their are none so blind as those who refuse to see ", The same goes for those who refuse to hear.
All you want to do is call me a Racist, When I have every love for my Black neighbors as I do for White, and my shirt tail would not hit my rear twice before I would be at their side when they are in need. But then your ears are closed.

[Jim Holbrook]

09:29 AM on 06/06/2010

Another way that you ATTEMPT to make slavery a dead issue is by repeating that lie over and over again that the Civil War was not fought over slavery, but over state rights. That lie has been proven wrong over and over again, being that the South left the Union because they were upset over the moratorium on any new states being allowed to have slaves. They were also upset over Jefferson ending all new imports of slaves 60 years before. SO when they saw that Congress, a democratically elected group, and Lincoln, a democratically elected President, not allow slavery in new states, they felt threatened.

Just like a hick from the mountains who descends from the mountain to rob people on the highway, who gets threatened when he sees more and more police patrolling the mountain.

What the south was doing was wrong, and needed to be stopped. They had contained slavery in the south, and would not allow it elsewhere in the nation, so the corporate plantation powers that be left the Union, hoping to attract those western states to the Confederacy over the issue of slavery and destroy the Union.

I'm glad you didn't get your way. Only a traitor and a racist would want for the Confederacy to have won. And for the Union to fall. And for the confederate flag to fly again.

The confederate flag in SC must be removed. It is an abomination to GOD!

[James Everett]

07:20 PM on 06/05/2010

By the way Jim, I cannot find your reply to the quote from Gunning Bedford that I posted, or even the post for that matter. Did you get it ?

[Jim Holbrook]

09:38 AM on 06/06/2010

"Concerned primarily with the fate of the small states in a federal union potentially dominated by powerful, populous neighbors, the fiery Bedford warned the delegates at Philadelphia that the small states might have to seek foreign alliances for their own protection. Bedford's threat, "the small ones would find some foreign ally of more honor and good faith, who will take them by the hand and do them justice" was shouted down as treasonous by the other delegates." WIkipedia

His treasonous statements were quelled by the genius of others, who proposed two houses of Congress, one to be represented by population, and one equally represented by state.

I doubt he has anything positive to add to this discussion. He had treasonous tendencies. And his quotes can not be considered in a vacuum, as many of them changed over his lifetime.

The only quotes that really matter is this: "All men are created equal", and "A house divided can not stand."

[James Everett]

02:02 PM on 06/05/2010

Jim, you say that if secession were allowed " every whiner like you could leave their nation and we'd have a million little nations warring with each other over boundaries, percieved transgressions, etc. In other words, mass anarchy."
That is exactly what the world consists of a " million little nations " give or take.
Thanks for clarifying your position, You are a " one worlder " You like daddy Bushes plan !
" A NEW WORLD ORDER " One world government under The United Nations.
Good luck selling it !
I think you will find that most coherent people will side with me on this !
And by the way, How many nations do you think are required to form a Union ? If all but two were left, would they not still be United ?

[Jim Holbrook]

02:30 PM on 06/05/2010

You are such a damn coward! You keep starting new posts, because you're too afraid I'll see the e-mail notification if you actually kept your responses down below where the actual conversation is taking place. What a coward!

And a childish one at that!

You call me a "ONE WORLDER"? Well, it's better than an anarchist! You should go live in Somalia, where you can have exactly the government you want - NONE! PLEASE! GO TO SOMALIA! YOU'LL BE HAPPY THERE!

And no.. most coherent people will disagree with you....

The world wants peace, and individuality at the same time... which is already possible thanks to something called DEMOCRACY! Too bad you're a tyrant, that doesn't believe in voting, by your own admission, and doesn't believe in following the Constitution! You'd rather defy the Constitution to succeed over slavery, than let the "federal" government tell you to do anything...

Paranoia will destroy ya!

[James Everett]

05:21 PM on 06/05/2010

Jim, I do apologize about the new posts, It is not Cowardice, it is only that I do not Know how to reply to your post when there is no reply box at the end of your post.I do not understand why there is none ? My posts always have a reply box. Perhaps you can enlighten me ?

[James Everett]

05:22 PM on 06/05/2010

Well maybe not.

