-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
Politically Incorrect? You bet
Started by BLADEMDA
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
JUST A GOOD OLD BOY? BUBBA WATSON ERASING CONFEDERATE FLAG FROM HIS ORIGINAL DUKES OF HAZZARD ‘GENERAL LEE
Long-hitting PGA Tour standout Bubba Watson announced that he will paint over the Confederate flag on top of his Dukes of Hazzard official General Lee Dodge Charger that he bought for $110,000 at an Arizona auction in 2012.
Watson plans on painting an American flag on top of the car to replace the General Lee’s Confederate symbol.
Last week’s winner of the Travelers Championship and two-time Masters victor tweeted on Thursday the reason he decided to give the 1969 Hemi classic a makeover
http://www.breitbart.com/sports/201...al-dukes-of-hazard-general-lee-dodge-charger/
Long-hitting PGA Tour standout Bubba Watson announced that he will paint over the Confederate flag on top of his Dukes of Hazzard official General Lee Dodge Charger that he bought for $110,000 at an Arizona auction in 2012.
Watson plans on painting an American flag on top of the car to replace the General Lee’s Confederate symbol.
Last week’s winner of the Travelers Championship and two-time Masters victor tweeted on Thursday the reason he decided to give the 1969 Hemi classic a makeover
http://www.breitbart.com/sports/201...al-dukes-of-hazard-general-lee-dodge-charger/
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
D
deleted126335
As long as they don't get rid of daisy duke's shorts.
The "Flag" you read about is NOT the official Confederate Flag; instead, it was the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia led by none other than General Robert E. Lee. General Lee fought bravely but lost tens of thousands ( if not a 100,000) Southerners during the Civil War. He was loved by his troops and the entire Confederacy. The Flag symbolizes his bravery and resistance until the end much more than it does slavery.
In the last days of the Civil War President Davis was mobilizing BLACK SLAVES as Soldiers and knew that Slavery was at an end.
In the last days of the Civil War President Davis was mobilizing BLACK SLAVES as Soldiers and knew that Slavery was at an end.
Last edited:
Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:
I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day.
I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day.
Last edited:
Lee Owned Slaves and used them to his advantage (working the Fields). Whatever he may have written about the matter in his letters did not reflect the actual practice in daily life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee
Last edited:
Roughly one in ten Americans feels positively when they see the Confederate flag displayed, according to a 2011 Pew Research Centerpoll. The same study showed that 30 percent of Americans reported a negative reaction to seeing the flag on display.
But the majority, 58 percent, reported feeling neither positive nor negative. The poll also showed that African-Americans, Democrats and the highly educated were more likely to perceive the flag negatively.
But the majority, 58 percent, reported feeling neither positive nor negative. The poll also showed that African-Americans, Democrats and the highly educated were more likely to perceive the flag negatively.
Let's be clear that I am not personally advocating the Confederate Flag be shown in public and certainly not in Federal or State governmental buildings.
But, I do believe that Americans have the right to display the Flag and buy it on Amazon.com like any other less than politically correct item they sell.
But, I do believe that Americans have the right to display the Flag and buy it on Amazon.com like any other less than politically correct item they sell.
Maybe Americans should have the right, I don't know. But it would be an extremely stupid right to exercise.
Of course people have the right to buy the flag. This isn't Germany where it's illegal to display certain symbols.
Why do you think they have a right to buy it at any particular place though? Why Amazon? Doesn't Amazon have the right to choose not to sell a product, for any reason they want?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Maybe when the next psychotic mass killer shows up wearing a Che T-Shirt, Amazon will take that off the menu too.
It's just odd that your argument and dissatisfaction seems to be "people are talking smack about the Confederate flag" and not "good start! now let's get rid of those Che t-shirts too" ...
D
deleted126335
It also makes sense if you are a business and not want to alienate large numbers of customers.
Walmart will also make you a cake with the ISIS flag, but not one with the confederate flag.
IDGI.
IDGI.
wow...are we seriously debating this.
I, for one, support getting rid of Daisy Duke's shorts...
Are Anti-Discrimination laws Unconstitutional? I think we have reached the point in society where a personal small business (less than 50 employees) should have the right to decide who to hire, who to serve and who to fire without the threat of Federal Interference. If SCOTUS in 2015 can find "Gay Marriage" Constitutional (where no other SCOTUS could) then they can find in 2016 or 2017 that the market place is fully capable of dealing with the issue of "fairness" without anti-discrimination laws.
http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-anti-discrimination-laws-unconstitutional
Inherent in the right to associate is the right not to associate. Any person has the right not to associate with whomever he chooses.
