Photo gallery: What Big Labor protesters are teaching kids (language warning); Update: Slobs and more vulgarity and Fox hate
Thanks to reader Justin Falk for sending along these pictures from the progressive Peace&Love march in Madison, Wisconsin today (language warning). Keep it classy, progs!
New Civility. Same as the Old.
All in good, clean fun!
***
Commenter Aloha Guy: “A gang bang? I guess it is like Cairo.”
***
Ann Althouse documents the trash the union slobs left behind….
***
Update: Another lovely photo and observations from reader Mary Thompson — who e-mails: “My thirteen year-old had a large male scream “f*ck you!” several times and then say he was a teacher. This was because he was holding a Walker sign. I had a teacher hit me with her sign for taking a picture of it. I was not holding any signs or wearing anything that would identify my position.”
Feel the classiness!
Charming. A kid getting his/her Cee-Lo-inspired profanity on…Big Labor-approved! Thanks to reader David K…
Can’t have a prog pow-wow without more requisite Fox hatred and race-baiting (photos also via David K):
“Arian?”
***
Yes, even a few Wisconsin Democrat officials are embarrassed by some of the vulgar signs. Tim Graham of the Media Research Center lays out the Left’s incurable double standards over the last two years:
Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chairman Mike Tate is condemning signs carried by pro-labor protesters that compare Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Hosni Mubarak and showed the governor with a cross-hairs rifle sight over his face.
In an interview with CNSNews.com, Democratic Party of Wisconsin Press Secretary Graeme Zielinski said that Tate and the party “absolutely” condemn the inflammatory signs but says that they are not representative of the majority of the protesters who have taken to the streets in opposition to the Governor’s plan.
“This is absolutely not representative of what the protest is that’s out there,” said Zielinski. “Frankly it’s offensive to a lot of the protesters, average working men and women who are out here with their families peaceably demonstrating and exercising their first amendment rights.”
…Tim Graham, director of media analysis for the Media Research Center the parent organization of CNSNews.com, praised the State Democratic Party for condemning the signs and agreed that those wielding them make up only a fraction of the protesters.
However, Graham also pointed to what he said was a double standard when it came to the media’s coverage of inflammatory behavior depending on which side of the political spectrum was involved.
“The big difference is that throughout the last couple of years with the Tea-Party movement the media and the Democrats made an enormous big deal out of the tenor of signs,” said Graham. “Whether they were Obama with a Hitler mustache or Obama in a Witch doctor outfit or violent imagery.”
“The real double standard here is that while the media was constantly harping on tea-party, they’re not harping on signs this time around. We’ve seen some of these signs going by in the stories but there’s no commentary on them. So you might see a sign saying “Hosni Walker” flash on your screen, but there’s nobody saying “extreme,” Graham told CNSNews.com.
“Nobody’s worried about the tenor of the rhetoric and that’s a double standard. What the media was trying to do to the tea-party was suggest that they were, as a whole, a group of freaks. In this case they’re basically describing them as poor teachers who are being denied their rights.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Video: Unhinged, bat-wielding Big Labor thug of the day repeatedly whacks Nikki Haley pinata
May 22, 2012 03:01 PM by Michelle Malkin
70 Comments
Eye on Indiana and Wisconsin; Update: Lugar defeated; Barrett to face Walker
May 8, 2012 06:04 PM by Michelle Malkin
129 CommentsEverything you need to know about Occupy in one photo
May 1, 2012 10:37 AM by Michelle Malkin
158 CommentsAnarchy 101: How Wisconsin’s Left embraces chaos (promo video)
April 30, 2012 11:34 AM by Michelle Malkin
36 CommentsConservative consumers: Stand your ground
April 25, 2012 04:22 AM by Michelle Malkin
183 CommentsThe real GSA scandal: job-killing Big Labor payoffs
April 18, 2012 12:35 AM by Michelle Malkin
89 CommentsFollow-up: Have you done your part to fight the Left’s war on Wisconsin and conservative women?
March 31, 2012 11:38 AM by Michelle Malkin
67 Comments
The war on Wisconsin; Update: Sarah Palin’s call to arms
March 28, 2012 02:52 AM by Michelle Malkin
131 CommentsDozens of Wisconsin journos sign anti-Walker recall petition, national media yawns
March 26, 2012 10:18 AM by Michelle Malkin
54 Comments
Babalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the YearRedstate
» Kimberlin’s Associates Caught on Tape?
