DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus 6 Army bases named after Confederate leaders get dates for new names

No and I doubt anyone but loud mouths like MTG and Boebert would want it either.

If there was another civil war... China would just get in the middle of it and take Canada and USA.

It's obvious when the ignorant gravy militia types who never served an actual military day in their life say something this profoundly stupid that they don't realize that today those succeeding traitors to the Union would this time be facing the full force and might of the US Military starting with their own kids in the National Guard. I'm surprised that you would espouse such nonsense as if it had a glimmer of hope. And where exactly will you draw new map lines to NOT leave any of yours behind or take too many of the ones you hate with you? The divides driving this BS are in our homes, families, and businesses, not in some state or other geographic area.

]quote] I'm surprised that you would espouse such nonsense[/quote]

Pretty much your whole post is wrong, but the most is quoted above. I don't espouse the breaking up of the Union. I am for making it stronger.

The problem is each side sees the other as weakening the Union rather than making it stronger. With a fracture that wide, I am afraid it can't be fixed. At least any time soon without a major, life changing event.

I don't want either but am fearful it is headed towards that. Heck, look at the small sample size on this board. The more we talk about it, the further divided we get.

Not going to read your link.

There's already been a ruling - States cannot unilaterally secede. Hence my comment "unless you think the other states would allow". I'm pretty sure he states would not allow it.

We survived the Joe McCarthy communism hearings so we can survive anything. Maybe if we stopped electing people that base their platform on vitriol and looked for actual leaders again that would help.

JMHO, sad truth is "average good American doesn't want to give up a good life for the BS politics requires. Looking back 20, 30, years for dirt- anything you've ever done "wrong"- mooning someone in 11th grade, is / could be a big deal- who wants that. PLUS- you got to have millions/ or kiss political butt and probably be a lawyer- old saying- what's lower than whale poop- lawyers.....God help us because we got MAJOR idiots in both parties, AND "old farts- long overdue for pasture LEADING our major parties- HELP God, please.

There will never be a civil war.....on subject- some call renaming bases wrong because we are losing our heritage. As a former military officer AND a high school history teacher- most HS kids today could care less about the Civil War- and don't know much about it- why not change name of bases IF 20% of population thinks the names are from a racist past- which is true- we have PLENTY of recent heros to name bases for- and God willing- in another 50 years new heros can be honored for their sacrifice- death, taxes, and change are always the future.

Hitt, what jets did you fly when you were in the service? I was a fire control/electronics tech on Tomcats in the Navy.

I agree. The problem, at least looking at it from what is going on today, in order to be a leader, you need followers. I see DeSantist as a leader but I would bet you don't. That isn't to put your position down, it is simply to point out what one person sees as a leader, the other doesn't.

There isn't a whole lot of room for cross over, or moderate position. It's kind of a either or situation. One person picks "either", the other person picks "or".

The sad part is that wars used to be the great unifier. People pulled together, and seemed to remain somewhat together for a period of time after. Not that it was a good option then, but it sure isn't now. I wouldn't want WWIII to be the great unifier now. None of us want that, but we seem to be marching in that direction. The winds of war are starting to blow.

I am sure we will pull through and as a people come to a new Rennaissance or sorts. At least I hope so.

Could you please explain what any of that has to do with or how renaming military bases has anything to do with what you posted?

I do see DeSantis as a leader. The problem being I'm concerned about what he would lead us to. It seems it's largely about exclusion and persecution of certain people. About refusing to be open and honest concerning our nations history. Many people were great leaders when it comes to unifying people but as history has taught us all, that has often times not been a good thing.

And I do agree about wars having unified this nation before. But that certainly isn't true of the Civil War of which we're speaking. Union troops had to remain deployed in the south after the Civil War to even attempt to enforce the freedom of slaves. I remember in 1963 when Wallace stood in the school house door. I remember him saying "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever". From the Jim crow era to the 1960's and beyond, the actual ideas fought for in the Civil war raged on. It just moved away from the battlefield.

If I were a teacher in Florida I may very well be fired for telling those truths. And that's sad.