[Jim Holbrook]

09:46 AM on 06/06/2010

To further prove your idiocy... imagine if a society actually did allow governments to fracture into smaller parts, as you suggest is right. I'll never mind that it would never happen for purposes of debate, but let it be said that it is hypocritical of you to say so, because we all know damn well that the confederacy would never have let Georgia leave the Confederacy over a disagreement over a law decided democratically by vote, etc.

But imagine it being possible, and the resultant actions of state after state leaving the Confederacy because they think they can do better without the over-riding authority; because they arrogantly think they're better than the plurality of the election.

We would have, as I've said before, dozens of smaller fiefdoms, with no real laws or no real rules. Every rule would be a threat, as it could tick people off in one district, further prompting more fraction and the loss of another community.

But here's the real kicker.... and what proves what magnitude of idiocy you propose. Each and every smaller fiefdom would become more and more vulnerable to foriegn invasion. You would have ended Democracy that way, for the return of Kings and Tyrants. Nice going, genius! LOL.. :)

[James Everett]

02:44 PM on 06/06/2010

Jim when all dust is settled , this is the base of our disagreement,
Whether or not a people have the RIGHT to abolish their existing government and institute a new one.
You seem to think that people cannot authorize their sovereign State government to sever their relationship, with another. This is not what is stated as a belief in the Declaration of Independence from England.
You seem to hold the view that only the elite can govern, that if the people were to break away and institute new government that there would be " no real laws or no real rules " . Every rule would be a threat, as it could tick people off in one district, further prompting more fraction and the loss of another community".

Do you not think the common man can govern ; that only the wealthy corporate elite can ?

" Each and every smaller fiefdom would become more and more vulnerable to foriegn invasion. You would have ended Democracy that way, for the return of Kings and Tyrants. Nice going, genius! LOL.. :) "

Could each of these fiefdoms as you seem to think they would become ( I disagree as I have faith that the people would establish proper governments) , United in their own Union establishing a treaty to protect one another from invasion ?
Is that not what the united States did in their Constitutions ?
How is Switzerland avoiding foreign invasion ?
You advocate Tyranny to avoid Tyranny.

[James Everett]

11:55 AM on 06/05/2010

Or try this Jim,
Say Obama was doing something completely wrong, and was impeached by a Republican controlled congress, and by force they replaced the Election of president with an appointed position of president. Would you then defend it as the legal government of the Founders, even though the system was completely changed ? Would you then defend this new institution as though it were the same, as you do the Empire ?

[Jim Holbrook]

02:34 PM on 06/05/2010

Please stop being an immature and deceptive person... KEEP THE POSTS WHERE THEY BELONG!

WE ALL know you're just a coward, hoping I won't come back if I don't get a notification. WE ALL know you're immature, and just want attention... but please... have some DIGNITY! YOU LOOK LIKE A FOOL!

As far as this post, you're not even making sense. If the impeachment is done legally, for reasons outlined in the Constitution, so be it!

It's a STUPID question.... now grow up and stop talking to ME with new posts!

[James Everett]

01:44 AM on 06/06/2010

As for notification, Who do you receive notification of my posts from ?
I get no notification, I have to start at the top and go through each post to see if you responded.
I am new to this, I have only been posting comments for about a month.
If there is a way to receive alerts of posts responded to me, please inform me how, It may save me a lot of time.

[James Everett]

11:43 AM on 06/05/2010

Try looking at it this way Jim......
If the republican faction within your government were to gain power in congress and somehow were able to remove Obama from office and reappoint Baby Bush president for his life, and that the republican party , ONLY, could appoint supreme court justices, would you then consider it the same legal government of the founders, though the balance of powers were completely changed ?
I dare say that you would call it a coup d'état.
This is the equivalent of what was done by the attack and invasion of the Sovereignty of the States, and the removal of Article 1 section 3 by the Federal government.
You must recognize that without this balance between Sovereign States voluntarily united and the central government, the original constitutional system DOES NOT EXIST, and that it was change illegally by a coup d'état !