In a free society, any person or group of persons has the right to associate with any other person or group of persons willing to associate with him or it on the basis of any standard and for any reason. And likewise, any person or group of persons has the right not to associate with any other person or group of persons on the basis of any standard and for any reason.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota.
“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife.” Ron Paul.
Discrimination is favoring one over another. Affirmative action is favoring one over another. Therefore, affirmative action is nothing more than legalized discrimination. It amazes me how the government can pass a law condemning one thing, and then pass a law promoting the same thing only under a different name.
In a free society, any person or group of persons has the right to associate with any other person or group of persons willing to associate with him or it on the basis of any standard and for any reason. And likewise, any person or group of persons has the right not to associate with any other person or group of persons on the basis of any standard and for any reason.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota.
“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife.” Ron Paul.
Discrimination is favoring one over another. Affirmative action is favoring one over another. Therefore, affirmative action is nothing more than legalized discrimination. It amazes me how the government can pass a law condemning one thing, and then pass a law promoting the same thing only under a different name.
Last edited:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Is this the society Martin Luther King was dreaming about? One where the Govt. uses Affirmative Action and Civil Rights laws to FORCE schools, businesses,housing developers, etc. to look at Racial mix-up before making a decision?
When will these RACED BASED Unconstitutional Laws be struck down by an "activist" Right Wing court? The time has come for the laws to go.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Is this the society Martin Luther King was dreaming about? One where the Govt. uses Affirmative Action and Civil Rights laws to FORCE schools, businesses,housing developers, etc. to look at Racial mix-up before making a decision?
When will these RACED BASED Unconstitutional Laws be struck down by an "activist" Right Wing court? The time has come for the laws to go.
Although the First Amendment does not explicitly mention freedom of association, the Supreme Court ruled, in National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama (1958),[227][228] that this freedom was protected by the Amendment and that privacy of membership was an essential part of this freedom.[229] The U.S. Supreme Court decided in Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984) that "implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment" is "a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends."[230] In Roberts the Court held that associations may not exclude people for reasons unrelated to the group's expression, such as gender.[231]
However, in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston (1995),[232] the Court ruled that a group may exclude people from membership if their presence would affect the group's ability to advocate a particular point of view.[233] Likewise, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000),[234] the Court ruled that a New Jersey law, which forced the Boy Scouts of America to admit an openly gay member, to be an unconstitutional abridgment of the Boy Scouts' right to free association.[235]
However, in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston (1995),[232] the Court ruled that a group may exclude people from membership if their presence would affect the group's ability to advocate a particular point of view.[233] Likewise, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000),[234] the Court ruled that a New Jersey law, which forced the Boy Scouts of America to admit an openly gay member, to be an unconstitutional abridgment of the Boy Scouts' right to free association.[235]
Conservative Supreme Court JusticeClarence Thomas, the only current black Justice, opposes affirmative action. He believes the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids consideration of race, such as race-based affirmative action or preferential treatment. He also believes it creates "a cult of victimization" and implies blacks require "special treatment in order to succeed". Thomas also cites his own experiences of affirmative action programs as a reason for his criticism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States
The Flag of the Confederacy has come to symbolize (for some Southern Americans) Personal Liberty, States Rights and Anti-Constitutional actions by the USA federal govt. against its Citizens in some circles. While its history is offensive to most African Americans the current state of affairs in Washington has left many Southerners feeling unhappy with the current administration and Supreme Court.
Last edited:
Are you serious? Who GAF if many southerners are "unhappy" with the current state of affairs? The reasonable ones are fine with it.
"Repeal anti-discrimination laws" must be a difficult position to take for rich white straight men. These are the same people that have their American flags all over everything and want to fight if you question American policies, yet have NO IDEA why this country is actually great. And I'm a well-off, straight white guy. I'm not "PC", I just like the fact that this country has been more successful than any country in the world in reaping the benefits of diversity through its efforts at equality and "liberty and justice for all".
"Repeal anti-discrimination laws" must be a difficult position to take for rich white straight men. These are the same people that have their American flags all over everything and want to fight if you question American policies, yet have NO IDEA why this country is actually great. And I'm a well-off, straight white guy. I'm not "PC", I just like the fact that this country has been more successful than any country in the world in reaping the benefits of diversity through its efforts at equality and "liberty and justice for all".