I think those things are already being taught. I was taught about Jim Crow laws and such, and that was a long time ago. Wallace stuff was more the news of the day rather than history.

I think the problem is the place in history, or maybe the weight it is given is the issue. I also disagree with your take on the south and seem to feel it was the only place where there was a problem.

At any rate, I am not sure what looking towards the past and trying to use it as a hammer has anything to do with today or how that will fix anything? All it seems to be doing is opening old wounds.

“We must all turn our backs upon the horrors of the past. We must look to the future. We cannot afford to drag forward across the years that are to come the hatreds and revenges which have sprung up from the injuries of the past.” –Winston Churchill,

Yes it would. Red states take more federal funds from the coffers than blue states. Many blue states pay into the fed more than they take. Red states would come running back crying like babies wanting their federal hand outs back.

United we stand.

This is an assertion that you have (unbiased, nonpartisan) data to back up or is it just you saying it is so?

You can disagree all you like but they did have to leave union troops there and that's where Jim crow laws were. That's where Wallace who stood in front of the school to block blacks from attending and that wasn't the first time. It actually extended in other southern states as well for well over a decade. Nothing can change that.

Civil Rights: The Little Rock School Integration Crisis

On May 17, 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education that segregated schools are "inherently unequal." In September 1957, as a result of that ruling, nine African-American students enrolled at Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. The ensuing struggle between segregationists and integrationists, the State of Arkansas and the federal government, President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus, has become known in modern American history as the "Little Rock Crisis." The crisis gained world-wide attention. When Governor Faubus ordered the Arkansas National Guard to surround Central High School to keep the nine students from entering the school, President Eisenhower ordered the 101st Airborne Division into Little Rock to insure the safety of the "Little Rock Nine" and that the rulings of the Supreme Court were upheld. The manuscript holdings of the Eisenhower Presidential Library contain a large amount of documentation on this historic test of the Brown vs. Topeka ruling and school integration.

https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/r...ts-little-rock-school-integration-crisis

On June 10, 1963, President John F. Kennedy federalized National Guard troops and deployed them to the University of Alabama to force its desegregation. The next day, Governor Wallace yielded to the federal pressure, and two African American students—Vivian Malone and James A. Hood—successfully enrolled. In September of the same year, Wallace again attempted to block the desegregation of an Alabama public school—this time Tuskegee High School—but President Kennedy once again employed his executive authority and federalized National Guard troops. Wallace had little choice but to yield.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/university-of-alabama-desegregated

I can show you more if you like.

If your contention is that there was racial discrimination everywhere I agree. But making a false equivalency serves nobody but those trying to diminish the vast difference.


So then it seems you believe that military bases and statues in cities across the south should be taken down because all they are accomplishing is keeping old woulds open? If so I agree.

Unfortunately, the world hasn't changed much. Getting rid of Confederate General names on bases MIGHT not change much, but black AND white servicemembers don't need to go to work on bases named after a long dead Southern cause.....which tried to break our union. As for quotes, here is one...."Failure isn’t fatal, but failure to change might be.” —John Wooden.

These United States- our history shows we've NEVER all been on same page- diversity isn't a new word describing the United States of America. Long live our experiment.

You are stuck on the war between the states and I was talking about what teachers can teach and the weight it should be given.

carry on...I am long past the war..

Yet people propose symbols of the enemy of The United states of America live on in remembrance by having military bases and statues in town squares live on.

I'm sure those students in the 1950's an 1960's were long past the war too. Sadly their governors who were elected by the people were not.

Oh so sorry grasshopper. Not my assertions. And I forgot research is only important when you don’t agree with stuff. And why are you always too lazy to look it up yourself? Easy search.