[Jim Holbrook]

02:40 PM on 06/05/2010

Man.. ... what kind of personality disorder do you have? I have sympathy for you, but stop being a coward, and keep your posts to where the conversation is... and don't keep changing the subject either! GROW UP! HAVE SOME FOCUS! AND STOP DOING THIS JUST IN A DESPERATE ATTEMPT AT GETTING ATTENTION!

Again... as above in the other post (what? You got Alzheimers? Didn't you just ask this same question? Even with a tiny bit variation, it still has the same answer) IF THE IMPEACHMENT IS LEGALLY DONE, within parameters of the CONSTITUTION, then SO BE IT!

Of course, the testimony has to be authentic and not made up like the lies that your kind constantly make up (ie...death panels, cutting seniors off of Medicare, raising taxes on the middle class, Iraq has WMD, hanging out with terrorists, etc).

But it is NOT the equivalent of the causes of the CIVIL WAR! The Civil War was the equivalent of the confederacy being a TYRANT like KING GEORGE! They were tyrannically trying to force the Union to allow slaves in the western states, and they were tyrannically enslaving people and sometimes whipping them to death, and denying them education and liberty.

You must be just as evil as the confederacy for defending them. Please, go see your doctor and get your meds adjusted!

[James Everett]

04:44 PM on 06/15/2010

As for the Democrats wanting campaign finance laws in place; Why aren't they ? The Democrats have had control of both houses and the executive branch, Yet no reform; WHY ?
Just as Bush and the Republicans did nothing for their ignorant supporters when they had total control, Obama and the Democrats do the same.... Nothing ! Still in Iraq ? Is Guantamino shut down ?
You see, its all a corporate Game of divide and conquer.
Both party's are strings on the same instrument.
For Republican and Democrat partisans like you, its all a game and your team must win !

[James Everett]

11:21 AM on 06/05/2010

In the original LEGAL constitution, there was a check on federal power, that check was the States powers and the states arm was the Senate appointed by the States legislature giving them a branch within the central government. a part of the coup d'état was the removal of the States power.

[Jim Holbrook]

02:42 PM on 06/05/2010

yeah... a coup d'etat that was voted on by the entire government, reaching a super majority to make any changes to the Constitution. Since when did a democratically elected Congress implementing a democratically created bill become a coup d'etat?

Go call your doctor.... now please..... I don't want you hyperventilating yourself to death!

[James Everett]

11:21 AM on 06/05/2010

Another of your mistakes, Jim , is that you are trying to make valid an illegal government by pretending it is the Constitutional government that was given by the founding fathers.
That government was overthrown by a coup d'état.
Again Jim, read these words, they show you for the dupe that you are.....
Niccola Machiavelli,.
"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking tribute of them, and creating within the country a government composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any other way....
"...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should] not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs...."
You support an illegal government. it is not the original one !

[Jim Holbrook]

02:47 PM on 06/05/2010

Stop posting posts to me in new threads! It's immature and deceptive! You're a coward to avoid the e-mail alerts and don't deserve to be here if you can't be a man about it!

Quoting Machiavelli, who was not even American, shows such bad taste! He was a corporatist who would love to join the Republican Party!

Here's YOUR mistake James... You open mouth, insert foot, over and over!

If you don't understand DEMOCRACY, then go back to school!

If you don't like DEMOCRACY, or the decisions made under a DEMOCRACY, and would rather have tyrannical powers to enslave and push people around without democratic practice, then go to SOMALIA. I hear they love anarchists like you!

[James Everett]

04:50 PM on 06/05/2010

The founders did not establish a democracy ! they established a Republic, A Union of sovereign States !

[James Everett]

10:58 AM on 06/05/2010

Jefferson advocated a decentralized agrarian republic.
He recognized the value of a strong central government in foreign relations, but he did not want it strong in other respects. Hamilton's great aim was more efficient organization, whereas Jefferson once said "I am not a friend to a very energetic government." Hamilton feared anarchy and thought in terms of order; Jefferson feared tyranny and thought in terms of freedom.

He said in his 1st inaugural address... "the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies."

[Jim Holbrook]

02:48 PM on 06/05/2010

Sure... He did support the states in all their rights... but the COMMERCE clause states that the states had no authority over commerce, and that the southern states had NO right to succeed the Union simply because the newly formed western states were not allowed to have slavery!

