USAians: What are you doing on this loooong MLK weekend?

[Zkribbler]

Yes. It's a bull**** principle.

QFT. He's never had to deal with the Board of a Homeowners' Association.

[Geronimo]

Ben if there were a holiday honoring Erwin Rommel and people complained about the appropriateness of honoring a general who fought for the third Reich would you be lecturing them about how every locality is free to choose whatever holiday they wish?

And Rommel wasn't even any kind of traitor!

Suppose Hitler had gained power not by appointment as chancellor but by leading a secession in the 1920's of all of the states that composed the cold war west germany and then set about with his Final Solution death camps in those borders during a civil war which he lost. If Erwin Rommel had fought for Hitler because he was drafted by Hitlers secessionist government after turning down an offer by the weimar republic to lead armies suppressing Hitlers rebellion are we to believe you will still lecture people that they can't fault anyone for celebrating an Erwin Rommel day in parts of Germany even though he would not only have fought for the nazis he would even be a traitor in those places?

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben if there were a holiday honoring Erwin Rommel and people complained about the appropriateness of honoring a general who fought for the third Reich would you be lecturing them about how every locality is free to choose whatever holiday they wish?

Interesting choice of words.

You use 'locality'.

I'm always intrigued when someone changes a word in their argument. I said "state". I didn't just make up that word or draw it out of a hat. I'm alluding to the rules that states get and the relationship between the federal and state governments.

But you knew that already. That's why you used the word locality and not state.

States should be able to choose to honour heroes of their choice. Holidays are one way in which they do so, but there are many others.

At least that's the way it's supposed to happen in the US. Or is it just the U of A now? the Union of America?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Interesting choice of words.

You use 'locality'.

I'm always intrigued when someone changes a word in their argument. I said "state". I didn't just make up that word or draw it out of a hat. I'm alluding to the rules that states get and the relationship between the federal and state governments.

But you knew that already. That's why you used the word locality and not state.

States should be able to choose to honour heroes of their choice. Holidays are one way in which they do so, but there are many others.

At least that's the way it's supposed to happen in the US. Or is it just the U of A now? the Union of America?

Aren't you aware of the principle that the best government is the smallest and most local?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Interesting choice of words.

You use 'locality'.

I'm always intrigued when someone changes a word in their argument. I said "state". I didn't just make up that word or draw it out of a hat. I'm alluding to the rules that states get and the relationship between the federal and state governments.

But you knew that already. That's why you used the word locality and not state.

He could quite easily have said state and you could have substituted in quite as easily as well. So stop dodging the ****ing question.

Pennsylvannia decides to have a Rommel day (cause of German ties or something). You going to lecture the Jews that protest the Commonwealth of Pennsylvannia (which is, yes, still a state, even though they call themselves a commonwealth) that they are free to choose whatever holiday they wish?

What, states are free to do what they want without protest from those of other states?

Fine, I don't want to hear you criticize Massachusetts for allowing gay marriage ever again.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Interesting choice of words.

You use 'locality'.

I'm always intrigued when someone changes a word in their argument. I said "state". I didn't just make up that word or draw it out of a hat. I'm alluding to the rules that states get and the relationship between the federal and state governments.

But you knew that already. That's why you used the word locality and not state.

States should be able to choose to honour heroes of their choice. Holidays are one way in which they do so, but there are many others.

At least that's the way it's supposed to happen in the US. Or is it just the U of A now? the Union of America?

I actually used the word locality because I didn't think it mattered whether it was erwin rommels home town or his home state, or the entire secessionist region that was celebrating an Erwin Rommel day. I still don't think it matters. Imran's point about an entirely different region (Pennsylvania) being involved is a good one that hadn't even occurred to me.

Then you seem to be burning strawmen. When have any of us ever said that a higher tier of government (ie the federal) should be stepping in and prohibiting the states from having obnoxious holidays?

Do you personally think Lee-Jackson day is a laudable choice of government endorsement of historical figures or not?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Aren't you aware of the principle that the best government is the smallest and most local?

