b0ardski Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 That's what you boys should be thinking about! Flag?? What flag? better fix that door too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helmut Karvlow Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Racisim is not in a symbol.........it's in a persons heart! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dano Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I don't get it...the General Lee was always jumping...makes no sense on a carving board. Better on a bx board with all the new stupid jumps on the course nowadays. ( maybe it was? ) LOVED Daisy. I think she was already 40 when that show was on too! My daughter sang that Katy Perry song all summer..."Daisy dukes, bikini on top..." I was hoping with Obama in the whitehouse people would get past a lot of this ultra sensitive racial stuff. Boy was I wrong... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeW Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Uhm, I like Daisy's jeep more than that General Lee car. :p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carvingchef Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 interesting clip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davekempmeister Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 I always come down on the side of people saying/stating/expressing themselves uncensored. The thing about "free speech" that I find is most easily forgotten is that one must be wiling to accept the consequences of whatever is expressed. Not so free after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aisling Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 the northern states got rid of slavery mainly because it made no economic sense for them to keep them. yes, there were people who had a moral objection, but i love how people think that those in the north were so upstanding, it was all about the benjamins like most things in life.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjvircks Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Yes, the north was not as heavily vested in slave ownership as the south... but the north was very instrumental in maintaining the institution of slavery. Many very large fortunes were made by 'respectable' northern businessmen owning and operating the ships which brought slaves over to the states. As the winds of change started to blow these businesses found ways to whitewash their fortunes and downplay their roles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobdea Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 the northern states got rid of slavery mainly because it made no economic sense for them to keep them. yes, there were people who had a moral objection, but i love how people think that those in the north were so upstanding, it was all about the benjamins like most things in life.. that's as true as it is un-true. http://tinyurl.com/4nj9zp6 the basis for abolition in more than one state was basically the courts establishing that slaves had some rights, 3/5ths or not. secondly it was established that if a black man were freed he had rights. mind you in the 1960s the south was still segregated, the north was not really. read what martin luther king wrote about living in CT. was southern segregation economic? maybe, but it was still based on racism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykcuz Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 What makes a symbol evil? Because the KKK used the confederate flag, does it make all confederates klan members? What about if a person uses a symbol for evil then at that time it is evil? What about our great General Lee, the actual General? Was he racist for leading the south? Because his allegiance was to his state and when it joined the confederacy so did he. Remember when we were founded it wasn't for the love of this country, it was to ban together to win freedom from an over seas monarch. Afterwards a lot of people had a lot of ideas of what the governments role was. The civil war was brewing since the revolution, it had just been passified, but eventually couldn't be avoided. Hell even Alexander Hamilton who we consider a great man, tried to overthrow the US and become monarch when he was president. He had the political support and used General Washington to try to get the military support. Didn't pan out, but America is such a large country of so many cultures, that it is hard to stay unified. and don't forget there were kkk rallies in the north, it wasn't strictly southern. Before WWII MSG had a gigantic rally for American Nazi's, Look it up. If a black person uses the N word he is not called a racist, if another race says that word, they are racist? So to many people the context matters, which is why in America we have a Constitution to protect everyone. Canada has speech laws. What if someone was proud to be southern and owned a confederate flag? should the flag be banned? Remember it is legal to be in the KKK. It is legal to hate, it is not legal to use those feelings as a cause to injure others. What if I started a group that killed arabs on sight and marched under the American flag? To me I would be using that as a symbol of hate, that doesn't mean that you do too. That being said, Someone who displays the flag outside of the south has to expect to stir some reaction, but because we think it is hateful does not mean we can judge and take away that person's right to expression. If we do it is just arbitrary to what some people believe is right. So who decides? The north, the south, the east, the west? Catholics, Baptists, Nazi's, Mormon's? Who is the judge of what is acceptable expression. Freedom of speech: if you control speech, you can control thought. Don't demand people follow your morals just because a certain subject stirs emotions for you. And to clear things up with some idiots out there that talk about things they don't study...We gave slaves 3/5 a citizen representation to end slavery. Previous to this decision they were no part a citizen. they were property. It was a way to catch slave states in a catch 22. If slaves were to have a full vote, the slave states would be awarded more representatives in congress, making free states a minority. So to save their majority representation to abolish slavery they counted slaves as less which brings voters from 5 million down to 3 million, A huge difference. At the same time giving a slave any right to vote meant