When the Tea Party has a rally, the Main Stream Media tries as hard as it can to find some insinuation of violence or incivility, no matter how slight, to lead the nightly news with. But when Unions, Democrats, and Muslims have a rally and go out of their way to not only make violent threats but to carry out violence by assaulting and raping bystanders, they ignore it. They pretend it didn’t happen. CBS even tried to cover up the rape of one of their own reporters in Egypt because it didn’t fit the positive spin they wanted to portray of the event.
Before Palin made a map targeting democratic districts for defeat in 2010, Democrats made a similar map targeting Repubicans in 2006. The MSM didn’t complain at all about those targets.
A CNN commentator said, “I want my country back” means “How is this black guy all of the sudden running the country?” Bill Maher made a similar comment on MSNBC. But before that, Howard Dean in his “I have a scream” speech said, “We want our country back for ordinary Americans. … I’m just going to close the way I always close. … You have the power to take back this party… to take back the flag… We have the power to take back the White House in 2004…”
Why didn’t the MSM complain about Howard Dean’s comments? If Palin or Bachmann had said, “We want our country back for ordinary Americans.” They would have spent all week talking about the racism hidden in those comments, and how the phrase “ordinary Americans” is Tea Party code for “white people”.
There can no longer be any question that the MSM is partisan and completely in the tank for Democrats and for the unions that back them.
That top picture is right outside the Wisconsin Veterans museum.
I wonder how many civil leftists went in and trashed the place.
Isn’t a gang bang against the principles of organizations on the left such as NOW?
A gang bang refers to one women being subjected to the sexual whims of a group of men. Basically, these men use her body as a ‘public toilet’ of sorts, at least in a sexual manner.
It would seem logical that any woman at the rally that saw such a sign being held would ask that it not be paraded around out of concern for the implied message of such an act.
Logic is not exactly a strong trait in regressives!
Logic doesn’t exist in the progressives’ world, nor does math. I wondered why schools did such a poor job teaching math. Now I know it’s because the numbers will always add up the way the progressives want them to. Progressives follow the laws of spontaneous generation.
I’m sure the saber toothed tigers had themselves one last angry roar, as they thrashed vainly in the tar-pits of their own evolutionary dead-end.
Bet their noise gave earlier consumption-class critters a few giggles as well.
Well, I guess Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly will be flattered to know that a union man in a green jacket has the fancies for them.
No reason to be jealous of the Mathews/Obama ordeal anymore
Also, it’s nice to that these government-educated “protestors” can’t spell. It’s Aryan, not Arian. Why do I have a sneaking suspicion the person with that sign is an English from Madison?
And could someone please explain how these people fit the description of “elderly, angry Aryans?”
You moms who nursed know the truth about weaning. It’s always harder on the “weanie”.
This infantile rage will end eventually…
The overall graduation rate in Milwaukee public schools is an abysmal 46 percent. And the graduation rate for African-American students is even more abysmal at 34 percent. Yeah. Union teachers are doing a great job for the children.
BTW the most crude conservative sign that I saw yesterday read:
“Quit leeching! Start Teaching!”
Agreed. I must confess to being a UW Madison alumni and charter hippie. I console myself with Churchill’s axiom, “If you’re not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative at 40, you have no brains.” When we were marching on the WI Capitol demanding peace, love & stuff (hopenchange)- Wisconsin elected Gov Knowles, (solid conservative) and Nixon. What you’re seeing in Madison is not Wisconsin. It’s Madison.
Madison is the cosmic center of perpetual pseudo outrage and righteous indignation desperately seeking something to wee-wee up about. So here you go. I guarantee 50+% of that rabble are UW students and profs. After a while, they’ll get tired and go home, have a beer and joint, and write a paper about how they changed the planet over the weekend.
Walker is playing it smart. Hold your ground and wait. This is the best thing for ’12. Senators who are in blatent contempt of the Senate and failing fidelity to their oath and the people they represent will go down hard. This is the best thing for ’12.
I see the big Dem pitch is negotiate. Why? That is what the Democrats would do, to pay back the unions. The Dems lost, so that means the unions lost. We need to tell it like it is. The Democrats with the lurch to the left have no left themselves open in the center. Independents can now see what they represent and want no part of it.
Agreed – the adult in the room is obvious.
But Obama has no plan to reduce the deficit, only a plan to interfere with the democratic process in Wisconsin.
It’s what Marxists do.
