Octopus Overlords

When I was in Germany every little flea market type shop had German WW2 stuff for sale and that includes Nazis and SS.
As a matter of fact where there were famous battlefields anywhere in Europe there were tons of Nazi replica stuff for sale.
Most of the people (including me) who buy this stuff aren't hate mongers but love military history.
I don't buy the Nazi or Confederate stuff (as a matter of fact I have gotten rid of it all long ago except for the real guns) anymore not because I think it's bad but I have just moved on in the kind of stuff I own.

Smoove_B wrote:

Rip wrote:So you have never went to a flea market or gun show and seen any?

I've never been to a gun show, so I can't really comment. I have attended flea markets (though not in quite a few years) and I don't remember seeing Nazi flags flying or Nazi memorabilia for sale. I can absolutely understand that if I had a family member that survived the holocaust, seeing a tent filled with helmets, uniforms, flags, etc... might cause a reaction.

This isn't someone flying the stuff, it is stuff being sold at a flea market.

Which I'm pretty sure is still happening -- thereby negating the "Phase 2" elements you're implying (i.e. private citizens are no longer able to acquire and display Nazi flags or Confederate artifacts or flags). Was the call to 911 appropriate? I have no idea. People call 911 when they get the wrong order in a drive through.

I would love to learn more about The American Mirror website. I think it's a conservative headline porn depository.

But obviously there is a growing group who don't want it to be legal.

Joshua Sayles, assistant regional director of the Anti-Defamation League in Connecticut, said selling Confederate and Nazi goods isn’t a moral issue if the merchandise consists of authentic war pieces purchased by a serious collector. But too often, they are cheap replicas and used as symbols of hate.
“It’s not the first time I’ve heard of this,” Sayles said. “It’s unfortunate that under the law people have the right to sell these things; but it doesn’t mean they should sell these things. It’s not a crime but I would call it hate. People look at the situation in Charleston and say it’s down in the South. But this stuff is here in Connecticut.”

Really? I think that it is really fortunate to live somewhere that someone being offended isn't reason enough to start making things illegal.

http://www.myrecordjournal.com/wallingf ... -sold.html

I used a different source link since we have become such link nazis.

Which leads to stupid crap like me buying models of German warships that lack decals because a bunch of dumbasses think that everyone who buys a Confederate flag is a racist and Swastikas a Jew hater.

I have some stuff with Swastikas yet I am a pretty well known to support Israel far beyond what most of us do. The entire war against symbology is pretty stupid and does nothing but deflect from dealing with the real issues.

I had a German WW2 soldier belt buckle in High School, but I stopped wearing it when a cute Jewish girl started attending our HS. I think she was the only Jewish student or teacher in our HS. The buckle did do a good job keeping my belt fastened previous to that.

That's nothing. I have it on good authority that in my junior year we actually had a black kid in my high school.
I never actually saw him but one time we went looking. Still never saw him.
Gossip had he was there my senior year too but we never went looking.

When I was 7 or 8, I thought Hitler hated jewels. Made sense to me, who wants to buy expensive stones for women.

Guess it was too late at night for a kid to be reading the World Book Encyclopedia.

dbt1949 wrote:That's nothing. I have it on good authority that in my junior year we actually had a black kid in my high school.
I never actually saw him but one time we went looking. Still never saw him.
Gossip had he was there my senior year too but we never went looking.

When they started busing black kids into my grade school I made friends with one named Nate. He was the first Negro I'd ever known personally and he taught me a lot of cool new words. My parents tried to discourage that without being openly racist about it. IIRC he just disappeared when busing ended or got changed or something.

There were at least a dozen blacks in my HS (out of 1400 students). They kept to themselves and I never met any of them, which probably relieved my parents.

I don't think I've ever met a Jew.

When I was in elementary school, I was one of TWO Chinese kid in the class.

Then the other guy moved away. My best friend back then turned out to be this Japanese kid.

Kasey Chang wrote:When I was in elementary school, I was one of TWO Chinese kid in the class.

Then the other guy moved away. My best friend back then turned out to be this Japanese kid.

So you were the Dave Kim of your class?

