Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "40k Sign Petition To Take Down 'Offensive' Slave Memorial" video.

KevlarIlluminati The US does the same thing to other countries
2
I agree with this, this is about equality. The flag was taken down so we should take down the monument. This isn't false equivalence. People say the confederate flag was racist but we don't improve the situation by giving the other side more. We don't sit there and morn on the past. We don't sit there and bash the bad things we did in history over and over again. But that is what this monument is doing, it is literally a scarlet letter to that state. What is educational is teaching about slavery in schools, but beating the dead horse like this is going too far if you want to take the flag down. The real motive here is equality, growing and moving on.
1
Michael Boyd Yeah, treason, in how the federal government stepped out of bounds on it's constitutional limits. The federal government committed treason.
1
Charles Moss They violated the constitution. I am not for slavery, there are just better ways in solving the problem then violating the constitution. How many rights are you willing to remove for "protection" and "safety"?
1
Greyghostvol1 The monument is a slap in the face, a scarlet letter in that state now. The confederate flag represented bravery and resistance to an oppressive federal government that was violating state rights (the Civil war was not mainly about slavery). But that was taken down due to twisted interpretation of what it symbolizes. And now this is being mocked at by liberals. This is why I, as a moderate, view liberals as radical and dangerous. The are no liberal at all and only support oppression.
1
Marvin Julien It promotes embarrassment, it is like a scarlet letter. It is saying that state allowed slavery and now they must be shamed for it.
1
Greyghostvol1 If the monument is a history lesson then put it in a museum where it belongs. Fair is fair, if the flag was taken down then take it all down and put in in a museum. To me the confederate flag means nothing. But to several people and the south it stands for bravery. You need to learn history and how the south was oppressed by the federal government. The civil war was about state rights and how the fed. oppressed the southern states to force them to do something they didn't want too. And after they lost the war the history books were re-written to make them look like the bad guy, and they had to spend a lot of money rebuilding which put them behind economically. The flag isn't purely about racism. "You don't want to question me on this. I will definitely school you." I highly doubt it. But you can try. But even with that, if the flag is being taken down from the shallow and misinformed idea that it represents racism, then the monument should be taken down for any shallow and misinformed reasons as well. "The US constitution has no mention of "negro slaves", so I hasten to think you are either really delusional, or misinformed, about your history." I am not misinformed about my history. The issue is that there were better alternatives to solving the slavery issue. But the federal government wanted to go against the US constitution and use force to end it. The the civil war was about state rights. "I'm a moderate liberal, and frankly I honestly think you're simply misinformed and not, infact, dangerous or delusion" You say I am misinformed or delusional without justification. The reason why I feel liberals are dangerous is because they do exactly what you just did, take some symbol, in this case the confederate flag, twist it around to interpret it what you think it means, and then bash people who disagree with you making them look like the bad guy. You are doing it with me saying I am delusional and misinformed all without justification. After this I wouldn't be surprise if you called me an idiot or a racist myself. The pure fact is that this is an all or nothing thing. You, as liberals, can't use the government to force what you think is right or wrong on other people. Those on the political left can't as well. If you want the flag taken off government properties then fine, but this also has to be done for other monuments that others clearly find offensive as well. You forcing the flag to be taken down but forcing the monument to remain up is the definition of fascism. If is you using government to force others to think and act just like you. So you can called me misinformed. With you I don't see you as misinformed, I see you as a fascist. Someone who when they disagree with someone they call names and then want to use the government to shame them. In this case it is take down the flag but support leaving the monument up as a slap in the face. As in saying "you are racist for supporting that flag, and to make you look worse we are going to leave this monument up as a scarlet letter to rub it in your face." The best solution, the moderate and equal solution is to take it down and put it in a museum. No one can complain then.
1
Greyghostvol1 "Look, the conversation about state's rights was over the practice of slavery. This is apparent and obvious. Tariffs had little to do with it. They were arguing about state's rights, to own and keep black slaves and everything else was peripheral to that..." Slavery was not mentioned at all in the constitution thus by default it becomes a state issue. So this is about state rights. You are trying to give me a history lesson when you don't seem to understand the history and design of the constitution. That is you number 1 problem. Slavery was purely as state issue and a compromise couldn't be met. So with that the fed is powerless. It can't do anything. Any state that disagreed with slavery could ban it via their constitution but that is it. Over time it would have ended. But in the end the constitution was violated because state rights, the main reason for the civil war, was violated. You can ramble on all you want but that is what happened in the end. " you're under the illusion that the flag was removed from the South Carolina capitol solely because it offended people," That is why it was removed, it offended people. If it didn't offend anyone then why take it down?