Your logic falls flat on it's face!

[James Everett]

04:51 PM on 06/05/2010

How many times must I repeat, The Interstate commerce clause is limited to matters concerning revenue .

[James Everett]

11:21 AM on 06/14/2010

Jim,
In the original meaning of the Commerce Clause, Congress has power to specify rules to govern the manner by which people may exchange or trade goods from one state to another, to remove obstructions to domestic trade erected by states, and to both regulate and restrict the flow of goods to and from other nations (and the Indian tribes) for the purpose of promoting the domestic economy and foreign trade.
What you need to do Jim is to read the Federalist papers #s 11and 42 . Again Jim, It is all limited to trade for the purpose of uniform revenue, Not to give the central bureaucracy totalitarian powers.

[James Everett]

10:57 AM on 06/05/2010

Jim Holbrook, Stop twisting the truth. Read and learn !

Jeffersons Quote from 1820, speaking the State governments
[We should be] determined... to sever ourselves from the union we so much value rather than give up the rights of self-government... in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness.

"The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes [and] delegated to that government certain definite powers and whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. To this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-states forming, as to itself, the other party. The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution the measure of its powers".

Jefferson stated in a letter to Destutt de Tracy (1811): "But the true barriers [bulwarks] of our liberty in this country are our State governments . . ." With regard to the people's freedom from Government-over-Man controls by the Federal government, in keeping with the Constitution's limits on that government's power."

[Jim Holbrook]

03:05 PM on 06/05/2010

As for the 1820 quote, it's still the same answer. It tells you that government has certain special powers! And those state powers it talks about were NOT violated just because Lincoln refused to give newly formed western states the ability to own slaves! The confederate states went BEYOND their state rights by asserting he had to allow slaves in those states, and BEYOND their state rights when they tried (and failed) to force the Union to do as they wanted. The confederates (like you) were bullies, who thought they could yell the same things over and over, thinking they could get the Union to change their mind if they succeeded, tyrannically trying to force slavery into the western states!

I'm sure you'd love to have "state rights" where you could decide your own Commerce. You'd just love slaves again, no matter how much you lie about that. Anyone who wants the most racist symbol in all of America, and yes, pretty much the whole world, is themselves a racist! Without that... this would not be important to you. You'd just be an anarchist, who would not care about flags, but would only care about making your own laws as you go along.

SO yeah, you're a racist. It's as clear as that confederate flag you probably have on your rusted out truck with garbage lying all over the bed's floor! (what's the matter - can't you find a slave to clean it out for you, you lazy fool?).

[James Everett]

04:59 PM on 06/05/2010

See Jim, "It's as clear as that confederate flag you probably have on your rusted out truck with garbage lying all over the bed's floor! (what's the matter - can't you find a slave to clean it out for you, you lazy fool?)." This is the superior attitude that you have of southerners, in your bigoted eyes, this is what you see.
As I have stated many times, States do NOT HAVE RIGHTS ! They have certain powers delegated them by the people .
And y every time you find yourself losing and out of ammo, you reach for that irrelevant dud bullet that is simply to old to fire.

[James Everett]

11:12 PM on 06/04/2010

Jim,
You are the liar, and anyone who reads my posts can see . You should be embarrassed !
Here is exactly what I said in its entirety !
"Another answer for Jim Hobrook,
Jefferson owned Slaves though he did not like the institution, Henry never did.
Henry and Jefferson were both anti - Federalists, They did not believe in a centralized authority, They fought against the Federal Constitution, warning that it would do just what it did, and that was seize the power of the States !
Clearly Jim you do not know History !
Both these men would be rolling in their graves if they knew what has become of the States.
Both men fought,though not physically against the centralized authority of the monarch of King George, and they fought side by side with slave holders !
So both of these men would have been fighting on the side of the Confederacy .
Both Henry and Jefferson fought with slave owners against a centralized sovereign, both King George and those who advocated a Federal Government over the Confederate government of the Articles of Confederation !"
Now Who is the Liar ? I stand on FIRM GROUND !
I never claimed that they advocated Slavery. I Know very well how firmly Patrick Henry stood against it. But England Did not have Slaves, the Colonists that Jefferson and Henry stood with, against England Did ! This is a FACT. It does not mean they supported Slavery. I never said it

[Jim Holbrook]

12:39 AM on 06/05/2010

Wow... do you have to keep repeating your posts up here after I prove how wrong you are? The problem with you is you just can't admit it when you're wrong. You have a definite personality disorder and you need professional help.