the slave states admitting that slaves are not property, since property, like cows and plows do not vote. This de-legitimized all arguments for slavery and led to the abolition. But for some reason politicians who want minority support go off yelling that the 3/5's vote was a racist mark on our constitution. when in reality it was needed to end slavery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykcuz Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 not in any way supporting segregation, but since this practice was ended black test scores have plummeted, along with graduation rates. Also, the black community was 70% two parent homes to 30% single parent homes. Today the numbers have fully reversed to 70% single parent homes. AGAIN not supporting in any way, just food for thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softbootsurfer Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Yea, OK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downhill Racer Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 you're right, Not all farmers, but the wealthy ones who financed the revolution... BTW the General Lee was a kick-ass car. didn't really ever notice the paint job, I was too bust staring at Daisy Duke in her Daisy Dukes I like this place.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykcuz Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Yea, OK Yea really... I in no way believe there is a benefit to segregation, just commenting on the last line of the poster above me, without going even farther off topic about a political system that relies on a perpetual welfare state to maintain votes. which is actually a form of racism affecting the same population that segregation affected. way off topic though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softbootsurfer Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Yea really... I in no way believe there is a benefit to segregation, just commenting on the last line of the poster above me, without going even farther off topic about a political system that relies on a perpetual welfare state to maintain votes. which is actually a form of racism affecting the same population that segregation affected. way off topic though. No Worries my Post is not about your Post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobdea Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 What if someone was proud to be southern and owned a confederate flag? should the flag be banned? Remember it is legal to be in the KKK. It is legal to hate, it is not legal to use those feelings as a cause to injure others. no one here is talking about ending free speech, it's a website owned by a private person, Fin's sandbox if you will. what is nice about free speech is it makes it easy to identify douchebags or friends. I don't think anyone said that Mark have the board taken away or anything but they probably felt that he was a jerk or something for having something that they interpreted as racist symbology or something. as for 3/5s, follow the link. what I was saying was back in the 1780s 3/5s did not matter because if a slave was told he was free he was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiveBomber Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Yea really... I in no way believe there is a benefit to segregation, just commenting on the last line of the poster above me, without going even farther off topic about a political system that relies on a perpetual welfare state to maintain votes. which is actually a form of racism affecting the same population that segregation affected. way off topic though. you cant possibly live in NJ:lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
110/220V Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 from travels in continental us it is easy to determine majority ( original ban) utilise the confederate to effect particular intimidation, emotion and response. This intention is the point of contention, no argument of 'free thought or choice of display,' but intention...yea? there was no responsible comment to the international sandbox of this site. What is the solution, what is a circle? but tomorrow is a new day...and the holiday weekend tourist here in the US begin in full force...slalom on the groom runs and lots of mogul on steep, if you are fit and strong at heart. Just don't forget your wax! haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenorman Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 not in any way supporting segregation, but since this practice was ended black test scores have plummeted, along with graduation rates. Also, the black community was 70% two parent homes to 30% single parent homes. Today the numbers have fully reversed to 70% single parent homes.AGAIN not supporting in any way, just food for thought. hi MYKCUZ clearly some other factor(s) is(are) also involved since graduation rates have decreased for ALL children--black and white. your statement piqued my interest sufficiently to take a closer look at the numbers and i couldn’t quite get the same results as you. your data claims black children living with single parents increased from 30% to 70%. an increase of 133%. could you tell me the source of your data? different cutoff dates would skew the data somewhat so this is my time frame: there was data readily available through a quick google search for the period between 1960 to 2000 so being lazy I went with that. data compiled from the UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU claims black children living with single parents increased from 21.9% to 53.3%. an increase of 143% which is significantly lower than the 204% increase of white children living with single parents which increased from 7.1% to 21.6%. here is a cut and paste of the data: “The percentage of white children living with a single parent grew from 7.1% in 1960 to 21.6% in 2000, a three-fold increase. The corresponding black figures doubled, from 21.9% to 53.3%.” if you wish to verify and/or crunch the numbers yourself, here is the link: http://www.jointcenter.org/DB/factsheet/livarg.htm the CUT AND PASTE is from the sixth paragraph of the above link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenorman Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Yea really... I in no way believe there is a benefit to segregation, just commenting on the last line of the poster above me, without going even farther off topic about a political system that relies on a perpetual welfare state to maintain votes. which is actually a form of racism affecting the same population that segregation affected. way off topic though. hi MYKCUZ that’s interesting about the perpetual welfare state which in some poorer areas probably comprises the largest voting block in the district lol. however logic would dictate that desegregation and equal rights amendments would suggest that as more opportunities are made available to black people the percentage of blacks gainfully employed increases. wouldn’t this imply that the black percentage of the institutionalized welfare voting block is decreasing not increasing? in other words the institutionalized welfare voting block is getting whiter not blacker? in that context how is it a form of racism (against black people?