[Ben Kenobi]

Of course you can. George Washington? He was and remains a traitor to the British Empire.

There are causes honourable and dishonourable. That seems to be the real issue. Traitors are dishonourable, patriots are honourable. You cannot be a honourable traitor or a dishonourable patriot.

What do we call a man with honour who stands up in opposition to something else? We call him loyal to his cause, not a traitor. What do we call a man who backstabs others so that his side wins? We call him a traitor, even if he's on the 'right' side. Conduct is important.

I'm the US now? The people should be putting pressure on the states to stop celebrating holidays of traitors,

Why? It's part of their heritage. Would you tell people in California to stop celebrating Cinco de Mayo? Would you insist that Texas was no longer allowed to celebrate mexican holidays?

just as they put pressure on Southern states to remove the marks of treason (ie, the Confederate battle flag) from their state flags. States can do what they want with their holidays, but that doesn't mean the people have to just go along with it.

If the people within the state complain, then sure. But states get to choose their flag. You might not like the battle flag, but that's a part of the heritage of the south like it or not.

Put it another way. Does anyone tell Scotland not to fly the cross of St. Andrew?

And you really wouldn't protest that?

For one, I don't live in Massachusetts. It's not my decision. I don't get to tell people in Massachusetts which holiday they want to celebrate.

So, you basically don't care if another political entity celebrates someone who you despise?

Do I care? Yes. Is it my right to say that I don't like it? Yes. Is it my right to tell the state of massachusetts that they cannot celebrate it? No. See, that's where we differ. You believe it is right to tell other states to stop doing things you like. I believe we have no right to interfere in their business and their decisions.

If a Muslim country has an Osama bin Laden day, you'll shut your mouth because that state should be permitted to do so?

Are you serious? Gosh. They can do whatever they want, honestly I'd be surprised if they weren't celebrating bin Laden for standing up to the "Great Satan".

[DinoDoc]

MrFun: If the states never left, what was the purpose of the process of readmission Republicans set forth for the wayward cousins to reclaim a right they never lost?

[Ben Kenobi]

I actually used the word locality because I didn't think it mattered whether it was erwin rommels home town or his home state, or the entire secessionist region that was celebrating an Erwin Rommel day. I still don't think it matters.

I used state for a reason. States have rights that other bodies don't.

Then you seem to be burning strawmen. When have any of us ever said that a higher tier of government (ie the federal) should be stepping in and prohibiting the states from having obnoxious holidays?

Imran is saying precisely that people from certain states, (the North), should tell people in other states, (the south), that they shouldn't be able to celebrate their heritage in the manner of their choosing.

As I said earlier, there is nothing stopping states from honouring Grant or Sherman, and they have done so in a number of different ways. Why is it an issue if Virginia celebrates Lee-Jackson day? Both men were born there, both are considered heros in their home state.

I do think it is the right of Virginians to decide. If the folks in Virginia are hot and bothered about the holiday, then they should be complaining and speaking to the legislature to get it changed.

But people from other states? No.

Do you personally think Lee-Jackson day is a laudable choice of government endorsement of historical figures or not?

Would I personally celebrate it? No, not at all. Do I believe that the people of Virginia have good reasons to celebrate it? Yes I do. Do I support their right to celebrate it? Yes I do. Do I believe it should be a national holiday? No I don't.

Any other questions I'm 'dodging?'

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Traitors are dishonourable, patriots are honourable. You cannot be a honourable traitor or a dishonourable patriot.

Words don't mean what they really mean in the dictionary for you, I guess?

The American founding fathers were traitors to the British Empire. Douglas MacArthur was patriotic and treasonous (and dishonorable) when he tried to ignore his President, Harry Truman in Korea.

Why? It's part of their heritage. Would you tell people in California to stop celebrating Cinco de Mayo? Would you insist that Texas was no longer allowed to celebrate mexican holidays?

There are plenty who do. Plenty who want those Mexicans to speak 'Merican.

Do you not think they don't have the right to do so? Do you want the state to clamp down on them?