[James Everett]

12:48 AM on 06/05/2010

You have not proven me wrong, because I am not !
You just Lie. You cannot win by the truth, so you lie in hopes that no one will see.

[Jim Holbrook]

12:40 AM on 06/05/2010

Do NOT compare the Union to the tyrant King George. After all, the real problem we had with King George is that he was not allowing "taxation" with "representation". The East India Trading Company, with corporate power, was able to gain special accomodations, and they were able to tax us more than others.

And the south were like those tyrants, wanting to force the Union to allow slavery in the new western states. The confederacy was also tyrants to the slaves.

You mention Patrick Henry? He once said, "Give me Liberty of give me Death!"

Well....

The Union gave the slaves Liberty, while the confederacy gave the slaves DEATH!

Have you no shame?

You know nothing of American principles to use the good name of Patrick Henry in defense of the Civil War.

The confederacy were the tyrants! They left the Union illegally over a policy they disagreed with about slavery out west, proving how vile a culture the stars and bars stands for!

[James Everett]

07:05 PM on 06/05/2010

Why not compare your Empire to King George the Tyrant, after all didn't the empire Exterminate as many Native American Nations as possible,
I know of the Founders principle of Liberty and the States powers to protect the people from Federal Tyranny .

[James Everett]

11:11 PM on 06/04/2010

I Support the Confederacy as an Anti Federalist government and the principle of States sovereignty. I do not support slavery or racism. As I have stated slavery is no longer an issue. You support your government and it supported slavery for far longer than the four years that the Confederacy was fighting for its survival. You support your government which slaughtered countless Native Americans. You support your Empire and its destruction of the Founders Constitution, the Union, and the States.
You have lost this entire debate all you had from the start was one Bullet, and that bullet was slavery, It misfired on you as it is old and wet !
As for the Rights granted by God, Your government once denied the right of Liberty to the Black man and took the right of life and Liberty from the Native American, You would say that your Empire no longer does such things.
Nor does the Confederate want to deny liberty to anyone today.
So that issue is long dead. The issue today is one of States Sovereignty and restoring the balance of powers that the Anti Federalist fought for !
You can keep pulling the trigger and hoping to make that dead round fire, or you can reload with present issues, I will wait while you reload, I believe in giving the opposition a fair chance !

[Jim Holbrook]

12:36 AM on 06/05/2010

If you want to fly the racist flag used by the confederate army, you are a racist. Pure and simple.

You can twist truth all you want, but the founders of the constitution would not have supported the confederacy. The confederacy were akin to King George, as in the confederacy were treating people differently, making blacks live without representation. Indeed, they even forced them to do the work because they were too lazy to do it themselves.

And you (comically) say that the confederacy no longer wants to deny the rights to the black man. Yeah, right... and the KKK is just a dinner club.

And you say that you are just Anti Federalist, which means you think you can separate from the federal government any time you like, after any percieved transgression despite your perception being obviously insane. This would only lead to a thousand and one fiefdoms, even in your 'precious' confederacy, leading to a thousand and one wars over border and imagined slants from the other fiefdoms! TOTAL CHAOS!

Believe me... your 'precious' confederacy would have gone to war to prevent Mississippi, or Alabama, or whoever from succeeding from the confederacy over fishing rights, or whatever! So keep your hypocritical preaching to yourself.

And finally, if you want to make a statement politically, fine... but don't pull up the most racist symbol in our history. Why not be like those nice "tea-partiers" and make your own. Oooops! They make racist signs, I forgot!

[James Everett]

07:07 PM on 06/05/2010

And Jim , If you fly the racist flag of the Federal government which Exterminated whole Native American Nations, Then You are a racist PURE AND SIMPLE .