Kraken wrote:
When they started busing black kids into my grade school I made friends with one named Nate. He was the first Negro I'd ever known personally

New Philadelphia High School had exactly two African Americans. Coincidentally, one of them was named Nate also. He was the goalie for my soccer team at the local YMCA, so I was fairly friendly with him thanks to many games spent just shootin' bull with him while us defensive team members waited for the ball to come our way. During junior year school photo day, I saw him laughing over something during lunch. When I asked what was so funny later that day, he told me what he'd done and I had to admit, it was pretty damn hilarious.

When the school yearbook showed up later that semester, there was Nate's smiling face for the freshman class, the sophomore class, the juniors and the seniors. He told me the photographers were so flustered because some of them thought Nate looked familiar, but didn't want to take the chance of insulting him by asking if he'd already been in front of the lens that day. I guess the school yearbook committee thought it was so funny, they let it slip by while assembling the yearbook.

dbt1949 wrote:When I was in Germany every little flea market type shop had German WW2 stuff for sale and that includes Nazis and SS.

I always thought that the German government was very sensitive about anything from that period? So much so that it was practically illegal to display it/sell it?

...er...wait...were you there just after the fall of the Third Reich?

hepcat wrote:

Kraken wrote:
When they started busing black kids into my grade school I made friends with one named Nate. He was the first Negro I'd ever known personally

New Philadelphia High School had exactly two African Americans. Coincidentally, one of them was named Nate also. He was the goalie for my soccer team at the local YMCA, so I was fairly friendly with him thanks to many games spent just shootin' bull with him while us defensive team members waited for the ball to come our way. During junior year school photo day, I saw him laughing over something during lunch. When I asked what was so funny later that day, he told me what he'd done and I had to admit, it was pretty damn hilarious.

When the school yearbook showed up later that semester, there was Nate's smiling face for the freshman class, the sophomore class, the juniors and the seniors. He told me the photographers were so flustered because some of them thought Nate looked familiar, but didn't want to take the chance of insulting him by asking if he'd already been in front of the lens that day. I guess the school yearbook committee thought it was so funny, they let it slip by while assembling the yearbook.

dbt1949 wrote:When I was in Germany every little flea market type shop had German WW2 stuff for sale and that includes Nazis and SS.

I always thought that the German government was very sensitive about anything from that period? So much so that it was practically illegal to display it/sell it?

...er...wait...were you there just after the fall of the Third Reich?

Basically, it's illegal to advertise/open display, but you are allowed to sell it 'under the table'.

I live in Ohio and I was actually amazed by the amount of dumb ass rednecks that had their trucks decorated with the confederate flag last weekend. Most of them had huge flags that covered the entire back of their trucks, accompanied with a southern pride bumper sticker of some sort. It's especially ludicrous when the truck has an Ohio license plate.

These ignorant assholes have probably never lived in the south and know practically nothing about the actual flag they are displaying. It really can only come down to racism for them.

With that said I still support their right to publicly display their ignorance and even sell the flags at a flea market. If we start banning things based solely on if they are offensive then we are in for a world of hurt.

I think there's a convergence of forces at work here.

1. This country is more diverse, in terms of public participation, than it ever has been before. Unlike previous eras, where only one opinion ever got heard(white christian straight male), now lots of opinions get heard. So a backlash against something like this flag can build, it would have been unthinkable in the old days.
2. People are riled up for other reasons, which add to the backlash. In this case, I think the recent killings of various black people(including those by the police) make this a bad time for people to stand up for questionable things like rebel flags.
3. I think people are a little smarter about things these days, maybe because of all the access to the internet. People can recognize that if a private individual wants to fly that flag, have at it. But there's no reason for that flag to be officially supported.
4. Money, related to reason #1. Minority groups, and women, wield a lot of power as consumers. Here in LA you can get cable channels in Asian languages as well as all Spanish. Why? Because there is a sizable enough market. No cable channel is going to be broadcasting in Spanish if there's no money in it. So some of these companies pull Confederate merchandise because they believe they'll make more money in the long run by not alienating their customer base than they would catering to a niche market that is viewed as hostile to some members of that customer base.

I agree that the Confederate flags need to stop flying over government buildings. The Confederate flag has nothing to do with anything in the last century but racism.