Just because I disagree with them on those specific issues doesn't mean they don't have the right to campaign for those things. After all, human sacrifice is also a part of some culture's heritage.

If the people within the state complain, then sure. But states get to choose their flag. You might not like the battle flag, but that's a part of the heritage of the south like it or not.

So NO ONE outside of a state can complain about what a state does?! So only freedom of speech when criticizing your own government. None for others.

Do I care? Yes. Is it my right to say that I don't like it? Yes. Is it my right to tell the state of massachusetts that they cannot celebrate it? No. See, that's where we differ. You believe it is right to tell other states to stop doing things you like. I believe we have no right to interfere in their business and their decisions.

So your free speech rights stops when it actually can make a difference in another state? Check.

Jeez, what a wussy belief system. Sorry, but if another state or country is doing something I, personally, think is morally objectionable, I'll advocate for them to end their practice, regardless if it is Muslim countries having no rights for women or Virginia celebrating traitors to the United States, or 200 years ago, Southern states having the right to own slaves.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
MrFun: If the states never left, what was the purpose of the process of readmission Republicans set forth for the wayward cousins to reclaim a right they never lost?

Their state governments were seen as having collapsed and the region was effectively in anarchy from the POV of the federal government and of the foreign governments that didn't recognize the Richmond government.

Recognizing the collapse of state/federal relations is not the same as recognizing new independent countries.

I imagine that if the PRC ever takes over control of Taiwan there will be a kind of "readmission" process involved but that won't mean that the PRC is recognizing that the ROC was a separate country.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran is saying precisely that people from certain states, (the North), should tell people in other states, (the south), that they shouldn't be able to celebrate their heritage in the manner of their choosing.

Which, of course does not equal:

a higher tier of government (ie the federal) should be stepping in and prohibiting the states from having obnoxious holidays

And I think people from other states should have the right to point out moral objections to practices other states are doing.

Ben, step back for a minute. Should the Northern states and the citizens in those states have said NOTHING about the slavery going on in the Southern states? Was the abolitionist movement wrong to you because they were telling other states how to act?

[Ben Kenobi]

The American founding fathers were traitors to the British Empire. Douglas MacArthur was patriotic and treasonous (and dishonorable) when he tried to ignore his President, Harry Truman in Korea.

The way you have it there isn't an absolute standard. You are a patriot if you are on the winning side, and a traitor if you lose. That's a meaningless standard. By your measure, if the South had won, then Lee would be a patriot.

There are plenty who do. Plenty who want those Mexicans to speak 'Merican.

Do you not think they don't have the right to do so? Do you want the state to clamp down on them?

To speak out? For sure. To stop them from celebrating? No. If the people of California decide to celebrate the holiday then that is their decision and you have to respect the decision that they made.

If you are in California, you can complain all you want.

Just because I disagree with them on those specific issues doesn't mean they don't have the right to campaign for those things. After all, human sacrifice is also a part of some culture's heritage.

Of course, I'm not saying that at all. You are free to say that you are displeased with what a state does, but honestly, I think states should be left to choose the holidays they want to celebrate.

So NO ONE outside of a state can complain about what a state does?! So only freedom of speech when criticizing your own government. None for others.

Huh? You are perfectly free to criticise, etc. But the state gets to decide. You can't force another state to stop doing something that you don't like.

Jeez, what a wussy belief system. Sorry, but if another state or country is doing something I, personally, think is morally objectionable, I'll advocate for them to end their practice, regardless if it is Muslim countries having no rights for women or Virginia celebrating traitors to the United States.

Of course. I'm not sure where I said you couldn't advocate for it. However the state has the right to tell you to piss off.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


The way you have it there isn't an absolute standard. You are a patriot if you are on the winning side, and a traitor if you lose. That's a meaningless standard. By your measure, if the South had won, then Lee would be a patriot.

Having memory issues Ben? It might help to just rescan the thread before posting.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Of course you can. George Washington? He was and remains a traitor to the British Empire.