[Jim Holbrook]

12:37 AM on 06/05/2010

When are you going to stop immaturely copying your lower posts up to here? Do you really need all this attention? Are you really that insecure?

[James Everett]

12:49 AM on 06/05/2010

Simply wanting everyone to see you for the LIAR that you are Jimmyboy .

[want2trustagain]

10:25 AM on 06/04/2010

A good friend of mine is a serious history buff. He pointed out to me that each state had their own flag. SC is flying was actually Tennessee's. If SC is so proud why are they not flying their own flag.

[Jim Holbrook]

09:25 PM on 06/04/2010

good point, and your point still rings true after what I say, but I must say, that I think the confederate flag was similar to one of their old state flags. There was a time when more states were boycotted, but they changed their state flags to remove the confederate links to end the boycotts. Also, there were a few all white state congress's who voted to change thier flags to be MORE like the confidential flag after the fact, which also was trouble. I'm not sure the exact details, but that's what I remember in my long years. Most notably, Georgia and Mississippi changed their flag to incorporate the stars and bars early in the 1900's or late 1800's, by a bunch of racist white men. It wasn't a stellar performance by my kin. They were an embarrassment to mankind.

[Sandgnat]

09:31 PM on 06/04/2010

An embarrassment to mankind? spawning you??? Darn Jim, we finally agree.

[James Everett]

09:33 PM on 06/04/2010

THEY LIKELY ARE, HOWEVER IT MAY BE A POST WAR FLAG, and flying in a subservient status below the Federal Flag of the occupying empire which WOULD MAKE IT A FLAG OF SOUTH CAROLINA AS A PROVINCE OF THE EMPIRE, HENCE NOT TRULY A SOVEREIGN STATES FLAG.

[James Everett]

02:28 AM on 06/04/2010

Jim here is what you said....

And as far as the Union "taking away your state rights", read the Constitution, baby!"

First Jim, Jefferson was a slave owner, though he did not like the Institution, Patrick Henry, Never Did own slaves, he hated the thought, I consider him to be the Greatest Patriot of All !
Both of these men were Anti- Federalists, against the Federal Constitution, Both of these men fought with slave holders against King George, and against the Ratification of the Federal Constitution.
I believe based on this evidence that they would have fought against your Federal Tyranny on the side of the Confederacy, I suppose they felt that the Tyranny of King George and of the Federal Constitution was a more imminent threat at the time.
Jim, I have never spoke of " the Union taking away States rights ", as it is my belief that States do not have Rights.
Rights are a gift to man from GOD, not governments or States. Governments have certain delegated powers, Delegated to them by the people. STATES DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS ! THEY HAVE ONLY CERTAIN JUST POWERS DELEGATED TO THEM BY THE PEOPLE !
Jim I am a Confederate ! I hate racism, and I despise that slavery ever existed ! But I also Hate your Federal Empire ! IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM OF HENRY, JEFFERSON, MASON, ADAMS, or any other of the ANTI-FEDERALISTS .

[Jim Holbrook]

09:56 AM on 06/04/2010

Do NOT compare the Union to the tyrant King George. After all, the real problem we had with King George is that he was not allowing "taxation" with "representation". The East India Trading Company, with corporate power, was able to gain special accomodations, and they were able to tax us more than others.

And the south were like those tyrants, wanting to force the Union to allow slavery in the new western states. The confederacy was also tyrants to the slaves.

You mention Patrick Henry? He once said, "Give me Liberty of give me Death!"

Well....

The Union gave the slaves Liberty, while the confederacy gave the slaves DEATH!

Have you no shame?

You know nothing of American principles to use the good name of Patrick Henry in defense of the Civil War.

The confederacy were the tyrants! They left the Union illegally over a policy they disagreed with about slavery out west, proving how vile a culture the stars and bars stands for!