However, I'm totally against removing it from historical sites where it's relevant or removing it from state flags/seals. The American Civil War happened. This country was founded by people who rebelled against their lawful rulers; it's a more than a little hypocritical to try to censor the Confederates for doing the same, especially since the Civil War was about more than just slavery. It absolutely was about slavery, don't get me wrong, I'm happy the North won and slavery was abolished. The Civil War was not so black and white (if you'll forgive the pun), though. Another major, major issue involved in the Civil War was a disagreement over just how much power the federal government had, and that's the cause most of the common soldiers were fighting for.

Very, very few of the rank and file soldiers owned slaves or were even from slave-owning families. Most people rich enough to own slaves either joined as officers or bought out of enlistment. To the common man, the issue at stake was (from their perspective) whether some damned government they had (to their mind) under-representation in should be able to force laws on them. At the time, the South wasn't nearly as heavily populated as the North, and there were political battles going on about the balance between Free States and Slave States which would determine Senate majorities. Slave and Free States were balanced until 1850-1861, when four states were admitted to the union as Free States with no answering Slave States. That firmly tipped the balance in favor of the people who generally wanted a stronger government and essentially forced the southern states to put up or shut up.

Again, not trying to whitewash the Civil War or anything, here. The very fact that the political war was based around the number of Free States vs Slave States proves that slavery was absolutely 100% a core pillar of the war. It just wasn't the only pillar, and I don't think we should forget that, or dishonor the soldiers who fought against what to them was oppressive tyranny from a distant government.

PS. I've lived in Florida for something like 28 years now and I've never heard of Confederate Memorial Day until like an hour ago.

Zurai wrote:what to them was oppressive tyranny from a distant government.

You spelled democracy wrong.

The fundamental flaw in this thinking (in the thinking of these soldiers) was that losing elections == tyranny. Sure, maybe losing elections might mean there was a chance that they couldn't own other human beings any more. But that's the purpose of an elected government, and that's the cost of clinging to old, out-dated viewpoints in a changing world. You run the risk of not having enough people willing to represent your particular brand of stupid.

What bothers me is that this thinking is still around. Somehow using the government to stop other people from getting married == ok. Using the government to stop other people from stopping other people from getting married == tyranny.

Tyranny isn't a code word that people get to use when a duly elected government does something you don't agree with.

Scraper wrote:I live in Ohio and I was actually amazed by the amount of dumb ass rednecks that had their trucks decorated with the confederate flag last weekend. Most of them had huge flags that covered the entire back of their trucks, accompanied with a southern pride bumper sticker of some sort.

Definitely not just a southern thing...it's been popping up with regularity here in Salt Lake over the past week.

Zurai wrote: I'm happy the North won and slavery was abolished.

We all appreciate your bold stance.

But seriously, there are many nuanced issues in history, but it just so happens that the cause of the Civil War is not one of them, since it was 99% caused by slavery. Yes, there are other factors, but they're negligible compared to slavery as a cause. Yes, the power of the federal government was an issue, but it was an issue because one of the two major political parties wanted to use federal power to curb the spread of slavery.

This country was founded by people who rebelled against their lawful rulers; it's a more than a little hypocritical to try to censor the Confederates for doing the same

I wasn't aware we flew the Union Jack over government buildings too.

War is Boring (Medium.com) has an interesting article on the history of the flag as it pertains to military and political matters from the Spanish American War up through recent conflicts.

Scraper wrote:I live in Ohio and I was actually amazed by the amount of dumb ass rednecks that had their trucks decorated with the confederate flag last weekend. Most of them had huge flags that covered the entire back of their trucks, accompanied with a southern pride bumper sticker of some sort. It's especially ludicrous when the truck has an Ohio license plate.

These ignorant assholes have probably never lived in the south and know practically nothing about the actual flag they are displaying. It really can only come down to racism for them.

With that said I still support their right to publicly display their ignorance and even sell the flags at a flea market. If we start banning things based solely on if they are offensive then we are in for a world of hurt.

I'm not amazed and I don't even hate the ignorant. Just educate them and let them make their own choice (just not in government). As long as you do that, eventually the flag will be seen for what it is.

hepcat wrote:

This country was founded by people who rebelled against their lawful rulers; it's a more than a little hypocritical to try to censor the Confederates for doing the same

I wasn't aware we flew the Union Jack over government buildings too.

Calling England "lawful rulers" completely tosses out the validity of the Declaration of Independence. Which I guess you can do but it's a much more compelling argument than that made by the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union. Which is a pick-and-choose copy of the Declaration of Independence whose primary argument for secession is that there is growing Northern hostility towards slave-ownership.

