Porn games, Sex chat

I think,therefore i am................

@ Suka_Waken.

Welcome to Forum. Please introduce yourself

Forum Homepage / Organisations & Events / Introduce yourself
http://www.funnyadultgamesplay.com/forum/index.php/board,22.0.html

ShezaWolf was edited & moderated as her post was confrontational. She knew this as her last paragraph shows in her post she fully expected the whole post to be removed. It was not. Instead a couple of sentences were removed. If either of you wish to discuss this further, then I will gladly do so by PM.
As I have said repeatedly, personal arguments will not be allowed to be aired in public in forum, whether you name the individual or not. They still know to whom it is directed and could ignite retaliation.

Back to topic .. your views on flag waving?

@ icebox ..   am...          on the side of flag waving?  You seem to be still contemplating 

Hmmmm i know how it feels when others open her mouth before they think,i am from germany and we Germans wear a sign a Long time now......

The views on the Confederate Flag is a complicated subject for most Americans. It's a topic that can often get heated and tense considering the history behind the flag.

I typically judge the display(ers) of the flag individually, depending less on the popular generalizations of the day, associated with bearers of the flag. What I have learned is that a reasonable, and even understandable argument can be made for displaying the flag. If the argument is made that it represents Southern culture and identity, then that's reasonable enough. If the argument is made that it represents peaceful dissent against a growing Federal (U.S) government that is over stepping its bounds and must be checked (the rebels I respect), then that is fair enough. The last point especially is an admirable point; one that I find difficult to argue against, considering the recent expansion of Federal authority here in the U.S.

However, it is also completely understandable to see why so many people (particularly those who are African American)  have an issue with the flag being displayed. It may have evolved to mean Southern autonomy, state rights and Independence, and a spirited rebellious attitude, but for many it means only one thing: an approval of slavery. Again current bearers of old Dixie may have moved away from racial aspects of the flag it once represented and instead focus more on what I consider just reasons for displaying the flag, but at the end of the day, it is a difficult to overlook the  dark history surrounding it; one that provided a despicable justification for slavery (hiding behind the protective shroud of free, hyper Capitalism and state rights).

It's with this aforementioned aspect that I personally struggle with the most. I often wonder if the other positive justifications for displaying the flag are out weighed heavily by the tragic choice the Confederacy made with the issue of slavery. Is this point alone enough to warrant an abandonment of the flag (on a public/state level at least)? That's a question that I often ask or asked when discussing this topic of the flag. 

Having said all that, I do agree with most that the meaning behind the flag has changed and that we must be careful in judging those who display it. They have a right to display the flag. I also wouldn't consider most who do wave it proudly, racist.

At the same time, I say to those who do display the flag to be  aware of the complex racial undertones it does bring, and to be mindful of that fact when engaging with those -who in my opinion- have just cause to be taken aback by its display.

 

Sheza

on that note im glad to see we all can agree to disagree

Yes. That's one idea of this topic. To discuss, to exchange opinions and experiences and also to agree to disagree sometimes. From the current discussion I have learned a lot about the american flags.

This is quite an interesting discussion. Thank you all for taking part and teaching us about american history.

A  few years back, a certain section of the English society tried to take the Union Jack and make it theirs. It started to represent undertones of racism, against foreigners in our lands.

We didn't let them.  We took our flag back.  The Flag is that of the United Kingdom.



Which brings me to another important day in our History.

Scotland  are voting today for independence.





We could lose our Union Jack forever.

It would have to be re-designed.  Maybe something like this.



Good Luck to all the people of Scotland in such an important decision.

I hope you stay with us. I really do.  You are family.

xShezawolfx

Everyone is welcome here to voice an opinion and open up a discussion. I am enjoying this topic very much and am being educated about American history.
For that I believe it to be of interest and a successful subject to discuss. Well done for bringing up the matter for discussion.

When there are strong feelings on subjects of course you will get opposing views. But that is, what makes us individual. And in hearing others views it educates and teaches tolerance.

If your topic or subject is provoking abuse, then please report it to Achat or us Moderators. We will not advocate abuse of any sort.

The chatlog you published was abusive and has been forwarded to Achat for investigation.  In future, please forward by PM. Do not publish in topics as it detracts from the subject discussed. In this case, Flag waving.

Back to topic please... I am interested in others views on this ...

We have to separate several aspects now.

- We have the discussion about flags now. A good discussion, which I like and hope to continue. I won't accept anybody voicing his opinion regarding flags will be threatened or offended, as long as his arguments are factual of course.

- There is something going on in background with you and some other members. This is nothing for an open discussion in forum. The forum is not a place to start or continue private argues. This we won't accept here, but offer our help to mediate or/and to bring it up to A-Team.