Amen! This is what we have to battle constantly: the huge disparity in the msm’s reporting. Thank goodness for the internet blogs and websites like Michelle’s, PJTV, Powerline, etc. Local newspapers carry the same sanitized version of the news, when it comes to the culpability of the unions and the Democrats.
More power to honest reporters!
So, it would have been ok for the southern states to succeed (and the federal government would have allowed succession) if the reason for succession had been something other than slavery?
Moscow by the Lakes. Madison has long been a satellite of the Chicago communists.
secede-to withraw
succeed-win, complete
I what I have noticed is that they may fein logic to score points, but then it quickly turns into whining and name calling and insults. In the end it amounts to “shut up, do what we say, believe what we tell you, and did we tell you shut up.”
History lesson, Roland. In the Civil War, the South, then the North, used the draft, and/or threat of the draft, for concsription. So your blanket statement about who was willing to fight for what, should omit the word “willing.” Be careful with those blankets.
As for the topic at hand, we attended a Tea Party once and its worth going to just for the witty signs. My favorite “We work hard so you don’t have to.” Fitting for the above photo, no?
This reminds me soooo much of the huge tea party rally in D.C. last year. I saw signs calling Obama a MFer everywhere, and people yelling threats from every corner. They trashed the capitol grounds and left litter everywhere. Yes sir, the left and the right are really the same after all.
sarc off.
Sigh. Of course the North had a draft, and of course all individuals were not willing. Even most who were willing didn’t give a rip about slavery.
Your objection to my failure to parse things out more precisely to your liking entirely misses the point of my posts.
Yeah, that’s what I learned in my northern liberal public education revisionist history book too. One of the WW2 vets I have breakfast with was a Georgia History prof for 45 years, and wrote 2 books on the War – well researched and documented. I’ve visited battlefields and key sites with him – he’s a walking encyclopedia.
Secession was primarily about culture, commerce and state’s sovereignty. Cotton and tobacco were among the most lucrative export markets in the nation, and the N.E. liberal elite thought it would be best to redistribute this hard earned wealth amongst themselves. (sounds familiar) Federal regulation and mandates were increasingly oppressive and arbitrary – and threatened a deeply conservative culture and economy. Slavery was peripheral, not the reason for secession – or the response. FWIW
Also, draft or not in the South, the South fought because the South (southerners as a group) wanted to fight to defend their “rights,” just as Germany fought WWII because Germany (Germans as a group) wanted to wage war. For their “rights,” of course.
In both cases their “rights” were really the “right” to grind others into the ground.
And, once more, my point was this reflex habit of pro-Confederacy people to bring up the Civil War as a good example of State’s Rights is one of the reasons the states have become so uselessly weak.
It is a God awful horrible example of the importance of State’s Rights. The worst one I can think of by far.
Sorry, Swede, but that’s all a crock.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas%E2%80%93Nebraska_Act
My sign at 9/12 read:
CHANGE
we have no
HOPE
of paying for
Let’s not refight the Civil War.
For some of you, believe it or not, but some of us government workers(I work for the county) actually do take our job seriously, AND don’t abuse the taxpayers, AND are true conservatives. Just wanted that out there before we get lumped in with all the lazy workers…
Roland,
Ask your self why poor dirt farmers who never owned a slave and probably would never be able to afford to do so would go to war and risk their lives so wealthy landowners could keep their labor costs down.
The reasons for the Civil War were not that different from the Revolution. The distant controlling group wanted the riches from the other group. That’s the reason for The Great Compromise. Southerners wanted slaves counted as a full person which would give them greater representation in Congress. The Northern states didn’t want slaves counted at all, allowing them to maintain control.
Isolating the Civil War to slavery is as much a misrepresentation as saying the Holocaust was the reason for WW2.
John Deaux and Swede, good points, compellingly made.
As a Southerner, I have become increasingly agitated in recent years because I have realized that certain narrative lines in understanding American history serve the interests of various constituencies, much of it at the expense of white Southerners who have a permanent scapegoat role in the story. The historic evils, of course, were very real. But lots of people profited from slavery, including people whose descendants now are very smug in their subtle anti-Southern bigotry. It is just handy and makes most of the country feel good about themselves to have a national scapegoat to carry the burden of the national guilt, and every nation has some.