Putting 1861 on the same plane as 1776 is saying that all national violence is justified if the perpetrators believe it's right.

Shoulda known to just keep my mouth shut. Actually, I shoulda known to just stay out of R&P like I usually do.

I don't think anyone was being outright rude though. Just disagreeing with your assessment, that's all.

Zurai wrote:PS. I've lived in Florida for something like 28 years now and I've never heard of Confederate Memorial Day until like an hour ago.

Are you in Northern Florida or Southern Florida?

RunningMn9 wrote:

Zurai wrote:what to them was oppressive tyranny from a distant government.

You spelled democracy wrong.

The fundamental flaw in this thinking (in the thinking of these soldiers) was that losing elections == tyranny. Sure, maybe losing elections might mean there was a chance that they couldn't own other human beings any more. But that's the purpose of an elected government, and that's the cost of clinging to old, out-dated viewpoints in a changing world. You run the risk of not having enough people willing to represent your particular brand of stupid.

What bothers me is that this thinking is still around. Somehow using the government to stop other people from getting married == ok. Using the government to stop other people from stopping other people from getting married == tyranny.

Tyranny isn't a code word that people get to use when a duly elected government does something you don't agree with.

You spelled republic wrong.

And it was clearly going against the spirit of what was agreed to in 1784. The population went from more in the south in 1780 to the North outnumbering the south 2:1 which easily allowed packing the House of Representatives and the Presidency.

Keep in mind that the South didn't even really want to break away from Britain that badly, but they were assured their sovereignty would be respected.

noxiousdog wrote:And it was clearly going against the spirit of what was agreed to in 1784. The population went from more in the south in 1780 to the North outnumbering the south 2:1 which easily allowed packing the House of Representatives and the Presidency.

Maybe they should have tried to amend that whole 3/5ths thing.

Right, I forgot about the secret clause of the constitution which guaranteed equal regional population growth.

Isgrimnur wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:And it was clearly going against the spirit of what was agreed to in 1784. The population went from more in the south in 1780 to the North outnumbering the south 2:1 which easily allowed packing the House of Representatives and the Presidency.

Maybe they should have tried to repeal that whole 3/5ths thing.

That was put in to try and balance it.

Except it cut both ways

The three-fifths ratio originated with a 1783 amendment proposed to the Articles of Confederation. The amendment was to have changed the basis for determining the wealth of each state, and hence its tax obligations, from real estate to population, as a measure of ability to produce wealth.
...
After proposed compromises of one-half by Benjamin Harrison of Virginia and three-fourths by several New Englanders failed to gain sufficient support, Congress finally settled on the three-fifths ratio proposed by James Madison.
...
In amending the Articles, the North wanted slaves to count for more than the South did because the objective was to determine taxes paid by the states to the federal government. In the Constitutional Convention, the more important issue was representation in Congress, so the South wanted slaves to count for more than the North did.

A contentious issue at the Constitutional Convention was whether slaves would be counted as part of the population in determining representation of the states in the Congress or would instead be considered property and, as such, not be considered for purposes of representation. Delegates from states with a large population of slaves argued that slaves should be considered persons in determining representation, but as property if the new government were to levy taxes on the states on the basis of population.

Funny that. People want differing policies on counting the same thing for their own benefit.

El Guapo wrote:Right, I forgot about the secret clause of the constitution which guaranteed equal regional population growth.

Which part of the Constitution prevented states from secession?

That's been a long-running argument.

In the public debate over the Nullification Crisis the separate issue of secession was also discussed. James Madison, often referred to as "The Father of the Constitution", strongly opposed the argument that secession was permitted by the Constitution. In a March 15, 1833, letter to Daniel Webster (congratulating him on a speech opposing nullification), Madison discussed "revolution" versus "secession":

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession". But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.

Thus Madison affirms an extraconstitutional right to revolt against conditions of "intolerable oppression"; but if the case cannot be made (that such conditions exist), then he rejects secession—as a violation of the Constitution.

Kraken wrote:
I don't think I've ever met a Jew.

Wait, what? I feel like I'm missing an inside joke here.

So where in the Constitution does it say you can't secede?

If there's no penalties for dissolving a contract you can do so at any time, no?

noxiousdog wrote:

El Guapo wrote:Right, I forgot about the secret clause of the constitution which guaranteed equal regional population growth.