The Confederate States of America adopted three different national flag patterns between 1861 and 1865. The Provisional Confederate Congress adopted the First National pattern, also referred to as the “Stars and Bars", on March 4, 1861. This pattern flag flew over the Capitol at Montgomery, Alabama, where the Provisional Congress met prior to the bombardment of Fort Sumter in April 1861.

   
The Second National pattern, also referred to as the “Stainless Banner”, was adopted May 1, 1863 and incorporated the Army of Northern Virginia’s battle flag design in the canton on a white field. The first official use of the Second National pattern flag was on Stonewall Jackson's casket when his body lay in state in Richmond, May 10, 1863.


The Third National pattern, adopted March 4, 1865, shortened the white field and added a vertical red bar to the end of the Second National pattern flag. Very few, if any, of the Third National pattern flags saw service during the war, since General Lee's Army of Northern Virginia surrendered just a few weeks later at Appomattox.


In addition to the national flags of the Confederacy, there were many battle flag patterns used by the Confederate armies.


The Army of Northern Virginia pattern battle flag, first issued to units beginning in November 1861, was designed to be a distinctive flag for use on the battlefield. It underwent numerous revisions in design and materials throughout the war. Although this particular flag is the most common flag pattern associated with the Confederate States of America, the Confederate Congress never officially adopted this flag, except as the canton of the Second and Third National patterns.

taken from:  http://www.moc.org/collections-archives/flags-confederacy

In my opinion, the two main reasons why the battle flag is offensive to many:

1.  It represents the south's desire to continue the "peculiar institution" which was a euphemism for slavery.  When you prune all the causes of the American Civil War to it's roots, slavery is what remains.  Some will argue it was for state's rights, but that right they speak of was linked to slavery.

2.  In almost every picture or depiction of white supremacy groups, such as the Klu Klux Klan, that battle flag is usually present.

The institution of slavery was firmly established in the American colonies by the time of the American Revolution. The total of a half million slaves were spread out through all of the colonies, but It was most important in the six southern states from Maryland to Georgia. 40% of the South’s population was made up of slaves, and as Americans moved into Kentucky and the rest of the southwest fully one-sixth of the settlers were slaves. By the end of the war, the New England states provided most of the American ships that were used in the foreign slave trade while most of their customers were in Georgia and the Carolinas.

During this time many Americans found it difficult to reconcile slavery with their interpretation of Christianity and the lofty sentiments that flowed from the Declaration of Independence. A small antislavery movement, led by the Quakers, had some impact in the 1780s and by the late 1780s all of the states except for Georgia had placed some restrictions on their participation in slave trafficking. Still, no serious national political movement against slavery developed, largely due to the overriding concern over achieving national unity. When the Constitutional Convention met, slavery was the one issue that left the least possibility of compromise, the one that would most pit morality against pragmatism. In the end, while many would take comfort in the fact that the word slavery never occurs in the Constitution, critics note that the three-fifths clause* provided slaveholders with extra representatives in Congress, the requirement of the federal government to suppress domestic violence would dedicate national resources to defending against slave revolts, a twenty-year delay in banning the import of slaves allowed the South to fortify its labor needs, and the amendment process made the national abolition of slavery very unlikely in the foreseeable future.

With the outlawing of the African slave trade on January 1, 1808, many Americans felt that the slavery issue was resolved. Any national discussion that might have continued over slavery was drowned out by the years of trade embargoes, maritime competition with Great Britain and France, and, finally, the War of 1812 (when the United States once again kicked Great Britain’s ass ). The one exception to this quiet regarding slavery was the New Englanders' association of their frustration with the war with their resentment of the three-fifths clause that seemed to allow the South to dominate national politics.

In the aftermath of the American Revolution, the northern states (north of the Mason-Dixon Line separating Pennsylvania and Maryland) abolished slavery by 1804. The Mason-Dixon Line runs east through the southern part of New Jersey, so yes… there were slaves in the North.  In the 1787 Northwest Ordinance, Congress (still under the Articles of Confederation) barred slavery from the Mid-Western territory north of the Ohio River, but when the U.S. Congress organized the southern territories acquired through the Louisiana Purchase, the ban on slavery was omitted.

* The Three-Fifths Compromise
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached between delegates from southern states and those from northern states during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. The debate was over if, and if so, how, slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for constitutional purposes. The issue was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years, and to determine what percentage of the nation's direct tax burden the state would have to bear. The compromise was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

The Convention had unanimously accepted the principle that representation in the House of Representatives would be in proportion to the relative state populations. However, since slaves could not vote, non-slaves in slave states would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. Delegates opposed to slavery proposed that only free inhabitants of each state be counted for apportionment purposes, while delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, opposed the proposal, wanting slaves to count in their actual numbers. A compromise which was finally agreed upon—of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers—reduced the representation of the slave states relative to the original proposals, but improved it over the Northern position. An inducement for slave states to accept the Compromise was its tie to taxation in the same ratio, so that the burden of taxation on the slave states was also reduced.

The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution which reads:

    Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.