Most people would be amazed to know that much of the South remains to this day under the supervision of the Justice Department in all matters pertaining to voting as a result of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. This supervision is very burdensome and very political. Districts can not be changed nor can polling places be moved without an extensive supervision process by federal bureaucrats. Of course, it is ridiculous to suggest that the South is any more troubled with voting irregularities than any other area of the country. Like Chicago, for example; or like Philadelphia, where the New Black Panther Party provides polling place “security.” But what the heck…why not keep those Southern bigots under the supervision of the Feds for a few more decades of “reconstruction.” It helps us all to remember that they are the heart of darkness.
Why not provide a link to the professor’s work? Slavery was the central issue, not states’ rights. Contact the Society of Civil War Historians to argue your points:
Thank you.
As some of the area conservatives like to say “Madison: 62 square miles surrounded by reality.”
So, it would have been ok for the southern states to succeed (and the federal government would have allowed succession) if the reason for succession had been something other than slavery?
Same question to you. Would succession have been allowed if slavery hadn’t been “the central issue”?
Dude, you need to get beyond Wiki. Seriously. If your interested start with Logan below. Read first, then challenge. Just Sayin’
Allrighty Dave – your sources are Dionne from WaPo (You know he’s a lib columnist/sociologist, not a historian, right?) – AND Marten from Marquette says, “Historians don’t fight this battle…” Marten is probably the guy that writes the public education revisionist history text books. Please. So you believe the AGW climate “science is settled” too?
The South had threatened secession since the Constitutional Congress.
And of course you know the Emancipation Proclamation was in 1861. Slavery and Lincoln were the pretext. Secession was brewing through 70 years of annimosity. Slavery was certainly an issue, just not THE issue.
Just one chapter from one authoritative book. There are dozens more if you’re interested in history. If you just want to have a pssn’ match, that’s fine too.
The signs are over the top and extremely bad form.
If slavery were the issue, then why didn’t Lincoln just purchase the freedom of every single slave? The cost in lives and dollars would have been substantially less.
Fort Sumter – April 1861
Emancipation Proclamation – January 1863
Kinda wierd, huh? You’d think it would be the other way around if slavery were THE reason.
They are terrified that the cycle of unionized public employees donating to Democrats voting for unaffordable wages and benefits to unionized public employees is coming to an end.
You have run out of other people’s money.
When something can’t continue, it stops.
A note to all the protesting teachers…
Last November, a new governor was elected. He ran on a platform that announced this was coming. Surprising little of the population (except you), he is actually doing what he said he would. In other words, the majority of the voting population of Wisconsin sided with the governor’s plan and voted accordingly.
Democracy. It works. It’s what makes this country great. Now get back to work, you whining twerps.
p.s. Now we know why our children have difficulty with critical thinking – they are supposed to be learning and honing this skill in your classrooms.
oh yeah….and one more thing…
…when you come back to work, bring back those self-deluded state legislators who cowardly ran away from their jobs and convinced themselves they were brave in doing so.
Does Walker have the authority to fire the teachers en masse in the same manner Reagan fired air traffic controllers?
Behold the product of 60 years of brainwashing. These gutter trash are simply products of old 19th century Marxian Socialist doctrine nurtured throughout the 20th century – nothing new here. The collapse of the gravy train/golden goose/hog trough merely exposed what was there all along, the perpetual expectations of entitlement slaves who see the expiration of their meal ticket. Reality is a bit*h.
The Left has always viewed life as a zero sum game where wealth and prosperity are natural resources sprouting daily from the ground. We all should have enough but evil “capitalists” take more than their “share”. Wow. Stupid does not begin to explain their disconnect from reality. It is hard to fight willful ingorance, and the Left is eaten up with it.
That is why our public school systems need to be taken back, fiscally and culturally. The Marxists have commandeered them into class warfare incubators. Instill honest and truthful education into the kids and this crap goes away.
BTW. If Fox News did not exist, who would they have to blame? Reagan, the Bushs, Rush, RINO Nixon? They own most of the media and they still cannot win in the marketplace of ideas. What wretched people they are.
Both/all of you continue to miss both points:
1) Without the divisions created by the existence of slavery, the South would not have seceded, and, even if they had, the North would not have had the will to fight the war. Even with the general northern loathing of slavery and the willingness of many northerners (though a minority) to wage war on the south if necessary to remove slavery, it was still a close thing.
You can try to argue it was not the only reason, as in The reason, but arguing it was not an essential reason is absurd.
And as a reason, it trumps state’s rights. It beats state’s rights straight to Hell.