Red states dominate the top 10. Eight of the 10 states most dependent on the federal government traditionally vote Republican. New Mexico (No. 2) is the only state in the top 10 to vote for the Democratic candidate in any of the last six presidential elections. Maine (No. 8), which splits its delegates, has voted for both Democrats and Republicans in the recent elections.
On average, federal funding makes up about 39% of state revenues. However, this figure varies by a margin of more than 29 percentage points. The federal share of state government revenue is highest in Wyoming, at 56.43%, and lowest in Hawaii, at 27.13%.
Connecticut ranks as the state least reliant on the federal government. Less than 32% of the revenue collected by the Connecticut state government comes from the federal government. That’s the eighth-smallest percentage across all 50 states. Connecticut also has the third-lowest percentage of workers employed by the federal government (1.47%) and fourth-lowest ratio of federal funding to income taxes paid (0.38).


https://smartasset.com/data-studies/states-most-dependent-on-the-federal-government-2022


Come get your handouts before succeeding. Lol

When you make an assertion you are the one obligated to supply supporting evidence. You can keep your grasshopper crap to yourself.

It makes an interesting read, though I am not sold on the veracity of the study as it feels more click bait than serious data. I did get a chuckle at MD being the only state with 10+ percent of federal employment.

In other words you agree with data that supports your feelings and question data that doesn't.

Return on Statehood: How Much Value Every State Gets from the Federal Government

https://www.moneygeek.com/living/states-most-reliant-federal-government/

These States Are the Most Dependent on the Federal Government

Southern states tend to be the most reliant on Washington.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...epend-the-most-on-the-federal-government

They would in an instant, if a rebel state took over US Federal property

In other words, no, that is again now what I said. But don't let your need to spin every single thread get in the way of facts.

The fact is clear. Red states are more reliant on federal funds.which points directly at their GOP leadership.

I'm not entirely sure you can draw simple conclusions from complicated matters.

MD is a BLUE as heck state. They were in your list at 10+% Federal employment. Is that "reliant" on federal funds? How did that factor weigh against other factors. Methodology and data collection in this chart seems scarce. It may mean what you think it means, it may just be there to make you think it. With the presentation I am unconvinced of its veracity.

But I appreciate you, at least, pointing out where your statement originated.

You can nit pick it all you want, I’m all ears..

I think the issue isn't nearly as simple as you claim. How about education? Consumption? Economic instability? Lower wages due to jobs that are in agriculture and extraction of natural resources rather than in finance, trade, and technology? Race and/or ethnicity?

It's mumbo jumbo for a lot of reasons. Larger, lower population states showing a higher percentage would be one.

Red states dominate the top 10. Eight of the 10 states most dependent on the federal government traditionally vote Republican. New Mexico (No. 2) is the only state in the top 10 to vote for the Democratic candidate in any of the last six presidential elections. Maine (No. 8), which splits its delegates, has voted for both Democrats and Republicans in the recent elections

https://smartasset.com/data-studies/states-most-dependent-on-the-federal-government-2022

It's mumbo jumbo because it doesn't show what they want it to. When called to show it you did. Now we hear all the excuses why they don't accept it after you made it clear you were correct. Same as it ever was.

I believe this has been covered. Is there some point to make that wasn't?

I'll tell you something that hasn't been covered. As I asked earlier, what mental health restrictions would you agree to in order to ban people from owing firearms? As of now unless you've been involuntarily committed or have been shown by a mental health professional or court to be a danger to yourself or others you can purchase and own a firearm. That obviously isn't enough. People on the right keep saying we need to overhaul the mental health system which I agree with. But what good will that do if there is no change to those allowed to purchase firearms?

Please do pay attention. You are trying to garbage up this thread with your "thoughts" from a different one.

And yet it is true.

So when it comes to States - it's good to consider all these things and give hand outs to the needy? But when it comes to the individual - by golly they should get nothing from the government and pull themselves up by their boot straps.

Beyond ironic.

Bottom line is Red States take more from Federal coffers than Blue States. For whatever reason. That's a fact. So when we here talk about Red States seceding from the Union because they don't like the deplorable way the left is corrupting what it means to be American, it might be something to think about.

And yes the reason's might be many and complex - but what was stated by a poster is in fact true. So no - it has not be "dealt with"

Tis true, you posted in the wrong thread. You seem to care about such things so I figured you would appreciate being reminded.

And then get called out for going off topic…lol

The trump brigade strikes again. Their confederacy would last a week crying for their federal handouts to come back.

Yeah, the point is you don't seem to accept it as fact... I figured I'd pound it in again. Couldn't hurt