As much as I could care less about the confederate flag or gay marriage, I love how adamant you (BLADE) are about your beliefs. I think every American should be able to say whatever they want, whenever they want. I think that is what makes this country great. I think people need to accept the fact that other people may have similar or opposing viewpoints, but they should be respected nonetheless. The liberal PC police intolerance in 2015 is absolutely disgusting and completely un-American. More people need to stand up to their intolerant slandering and bullying tactics. Even if you are liberal, you need to respect other people's opinions. Ben Carson is absolutely correct on this.
You shouldn't slander people. You shouldn't bully them. Everyone should get their say. And you do NOT have to respect everyone's opinions. I sure as f$&@ don't respect Ben Carson's opinion that the ACA is the worst thing since slavery. And if you argue it was just a rhetorical device, well I don't respect it as a rhetorical device.
Blade may be "correct" in what he is saying factually but the reality is that a lot of pricks who dawn this flag are racist as hell and you all know it. Boo-hoo to the minority of true non-racist southerns who are proud to have this flag waving around. I am asian and could give 2 cents about this damn flag but who gives a crap if it sticks around or not?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Would you classify it as anything else? I mean it's a disaster. To make matters worse, it was illegally re-written by the Supreme Court twice so that it would be upheld and forced on the American people. It screws everyone except the insurance companies who are laughing all the way to the bank. This law was constructed by their lobbyists. This was never about helping the poor, improving access, reducing costs, improving quality of healthcare, etc. and it has failed to meet any of those goals. Millions lost their insurance. The insurance plans many people re-signed up for were more expensive and covered less than what they had before. You may be saying what about all the poor people who had no insurance who now "do"? Most poor people still can't afford even the most basic plans even with the subsides and even if they were able to afford a plan, they are plans that are so terrible that no one will take them. Not to mention millions of people lost their job over this. This is a socialized medical nightmare and the fact that you are a physician and you fail to realize that is pretty surprising to be completely honest.
I am not old enough to have lived through it, but I (not a white male) definitely do not want to go back to an America before anti-discrimination laws. History has already proven that we/market forces are not capable of dealing with it properly.
As direct descendants of General Lee, many of my family members still hang the flag in his honor. Lee wasn't a perfect guy, but he was an honorable man that was generally regarded as a great human being. He freed his slaves (which he inherited) a decade before the war, and worked with his wife to establish an illegal school for slaves. Hell, he even had to struggle with which side of the war to fight for, as both sides pushed hard to recruit him, but he ultimately answered the call of his home out of duty.
At some point the USA has to move beyond race, gender, sexual orientation,etc based laws. SCOTUS has come close the past few years in striking down some Affirmative Action based policies. I would argue that many Libertarians oppose these laws on Constitutional grounds.
This is, ehhhhh, near-enough correct.
This is simply untrue. The MINIMUM NET INCREASE of people insured is greater than 10 million by any estimate on the right or left, and actually closer to double that (though you'll probably discount those sources).
This is even less true. Definition of socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
The government is no more involved in the means of production, distribution, or exchange of healthcare than before it began enrolling every American over the age of 65 in Medicare.
I agree with your first criticism; this was a huge net giveaway to the insurance companies. But one should also acknowledge that the elimination of recission, killing the exclusions for pre-existing conditions, etc. are HUGE ADVANCES in how insurance is issued... to deny that is just partisan.
The law has major problems, most of them from under-regulation (we are still, by far, the "freest" health care economy in the developed world and look where it's gotten us: highest per-capita spend and 37th in outcomes), but call those problems what they are -- don't just buy the Fox News "socialism" label and consider yourself an informed participant in the debate about where to go from here.
We already have Socialized healthcare to some degree. The problem is the system is inefficient, expensive and poorly run. The ACA increased the cost and made the overall system worse. Yes, the ACA had some positives inside the law but these changes could have been made without the ACA.
No, I would not classify it as the worst thing since slavery. And if it is a "socialized disaster," then what we had before was a "capitalized disaster," that the inept partisan congress was doing nothing about.
I'm sure General Lee was a fine person. I just got what has been described as the best civil war era book in print, "Battle Cry of Freedom," and I look forward to learning more about him.