[James Everett]

09:48 PM on 06/04/2010

Jimmyboy, Show me where your Federal constitution makes it illegal to leave the Union. You CANT !
As for your Empire, It is every bit as much TYRANNICAL as King George !
Your Empire taxes its subjects for everything, many are paying almost six months of their income in taxes Via the Empire and its 50 provinces, and in the bailout scheme taxed the middle class and redistributed it to WALL STREET !!!!!
You Got nothin but that tired old slave defense which is lost in history, as it is no longer an issue and your empire shares that same history, and lest you forget what your empire did to the Native Americans. And then there is your governments operation Ajax and Tuskegee experiments. Your Defense as well as your feeble attacks make you appear pathetic. I have the Declaration of Independence on my side, as well as your own Federal Constitution.

[Jim Holbrook]

10:28 AM on 06/04/2010

Rights are a gift to man from GOD, not governments or States.

If you truly believed that, then why do you support the confederacy, which rebelled against the Union to take away those rights, given by GOD as you say, from the blacks?

Apparently, you don't think blacks are accepted by GOD?

Anyone who says they support the stars and bars supports tyrants like the confederacy who illegally left the Union just because Abraham Lincoln refused to allow slavery in the new western states.

So the confederacy were just like the King George faction, who wanted to abuse people and not treat them all equally!

Don't call the Union the tyrants, when we know damn well who the tyrant was. Just ask any of the slaves who were whipped to death. Oh, sorry, you won't be able to.... they're in Heaven, and you're obviously going to hell.

[James Everett]

10:09 PM on 06/04/2010

I Support the Confederacy as an Anti Federalist government and the principle of States sovereignty. I do not support slavery or racism. As I have stated slavery is no longer an issue. You support your government and it supported slavery for far longer than the four years that the Confederacy was fighting for its survival. You support your government which slaughtered countless Native Americans. You support your Empire and its destruction of the Founders Constitution, the Union, and the States.
You have lost this entire debate all you had from the start was one Bullet, and that bullet was slavery, It misfired on you as it is old and wet !
As for the Rights granted by God, Your government once denied the right of Liberty to the Black man and took the right of life and Liberty from the Native American, You would say that your Empire no longer does such things.
Nor does the Confederate want to deny liberty to anyone today.
So that issue is long dead. The issue today is one of States Sovereignty and restoring the balance of powers that the Anti Federalist fought for !
You can keep pulling the trigger and hoping to make that dead round fire, or you can reload with present issues, I will wait while you reload, I believe in giving the opposition a fair chance !

[James Everett]

02:01 AM on 06/04/2010

Another answer for Jim Hobrook,
Jefferson owned Slaves though he did not like the institution, Henry never did.
Henry and Jefferson were both anti - Federalists, They did not believe in a centralized authority, They fought against the Federal Constitution, warning that it would do just what it did, and that was seize the power of the States !
Clearly Jim you do not know History !
Both these men would be rolling in their graves if they knew what has become of the States.
Both men fought,though not physically against the centralized authority of the monarch of King George, and they fought side by side with slave holders !
So both of these men would have been fighting on the side of the Confederacy .
Both Henry and Jefferson fought with slave owners against a centralized sovereign, both King George and those who advocated a Federal Government over the Confederate government of the Articles of Confederation !

[Jim Holbrook]

09:51 AM on 06/04/2010

James Everett says:
Both Henry and Jefferson fought with slave owners against a centralized sovereign, both King George and those who advocated a Federal Government over the Confederate government of the Articles of Confederation !

You're delusional.

First off, Thomas Jefferson was very much against slavery! It is well known that he wanted to abolish slavery at the time of writing the Constitution.

Secondly, Patrick Henry hated slavery too.
Here's a quote you should read, so you can be less ignorant of the truth:
I believe a time will come when the oppo. will be offered to abolish this lamentable Evil. Every thing we can do is to improve it, if it happens in our day, if not, let us transmit to our descendants together with our Slaves, a pity for their unhappy Lot, & an abhorrence for Slavery. If we cannot reduce this wished for Reformation to practice, let us treat the unhappy victims with lenity, & it is the furthest advance we can make toward Justice.

Why are you such a lyer? Or are you really just this stupid of the truth?

Once again, you should be ASHAMED of yourself for sullying Jefferson's and Henry's good name by suggesting that they would have fought for the South.