2) Bringing up the Civil War in a modern debate about the importance of the federal government staying out of a state’s business is a Big, Fat Loser of an argument.
The slave states were not going to fix the horror. If it was going to end, the federal government was going to have to force it.
It is the single most powerful real world argument the statists have, and you guys always want to bring it up.
Sheeeeesh. Now I see why those who think like me always just let it pass when one of you Ending Slavery Was Just An Excuse crowd stick your foot in it one more time. When we try to point out what a ghastly rhetorical mistake it is, you all go hog wild with, yes, your defense of slavery.
John Brown was a hero of what today would be considered the religious right. He was right. And, in the end, long after he was hanged, he won.
You guys all really need to accept that the religious right was correct on the issue, and then move on so we can get on with the modern problem of scaling back the runamok power of the modern federal government.
So, you’re saying that the federal government would have allowed secession if the southern states had seceded for a reason other than slavery? Would it have been acceptable?
Great news in protest signs:
Egypt and Wisconsin united by assault!
This could be the most incorrect statement you’ve posted yet.
Slavery is abhorrent. It never should have been allowed to exist in this country.
You’re taking a page from the left’s book. Trying to win an argument by calling us racist. You should be ashamed.
You’ve lived up to your public school education. Good job.
Corkie, I keep ignoring your question because its wording seems absurd. I am talking about what caused the war, not about excuses given by the Confederacy for its behavior, nor fantasies about what might have been if the South wasn’t the South.
However, I have a question for you, and for others here:
Do you think it was a good thing the Confederacy was defeated?
Do you think it was a good thing the Confederacy was defeated?
There’s nothing absurd about the wording.
Would it have been acceptable for the southern states to secede if their reasons for secession had been something other than slavery?
Well, now everyone knows that new commenter natasha is related to me.
Always good for someone to watch your six.
Of course it is absurd. Repeating it after I already explained why it was irrelevant to the discussion doesn’t make it any less absurd.
If you and Corkie want to change the discussion into one of legalistic haggling about the Constitutionality of secession or a parsing of the reasons given by the South for its secession, then by all means go for it.
BTW, do you think it was a good thing the Confederacy was defeated?
“Arian?” Typo, obviously he meant to write “Avian”.
We all know the Tea-Party hates birds./S
Yes.
Any more ridiculous questions trying to portray me as a racist?
Repeating the claim that it’s absurd doesn’t make it absurd.
It’s a completely valid and relevant hypothetical. If slavery had successfully been abolished in the 1860s without war, and then the southern states decided to secede because of some sort of cotton/tobacco tax, then would that secession have been acceptable?
Nothing is being parsed. I haven’t made one claim about the reasons that the south seceded. I’ve merely asked you a question, and it appears that you’re extremely uncomfortable answering it for some reason.
Of course I do. The defeat of the Confederacy successfully abolished slavery in America – which is a good thing. I also think it’s good when Republicans defeat the Workers Party in elections. That doesn’t mean that I think the Workers Party shouldn’t have the legal right to exist.
Btw, do you think the US should have waged war against Morocco to end slavery prior to 2007? If not, why not?
Just the opposite. What in the world made you think I was accusing you of defending slavery?
Was it the “Both/all of you”?
I was referring to “all of you” who were arguing with me that slavery was not an essential reason for the war.
I have never heard that argument from anyone who is not, in fact, defending the Confederacy.
This explains quite a bit. It certainly seems as if you’ve never been forced to debate the issue on a sophisticated level.
Sigh. You know the reason, Corkie. You enjoy parsing bs minutia. I do not.
No. We should not, but not because it would have been being mean to the Moroccans.
Oh, bull. You think coffee house parsing of meaningless minutia is ‘sophisticated.’
Defending the Confederacy’s ‘right’ not to be invaded is a defense of slavery.
You may not be doing that, but read the thread again. Find out what the argument is really about.
So, in your mind, any question which ruins your argument is bs minutia?
Then I assume that you don’t believe the US should have waged war against the Confederacy simply to abolish slavery. Otherwise, you would support waging war to abolish slavery elsewhere in the world. So why do you think the US government should have waged war against secessionists and not against other governments that allowed slavery?
Claiming that any discussion about a hypothetical secession is a defense of slavery is as unsophisticated as it can get.
You’ve made some bold claims which you are unable/unwilling to discuss in your participation in the argument.
No. Bs minutia is bs minutia.