I'm sure General Lee was a fine person. I just got what has been described as the best civil war era book in print, "Battle Cry of Freedom," and I look forward to learning more about him.
How did the ACA increase cost?
Have you seen the reported premiums and deductibles? They are ASTRONOMICAL! Are you not paying for health insurance? Also, in the course of human history when has the government ever reduced cost and improved quality? I will save you the trouble, the answer is NEVER! If we had a free market healthcare system with HSAs and restructured what was covered by insurance we could improve it tremendously. Look at car insurance... do whine and complain for them to cover your gas bills, oil changes, etc? No, they cover the serious problems like accidents. People need to pay for routine medical care out of pocket and the insurance should cover the serious unforeseen medical problems. If we had a system I mentioned previously, although people would be paying out of pocket for a big portion of routine care they would overall come out ahead because the cost of healthcare would drastically reduce so that even the poorest person could afford it.
Last edited:
It was reported those numbers were forged and manipulated by Obama. Those are false statistics and even if some of it is true, see my previous post about how they have no access, worse plans, and how it has become more expensive. BLADEMA is correct, we already had socialized medicine to some extent and now it has become 10x worse. When people are forced to pay for something and are charged more to pay for someone else that's socialism. Take from Johnny to give to Jimmy. Under regulation? It is OVER regulated. Yeah those are also forged and manipulated statistics to make you believe the left that we need universal socialized medicine like everyone else. It's to make you think capitalism and the free market doesn't work. The reality is we have never fully given it a chance. I'm a very informed voter... actually I don't vote anymore because there is no point. I see through both parties and I've realized what this country has become politically. I think you need to be more investigative and not blindly believe everything CNN tells you on face value. The mainstream media has a political agenda and it's their job to try and sell it to you and make you believe everything they say. That includes MSNBC, Fox, etc
You start with "it was reported" that Obama manipulated the numbers. Then you said you're different because you're informed. I'll leave it at that.
@FollowTheMoney
Arguing the utility of a law like ACA is a rabbit hole because the utility differs depending on who the stakeholder is and utility doesn't take into consideration like ethics or individual liberty. If you're against laws like ACA, or socialized medicine, don't let the conversation go past two fundamental questions:
1. Do I own my life?
2. Do I own my property?
If the answer to both those questions is "yes" then ACA is completely immoral despite its utility; principals are better litmus tests than individual gain. If one answers "no" then they're too far gone to have a conversation with; brutes are not worth your time.
Arguing the utility of a law like ACA is a rabbit hole because the utility differs depending on who the stakeholder is and utility doesn't take into consideration like ethics or individual liberty. If you're against laws like ACA, or socialized medicine, don't let the conversation go past two fundamental questions:
1. Do I own my life?
2. Do I own my property?
If the answer to both those questions is "yes" then ACA is completely immoral despite its utility; principals are better litmus tests than individual gain. If one answers "no" then they're too far gone to have a conversation with; brutes are not worth your time.
I could care less about feeling superior to anyone else. If I could live my life without anyone trying to force me to pay for something I don't want or make me do something I don't want to do I would love it. I'm not about ego or power, I just want to live my life in peace and not be forced into low IQ mob rule slavery.
- Take Obama’s Thursday press conference claiming that 8 million people had signed up for Obamacare. All the reporters know by now that number doesn’t tell us how many actually paid their premiums, or how many of those previously had coverage, got it canceled, and so had to get new coverage.
- Real Clear Politics’ Sean Trende in January analyzed the president’s claim that 4 million people had enrolled in Medicaid. But Trende’s detailed assessment put that number closer to 400,000—one-tenth of Obama’s claim.
- Obamacare requires Medicare’s trustees to assume that the government will dramatically cut Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements for physicians and hospitals several years in the future. That required assumption cut, at least on paper, Medicare’s long-term unfunded liabilities by about $50 trillion. Medicare’s Office of the Actuary thought those reimbursement assumptions were so unrealistic that the office released its own paper providing an “alternative scenario” to the trustees’ report.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
By that logic, property taxes levied against people with no kids are completely immoral because public schools are funded with that money.
Is it not possible that one can "own their lives and property" yet be fairly compelled to pay for some of the benefits and trappings of civilization that they enjoy?
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMhpr150361
It's easy to look at or include numbers based on partisanship. The NEJM is pretty legit regardless of politics.
It's easy to look at or include numbers based on partisanship. The NEJM is pretty legit regardless of politics.