[James Everett]

10:24 PM on 06/04/2010

Jim,
You are the liar, and anyone who reads my posts can see . You should be embarrassed !
Here is exactly what I said in its entirety !
"Another answer for Jim Hobrook,
Jefferson owned Slaves though he did not like the institution, Henry never did.
Henry and Jefferson were both anti - Federalists, They did not believe in a centralized authority, They fought against the Federal Constitution, warning that it would do just what it did, and that was seize the power of the States !
Clearly Jim you do not know History !
Both these men would be rolling in their graves if they knew what has become of the States.
Both men fought,though not physically against the centralized authority of the monarch of King George, and they fought side by side with slave holders !
So both of these men would have been fighting on the side of the Confederacy .
Both Henry and Jefferson fought with slave owners against a centralized sovereign, both King George and those who advocated a Federal Government over the Confederate government of the Articles of Confederation !"
Now Who is the Liar ? I stand on FIRM GROUND !
I never claimed that they advocated Slavery. I Know very well how firmly Patrick Henry stood against it. But England Did not have Slaves, the Colonists that Jefferson and Henry stood with, against England Did ! This is a FACT. It does not mean they supported Slavery. I never said it

[James Everett]

01:57 AM on 06/04/2010

This is For Jim Holbrook,
The answer is YES ! Florida would be allowed to leave! Governments exist at the will of the people, States must be sovereign in order to be States ! If They are not Sovereign, then they are under the authority or Dominion of another Sovereign thus they would then be Provinces of that Sovereign.
Therefore, if States, I.E.governments exist at the will of the people and the people give the State, I.E. government the authority to dissolve its ties or association with another, Then you have government of the people and by the people, You have Liberty ! Otherwise Jim, YOU HAVE A TYRANNY !
You may not agree with the signers of the Declaration of Independence, or the framers of the Articles of Confederation, or the framers of the Federal Constitution, but that is what they believed. Clearly by your statements and your love of the Federal Empire, you do not agree with the Founders !!!!!

[Jim Holbrook]

09:44 AM on 06/04/2010

Then you are a fool.

Especially when the south was guilty of leaving the Union because it was whining about how the new western states weren't allowed to have slavery. This made them feel threatened, as it proved that the others disagreed with them about the ethics of slavery.

So in order to preserve their vile practice of slavery, they abandoned the nation, slapping the face of Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, whom you seem to love to mention over and over again below.

So you should remind yourself that Jefferson was very much against slavery, having wanted to abolish it at the writing of the Constitution, only not doing so to make sure the south would join us in fighting the British.

And you should also remind yourself that Patrick Henry despised slavery. He once said:
"I cannot but wish well to a people whose System imitates the Example of him whose Life was perfect. And believe me, I shall honour the Quakers for their noble Effort to abolish Slavery. It is equally calculated to promote moral & political Good."

There he compared the abolishment of slavery as being imitating the life of Christ.

Think about that.

And again, only a fool would think that anyone anywhere can just claim their government tyrannical and then leave it without consequence. Can you imagine every piece of dissent resulting in succession? We would have a million small fiefdoms throughout North America, all warring with each other for boundaries and percieved transgressions.

[James Everett]

10:51 PM on 06/04/2010

Jim Holbrook,
Everyone can now see you for the Liar and Fool that you are !
As I have Said over and over, "Jefferson owned Slaves though he did not like the institution, Henry never did.
Henry and Jefferson were both anti - Federalists, They did not believe in a centralized authority, They fought against the Federal Constitution, warning that it would do just what it did, and that was seize the power of the States !"
The slap in the Face of Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry is the Tyranny that your Empire has become !
Jim Holbrook, HEAR THESE WORDS FROM THOMAS JEFFERSON,
" it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness ".
Now Jim Holbrook, HEAR THESE WORDS FROM PATRICK HENRY !
"It is as radical, if in this transition our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the States be relinquished:And cannot we see, that this is actually the case ?"
So Jim, you see, Jefferson believed men have the RIGHT to alter or ABOLISH their government, as did Tennessee !
And Jim as you can read, Patrick Henry, Feared that the States would lose their Sovereignty, And he was Correct in his fear, as the States have lost their Sovereignty !
You stand in opposition to both