That is a huge leap there, Corkie. Morocco is across the ocean. They are Muslims. English is not their language.
Furthermore, I am not arguing the North should have drafted young men and spent money from the public treasury to free the slaves, although there is a much better argument for that war than for the one you are suggesting in Morocco.
I am arguing the Confederacy had no natural right to not be invaded and crushed (slavery forfeited that), not that the North had an obligation to do so.
Egad. Your reading comprehension is becoming abysmal.
So, you’re claiming that the North had the right to crush the Confederacy because the Confederacy allowed slavery. If this is the case, then why bother arguing the reason for secession? I would think that the reason for secession would be immaterial to you.
Is this the best you can do – pretending that I’ve misread something you’ve written? You really are unsophisticated.
They oughta be ashamed of themselves. No wonder our student are falling behind the ROW.
I find it funny that the topic has seemed to be redirected to civil war talk. While there was a lot of hateful rhetoric going on then I believe that the topic at hand is whats up with the hate speech on the left and the lack of media coverage? As if most of us didn’t really know.
BTW From my public school education I recall that the sucession was caused by the proposed tariffs on products being shipped from the southern states to Europe. Which would have been redistributed by the federal government. The reason used by the north used to start the war was the freedom of the slaves so the public opinion would be for the long and costly war that Lincoln new was coming. As it was they barely defeated the south. And just for anyone that thinks that is a defense of the confederacy I am very glad the north won.
Also as a conservative myself I lament the revisionist history being rewrote or plain ignored in today’s classroom, although given the state of our liberal mindset in the teachers union maybe we need to teach that at home? I know I have.
Another point that hasn’t been mentioned I think was why in the world are schools allowing kids to be brought to this demonstration? I would hope that all of the kids there have had it cleared with the parents involved? If I was a parent there I wonder would I be able to sue my school?
I consider myself as southern as anyone, but in defense of Roland if you go back to the Confederate states’ declarations of secession you find a lot of mention of slavery, and not much in the way of pie-in-the-sky state’s rights.
Here is part of Mississippi’s, just for example:
More here.
I used to be among the “state’s rights only” camp, but I was set straight by someone who showed me these documents.
That said, I’m not sure that it is fair to claim that the average Confederate soldier was fighting to support slavery as opposed to fighting for many other reasons. The reasoning of the upper class, however is all too clear.
Great, so how would your opinion about the war change, if at all, if these documents hadn’t mentioned slavery at all?
About 25% owned slaves. Why did the other 75% take up arms?
Why was 3/5 compromise necessary back in 1783?
Attributing the Civil War to just one issue is as ridiculous as my earlier analogy attributing WW2 to the Holocaust.
As I said I’m sure the soldiers had their own reasons for fighting, but for the people in charge, the issue was economic.
Check out the link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIcQeJWhbKw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
My hubby just logged a 72 hour work week…
He can either:
1. Quit
2. Suck it up and keep going
He will do the latter and he would not dream of going on strike, calling in sick, or making an insulting poster about the CEO or his boss.
I hooe Gov. Walker starts firing these crybabies…soon.
Jenny Hatch
http://WWW.JennyMHatch.WordPress.com
Well since I already said my opinion had been pro state’s rights before I saw the documents, it wouldn’t have been changed.
hangfire, try ‘sneeze guard’.
Bless you.
Here I thought Michelle’s post was about vulgar signs at the Wisconsin protests; but apparently it’s about slavery, the confederacy and the underlying cause(s) of the Civil War…
I guess Michelle’s topic for discussion is even more subtle when she includes lots of photos.
This explains why Johnny cannot read his diploma but knows all the 4 letter words, and was successfully indoctrinated to be a marxist.
Teacher priorities…..
I don’t understand. Are you stating that you’re no longer “pro state’s rights” because, in the past, the south seceded from the union because of slavery?
Which would pretty much confine the discussion to “look at THAT guy and his sign” posts. No offense, but I already know that a crowd of lefties looks as though it never held a job in it’s collective life.
I no longer hold the position that the Civil War was a grand expression of State’s rights.
I also think it probably does a disservice to the current cause of State’s rights to continue to hold it up as such an example.
Slavery as an institution was counter to our founding document: The Declaration of Independence. It is ill-advised to use anything related to such an institution as an example of the way we want things to be.
It was a busy weekend for me, and I wasn’t online at all. So I’m seeing this for the first time, and once again, I’m offended, insulted, and dismayed by this.