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenorman Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 What makes a symbol evil? Because the KKK used the confederate flag, does it make all confederates klan members? What about if a person uses a symbol for evil then at that time it is evil? What about our great General Lee, the actual General? Was he racist for leading the south? Because his allegiance was to his state and when it joined the confederacy so did he. Remember when we were founded it wasn't for the love of this country, it was to ban together to win freedom from an over seas monarch.Afterwards a lot of people had a lot of ideas of what the governments role was. The civil war was brewing since the revolution, it had just been passified, but eventually couldn't be avoided. Hell even Alexander Hamilton who we consider a great man, tried to overthrow the US and become monarch when he was president. He had the political support and used General Washington to try to get the military support. Didn't pan out, but America is such a large country of so many cultures, that it is hard to stay unified. and don't forget there were kkk rallies in the north, it wasn't strictly southern. Before WWII MSG had a gigantic rally for American Nazi's, Look it up. If a black person uses the N word he is not called a racist, if another race says that word, they are racist? So to many people the context matters, which is why in America we have a Constitution to protect everyone. Canada has speech laws. What if someone was proud to be southern and owned a confederate flag? should the flag be banned? Remember it is legal to be in the KKK. It is legal to hate, it is not legal to use those feelings as a cause to injure others. What if I started a group that killed arabs on sight and marched under the American flag? To me I would be using that as a symbol of hate, that doesn't mean that you do too. That being said, Someone who displays the flag outside of the south has to expect to stir some reaction, but because we think it is hateful does not mean we can judge and take away that person's right to expression. If we do it is just arbitrary to what some people believe is right. So who decides? The north, the south, the east, the west? Catholics, Baptists, Nazi's, Mormon's? Who is the judge of what is acceptable expression. Freedom of speech: if you control speech, you can control thought. Don't demand people follow your morals just because a certain subject stirs emotions for you. And to clear things up with some idiots out there that talk about things they don't study...We gave slaves 3/5 a citizen representation to end slavery. Previous to this decision they were no part a citizen. they were property. It was a way to catch slave states in a catch 22. If slaves were to have a full vote, the slave states would be awarded more representatives in congress, making free states a minority. So to save their majority representation to abolish slavery they counted slaves as less which brings voters from 5 million down to 3 million, A huge difference. At the same time giving a slave any right to vote meant the slave states admitting that slaves are not property, since property, like cows and plows do not vote. This de-legitimized all arguments for slavery and led to the abolition. But for some reason politicians who want minority support go off yelling that the 3/5's vote was a racist mark on our constitution. when in reality it was needed to end slavery. hi MYKCUZ i think i better take a couple of weeks to get my bomberonline affairs in order before i answer this one. if i get banned i won't be able to answer all those other 10 or 15 on topic hardboot carving posts that i promised BORIS i would get to lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykcuz Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Well your first problem is using logic to try to understand politics. example: "We must pass the bill to know what's in it." that's right we need to blindly approve a bill then look at it to see if it is a good piece of legislation. Your other error is assuming that the implication the block IS moving, not that it SHOULD be moving. Yes in a vacuum the percentage should be relative to the population percentage as things equal out over time. But it hasn't, why? At first segregation led to the elevation of blacks in the workforce meaning the current employees would be devalued slightly or diluted from the influx of paid workers looking for jobs. to be continued...work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b0ardski Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Well your first problem is using logic to try to understand my rant.example: "We must pass the bill to know what's in it." that's right we need to blindly approve a bill then look at it to see if it is a good piece of legislation. this explains everything:rolleyes: Your other error is feeding the troll to be continued...must we What's any of this have to do with censorship on BOL and snowman's graphics:confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kieran Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 What's any of this have to do with censorship on BOL and snowman's graphics:confused:a tangent's tangent rarely plays the original chord. sigh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex1230 Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 thread summary: Some people dont like snowman's graphics Catherine Bach was a Hottie The snow must suck because everyone is arguing history, politics, and semantics on a snowboarding site. Time to move along :sleep::sleep: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.