Which part of the Constitution prevented states from secession?

The parts that formed a national union without providing the states with a right to unilaterally secede.

The point is that the Constitution provided a method for allocating representatives (indeed, one that gave slave-holding states disproportionately higher representation). There's no dispute that the method expressly provided for was applied incorrectly or wrongfully. So what is the relevance of that to the South's Civil War-era grievances?

Until you start trying to seize the other guy's property by force because he left it in your yard.

noxiousdog wrote:So where in the Constitution does it say you can't secede?

If there's no penalties for dissolving a contract you can do so at any time, no?

You're arguing for an implicit right. The constitution allocates power between the national government and the states, and does not provide individual states with the power to secede.

Even if a contract does not provide expressly for penalties, typically you can sue for damages (what you lost, if anything, because the contract was breached) or for specific performance (for a court to order the other party to live up to the contract). It is possible to have a breach of contract with no damages, but I think it's safe to say that the United States would have damages resulting from half the country leaving.

Isgrimnur wrote:Until you start trying to seize the other guy's property by force because he left it in your yard.

They did tell them to leave. It would be interesting to know if the Union would have invaded without the attack at Sumter though.

noxiousdog wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:Until you start trying to seize the other guy's property by force because he left it in your yard.

They did tell them to leave. It would be interesting to know if the Union would have invaded suppressed the insurrection without the attack at Sumter though.

Mortoned.

And yes, obviously they would have. Leaving aside the Fort Sumter wasn't the only union-manned fort in the South that would have been an issue, the federal government obviously wasn't going to let half the country leave without a fight.

El Guapo wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:So where in the Constitution does it say you can't secede?

If there's no penalties for dissolving a contract you can do so at any time, no?

You're arguing for an implicit right. The constitution allocates power between the national government and the states, and does not provide individual states with the power to secede.

Even if a contract does not provide expressly for penalties, typically you can sue for damages (what you lost, if anything, because the contract was breached) or for specific performance (for a court to order the other party to live up to the contract). It is possible to have a breach of contract with no damages, but I think it's safe to say that the United States would have damages resulting from half the country leaving.

Damages that belonged to half the country to begin with?

The Articles of Confederation had a secession clause, "[T]he Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

I think it's telling that the Constitution did not.

El Guapo wrote:So what is the relevance of that to the South's Civil War-era grievances?

Because your theory is that they should bend to the will of the North. I think it's perfectly valid to dissolve the partnership.

noxiousdog wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:So where in the Constitution does it say you can't secede?

If there's no penalties for dissolving a contract you can do so at any time, no?

You're arguing for an implicit right. The constitution allocates power between the national government and the states, and does not provide individual states with the power to secede.

Even if a contract does not provide expressly for penalties, typically you can sue for damages (what you lost, if anything, because the contract was breached) or for specific performance (for a court to order the other party to live up to the contract). It is possible to have a breach of contract with no damages, but I think it's safe to say that the United States would have damages resulting from half the country leaving.

Damages that belonged to half the country to begin with?

The Articles of Confederation had a secession clause, "[T]he Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

I think it's telling that the Constitution did not.

El Guapo wrote:So what is the relevance of that to the South's Civil War-era grievances?

Because your theory is that they should bend to the will of the North. I think it's perfectly valid to dissolve the partnership.

(1) The Constitution provided for its alteration (which would presumably include its termination or replacement) via amendment and/or new constitutional convention. That would be the replacement for the clause you mention in the Articles of Confederation - that's the process if you want to end the Union. And there being no termination / expiration date is the same thing as it being perpetual (until terminated / changed).

(2) My theory is not at all that the South should bend to the will of the North. There are (and have never been) no such legal entities as either "the South" or "the North". As such there never was "partnership" between North and South, it was a Union formed by the people of the states. The North and the South are (non-formal/legal) regions within the United States, subject to the Constitution of the United States.

I am saying that all states within the United States (including the Southern States) are obligated to adhere to the Constitution of the United States. It sucked for the southern states that population growth post adoption of the Constitution went against them and increasingly deprived them of their ability to (as a group) vote down anti-slavery laws. That is legally irrelevant to the obligations of the states under the Constitution, however.

All states are obliged to bend to the will of the voters of the United States, in accordance with the terms of the Constitution.