Threatening rape again????
I’m starting to believe, that liberal men are so emasculated, that they have to try and hide it, by hiding behind offensive signs.
Holy projection Batman! That IS the point genious. Anti-federalism – the core reason for secession.
With all the civility I can muster, you may shove this into a place where the sun doesn’t shine. No one here has defended slavery or the secession – just the issues leading up to it.
Most of us suffered as you do from public education silly syndrome, but you can beat this thing! First step is just like AA, “Hi my name is Roland, and I’m culturally illiterate.” You’ll be welcomed warmly. The next step is pick up a book by an actual historian and read it. Better yet, read the actual writings of the historical players rather than what some pseudo-intellectual egghead thinks about them.
Good luck! We’re all pullin’ for you.
Are you actually claiming that anyone on here is suggesting that the Civil War was an expression of States’ rights? The war itself?
Some might be claiming that the secession of the southern states is an expression of states’ right but certainly not the war.
Again, who is holding up the war as an example of states’ rights? The war was a result of the federal government preventing successful secession.
Is anyone on here disagreeing with you about this?
This statement doesn’t make any sense. Nobody on here is claiming that slavery is a part of the way they “want things to be.”
The Confederates took anti-federalism to the absurd extreme of secession. It’s not an example to follow by any means – but that does not negate the relevant argument for 10th Ammendment state’s sovereignty today. 7 states have “nullified” fed gun control laws and 27 more states are introducing the same. Bush’s “Real ID” act was nullified by thirty some states based on expense incurred by the states. The BarryCare nullification wagon is just getting rolling.
Southern states tried to nullify oppressive Fed tarrifs in 1828, but failed.
Yet were you aware preamble “inalienable rights… life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” was penned by Jefferson – who owned 100 slaves?
No one here defends the barbaric practice of slavery, nor the extreme of secession. The point being made is the historical reality of the events leading up to the Civil War were far more complex than slavery, and the southern states had legitimate grievances against Washington. That is all.
Roland and mondamay,
Your mixing of the issues is very strange.
Which of the following do you believe?
1. States had the right to secede as long as the reason to secede was not something bad or something that was counter to the Declaration of Independence. Since slavery was something bad and counter to the D of I, then the secession of the southern states was illegal, and therefore war against the southern states was justified.
2. States had the right to secede, but because the legally seceded states were practicing something which was so heinous (slavery), that war was justified in ending the practice. (If you believe this, then one would think that you would have been lobbying to wage war against Morocco prior to 2007.)
3. States had no right to secede regardless of the reason, therefore war against the south to prevent secession was justified. (If you believe this, then one would think that it wouldn’t matter what the reasons for secession were.)
Certainly, you’re both smart and confident enough to explain which of these distinct beliefs (and they are distinct) you subscribe to.
You just made the point I was making in my reply to Thacker way, way back in the thread, and that I have repeated a couple of times.
Some people on here just argue for the joy of being argumentative, and others jump into the middle of arguments without understanding the context of what is being said.
Others, like corkie, just have trouble comprehending why x is not y even though they are both letters.
Are you seriously unable to type a 1, 2, or 3?
Or was the question to sophisticated for you?
Getting back to the original topic:
If Anderson Cooper doesn’t show up for a glam shot with the huddled masses, you know it’s not an A-list protest. The Madison Starbucks isn’t exactly a Cairo ‘ahwa.
The formation of your question is, once again, absurd. I was never talking about the legality of the war one way or the other.
Once again I will try to take us back to the original point: The argument that state’s rights are being unjustly and unconstitutionally violated by the federal government in Wisconsin today is not helped by bringing up a claim the North was violating state’s rights by invading the South.
The Civil War is the worst possible place to try to stake a justification for the importance of state’s rights.
Indeed.
That’s why I linked “The Great Conspiracy” and noted Jackson’s 1833 letter
“…therefore the Tariff was only the pretext, and Disunion and a Southern Confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the Negro or Slavery question.”
Jackson knew 30 years before what would happen and why. He knew slavery would be the next “pretext” (His words, not mine) – but the real reason was the south wanted their own confederacy. (un)til ’25, SC alone had more revinue than the northern states combined Slavery was only a piece of the puzzle, though admittedly a large and strategic piece.