1
Greyghostvol1 I know the constitution can be changed, but it requires 2/3 of the states approval. You don't seem to understand that. But as a whole the constitution might as well be a holy text and needs to be followed. I understand checks and balances as well. You are saying I need a history lesson when you fail to understand the basic idea of state rights. Never mind your opinion, you fail to understand how state rights were violated or how a constitution can be amended. You seriously need a lesson on history, our government, the constitution and just in general. Like, all of it.
1
Greyghostvol1 My bad on amending the constitution. I can admit when I am wrong, and at this point it is amazing that you can get anything correct. Most of what you are saying is supporting what I am saying that the Civil War was based off of state rights. On Article 1 Section 9 it talked about slave trade, that is true. But that is because the federal government is involved in any foreign affairs and always has been. Plus no where in the constitution does it say anything about any restrictions on the use of slavery. Thus from there it defaults to the states. Just like education or murder laws or traffic laws (I know there were no cars then) or property tax laws and so on. What the federal government did was an overreach on it's power. All states have rights to run their state as they wish on issues not listed in the constitution. Slavery laws are involved in that. You are saying that this all started over slavery and thus it is purely about slavery. No, that isn't true. While slavery was the reason for the dispute it was about state rights. This is no different than if the federal government were to take control of the American education system and states were to revolt. It would be about the rights of states to develop their own education system. That is how this country was developed, states are pretty much free to do what they want. That is why the military can't enforce state law without the governor's consent. What the federal government was doing at the time was trying to enforce their law on the states which is unconstitutional. And yes, when the states succeeded they did mention slavery in their constitutions, but you have to look at what caused the whole mess to begin with. If this was about education they would have placed education in their constitution to emphasize it. But this was about state rights. So you quoted a historian, big deal. He didn't mention about state rights or how the fed. was stepping out of bounds on their power. By what he said it seems like that he is saying that two groups of people got mad, the fed. did their thing (which violated the constitution) and thus a war was going to happen no matter what. That is incorrect though. Slavery was the issue but in the end state rights were violated. That is why this is about state rights. "As I said before, even if we removed the "I'm offended by it" crowd, the flag had to be removed because of its history, and it being flown as a symbol of "pride", while ignoring why it existed in the first place. Or, of people who are doing what you're doing, twisting history to conform to your chosen narrative." I am not twisting history to fit my narrative. You are saying that the Civil war was over slavery and not state rights. Also no matter what the flag represents it is within that state's right to fly it if they want. It does represent their history as well, no different then that slave memorial. And it does symbolize state rights to many because is what the Civil War was about and how it got started. The federal government was violating state rights. Any historian that denies that doesn't understand history as much as they think, or is leaving out important details. "Um, no, you didn't teach me anything. Remember my mentioning the whole "checks and balance" thing? I mean, you go on to mention it anyway, what did you think I was talking about, exactly?" I support checks and balances, that is what state rights promotes. I seems that you need to learn a little more. "That's what you said. And you're, again, factually incorrect. The constitution, as a supreme law of the United States of America, is still falliable, and thus, most be able to be changed. Which you seemingly agree with. This, again, is counter to the more absolute statement you said and I just quoted." Yes the constitution can be changed, but there is a process. But it must be followed. Look at the design of this country and how much freedom we have and the potential dangers that can create. As a lawyer told me the other day, with the way this country is designed you can rape little boys at will as long as you don't get caught because we don't have the government spying on people (or shouldn't). We can allow that or allow the government to randomly search people's homes which can lower crime, but that would violate our freedoms and protected rights. The same was in the Civil War. Slavery laws, besides trade, was purely a state issue. The federal government violating the constitution to try to end it is them going out of bounds. While some support that my question is where does it stop? Why not allow the fed. to control the education system, or create murder laws, or just have the military serve as the police? We don't do that because the constitution doesn't allow it. And any violation of the constitution should be met with a revolt as in the case of the Civil War. But to say that we shouldn't follow the constitution at all costs creates the snowball effect what right we violate next? What right do we remove for our "protection" and "safety"? You have to consider. Sure the Civil War ended slavery, but at what cost? Now the federal government has more power and the states have less. So now where does their power end?
1