Or the best possible place. Jeff Davis et al couldn’t even imagine the blood sucking monster Washington has become. The Southern states tried to nullify the outrageous burdens Washington demanded, but failed – pressing them to see secession as their only recourse. My hope is that BarryCare will be the watershed where the states stand their ground – as is their Constitutional right – and not be forced into the desperate situation the South faced.
I think we agree this whole thing is very rapidly coming unglued. Something has to give, and it needs to be Washington. If not…I don’t even want to think about it.
The question is quite simple and isn’t absurd. Your unwillingness to answer is quite telling.
Which of the following do you believe?
1. States had the right to secede as long as the reason to secede was not something bad or something that was counter to the Declaration of Independence. Since slavery was something bad and counter to the D of I, then the secession of the southern states was illegal, and therefore war against the southern states was justified.
2. States had the right to secede, but because the legally seceded states were practicing something which was so heinous (slavery), that war was justified in ending the practice.
3. States had no right to secede regardless of the reason, therefore war against the south to prevent secession was justified.
Once again if these vile signs would have been at a TEA party event,which they wouldn’t unless it was a plant, it would be all over the news. I believe that like the Military any civial service job, Police, Fire Fighters, Teachers, ect.. should not be allowed to unionize. I hope the WI school system and Parents take a good look at these people and demand that they should be fired. Do you really want people who have such a vile outlook at life teaching our childern? I also think any Doctor who gives out Phoney Dr. notes should be removed from practicing medicine and if they are not a doc them should be arrested for inpersonating one,
swede,
Bless you for having the patience, I don’t.
The simple answer is: I don’t know, and I’m not sure why it would matter since I haven’t said anything about legitimacy of the war from a Constitutional perspective.
You haven’t answered, (and probably never looked) at the link I provided that showed these State’s official statements of secession, which I believe to be one of the best indicators of what their leaders were thinking at the time.
I’m not claiming the North’s reasons for war were completely altruistic, but it is obvious that the South’s (leaders) reasons for secession were not. They were trying to preserve their “liberty” to treat others as property, which had made them hugely wealthy.
Whether you interpret that to mean that the war was about slavery or economic reasons is largely your call as both were referenced in the secession documents. My interpretation is that they are essentially the same reason, as the South has little economy apart from slave-based agriculture.
Which is why I agree with Roland that this is a lousy topic to bring up every time State’s Rights comes up.
You don’t know? How can you not know?
I didn’t ask you to defend the Constitutionality of the war, I asked for your opinion about secession.
It’s telling that you don’t understand the stark difference.
1. What was I supposed to answer?
2. My question to you fully allows you to assume that slavery was the reason for secession – yet you still can’t answer the question.
This is surely a simpleton’s statement.
You probably think it’s “lousy” from a PR perspective because simpleton idiots just like you are too intellectually lazy to be honest about the issue. You continue to repeat the mantra of, “slavery is bad therefore any issue that is related to slavery should be taboo to discuss.”
Heck, I’m surprised you even allow conversations about Lincoln. After all, he was President for a period when slavery was legal in this country and slavery is bad therefore he’s a lousy topic to bring up.
Let me know when you’re ready to explore this issue on a sophisticated level. You can start by answering my question. Just type 1, 2, or 3.
BTW, Mondamay, welcome to the blog. You are well ahead of the rest of the new commenters, having already had your first clash with the board jackass.
Your characterization of slavery as peripheral simply doesn’t fit the facts anywhere. Slavery was central to the division.
It may not have been THE reason (there rarely is a THE reason driving great events), but it was certainly an essential reason for the war.
Even if we imagine/fantasize some kind of economy and culture in the South that wasn’t immersed in and dependent on slavery yet would still have warranted the South seceding, do you seriously believe the North could have fought the war with the abolitionists opposing it instead of being fiercely for it? They could barely muster the will to fight it as it was.
Thank you for your contribution to the discussion.
Corkie should have to pay for his obnoxious proddings at a nearby Argument Clinic.
BTW, Swede, a concept I have assumed, but you may not have considered:
If I had been a Northern Congressperson, bureaucrat, or whatever, in the central government any time in the period from 1800 to 1860, I would have been more than happy to pass oppressive laws and regulations and restrictions on the economies and people of the South even though I consider powerful central government a generally very bad thing.
I would have been an abolitionist first. That hostility to the South was widespread in the North because of slavery.
So your arguments that it was the oppressive central government that was the real reason the South wanted to secede seem meaningless. Everything was entangled, as it always is.
Slavery was the central defining cultural division between the North and the South. And it was a doozy.