The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.
Proverbs 18:17 NIV
Comments left on XRoads about the VaFlaggers at Lexington and my responses:
A Hintz -- While I had my difficulties with freshman calculus at W&L, even I know that formula doesn’t add up.
Me -- Mr. Hintz, you can't go by one or two images Simpson chooses; you have to also see what he's deliberately leaving out. If you don't, it makes you look dumb, ya know?jclark82 -- I think they might be referring to the three’s combined IQ…
See reply to Mr. Hintz.Alan -- Now that’s what I call fuzzy math. Even if there’s 500 or 5,000, it won’t change anything, just like the LULZ-cott!
But it will expose yet another in a long, long list of Simpson's lies.Schroeder -- Poor dears… bless their hearts.
Back atcha, Wonder Woman.Sarah -- I hear that the local merchants in Lexington are closing up shop right and left, and begging for subsidies because of how hard hit their economy has been due to the boycott. It’s pretty dire straights in Lexington if you are a business owner these days. That makes perfect sense anyway, boycott businesses that had nothing to do with the issue. They’re really showing Washington & Lee who’s boss!
Yes, Sarah, alas, the Lexington boycott seems to be having little effect -- like the NAACP's boycott of South Carolina.
From "Rebel flag quietly goes back up" by Trace Gibbs, The State, Tuesday, March 16, 2010: "...the boycott had no effect on South Carolina's $14 billion in annual tourism revenue..."
By my observation (and admittedly, studying boycotts doesn't loom large in my view of what's important) boycotts against companies, especially a local boycott of a local company, works better than a boycott against a place -- a state, a municipality, etc.
Of course, there can be more than one effect of a boycott. It can bring boycotters together, strengthen their sense of solidarity, regardless of how successful or not it is in affecting the entity being boycotted.Brooks D. Simpson --Actually, according to other folks business is improving in Lexington. But then sarcasm does not travel well online. :)
Just like SC under the NAACP boycott...The Lamp --The news report doesn’t say 50, it says “a few dozen” but it barely looks like that either:
Well, Lamprey, hon, you should have waited until more pics got posted, capisce? Now you look silly for jumping the gun.Alan -- So even the SCV doesn’t want to be linked to the Flaggers? That’s good stuff.
Actually, one guy, Brandon Dorsey, said the SCV doesn’t support some of the Flaggers’ tactics, according to roanoke.com. However, Brandon Dorsey is not the SCV. He isn't even the VIRGINIA SCV. He's the commander of one camp in Virginia -- that's one, count 'em, one, o-n-e, (1) -- of something like 80 camps in the Old Dominion -- not to mention all those in other states and elsewhere.
The SCV doesn't want to be linked to the VaFlaggers? I do believe you're mistaken. Well, it seems the Bedford Rifle Grays, Camp 1475, doesn't mind being linked to the VaFlaggers. In fact, the person with the brilliant smile sitting on their beautiful palamino is none other than the Head Flagger in Charge.
Image 71 -- Delaware Grays Camp #2068 Seaford, DE
2 -- Sgt. William Hamby Camp #1750 Crossville, TN
3 -- Middleton Tate Johnson Camp #1648 Arlington, TX
4 -- Major Robert M White Camp 1250 Temple, TX
5 -- Then Commander In Chief Michael Givens flagging the VMFA.
6 -- Flat Top Copper Head #1694 Princeton, WV (with current Commander-in Chief C. Kelly Barrow
7 -- Receiving Va Division SCV Sesquicentennial Medal from 2nd Brigade Commander Everette Ellis
And this is just a drop in the bucket.Sarah --“Attempts to reach the flaggers for comment were unsuccessful.”
Silent Susan strikes again.
I wonder if the SCV still has a bad taste in it’s mouth over the White Nationalist photo ops from the last get together? They were probably waiting to see if the Flaggers doubled down on doopid before they decided to keep their distance. It’s a good idea too because based on the guest list over at the Flaggers FB event, it’s looking like almost a repeat of the SCV event over the summer. Maybe Shane Long can snap another selfie with the “Silent One” this weekend. I imagine she will be able to put together quite a scrapbook.
Silent? Well, not exactly.
Flaggers are dissenters, picketers, which have a long, honored history in the USA.Alan -- Here’s some math for the Flaggers. In three years time, they’ve raised three flags. At that rate, they’ll overtake Virginia with Confederate Pride in…. Nevermind, it’ll take forever.
Three years, zero impact, zero flags returned, zero economic impact from boycott. Countless hours wasted.
From your vantage point, Alan. Not from everyone's, and certainly not from theirs.Eek-a-mouse -- But their new Lexington flag is in a primo location. Lest anyone at Enterprise Rent-a-car or the Hardee’s Drive-thru forget!
New Lexington flag? Which one?Sarah --Maybe Connie can use some of her photoshop skills and add some Flaggers to that photo? That’s just pitiful. Poor Flaggers.
Don't need it. Miss Judy's photos of reality tell the story you smear-mongers were too anxious to wait for. https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Virginia-Flaggers/378823865585630Al Mackey -- How incompetent do you have to be for Brandon Dorsey to say he doesn’t agree with your tactics?
I keep telling y'all, don't trust what Brooks tells ya. He will steer you wrong and you end up looking like idiots.
Is incompetence the only reason to not agree with something? Al, Al, Al ... don't let your animosity make you look like such a dunce!Joshua Chamberlain -- My first impression of their pictures is that there is hardly anyone else walking around besides them. It calls to mind sets in The Walking Dead, with Tripp, Susan, Creech, et al playing the walkers/zombies/flaggers?
Ah, Josh ol' boy. They made pictures of their event, get it? When you throw a party, do you take pics of your guests, or do you go around taking pics of strangers who aren't even coming to the party? Folks, seriously, don't let your lust for the put-down cause you to assassinate your common sense.Sarah -- From the Backsass Chatterbox:
“17 Jan 15, 01:37 AM
Connie: Almost 250 VaFlagger posts or comments at XRoads since the Flaggers were founded.”
“17 Jan 15, 01:38 AM
Connie: Most of them made-up crap meant to smear, denigrate, intimidate, silence, harass, persecute.”
“17 Jan 15, 01:38 AM
Connie: What difference would it make if Susan made a “statement” about the unauthorized reprint? You people who hate her smear and slash her no matter what she does.”
Connie Chastain has been throwing around the word “smear” like it’s candy for children on Halloween. So what is a smear? According to the definition provided by my Iphone, a “smear” is:
“damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander.”
You need to edumucate your iPhone, Sarah, hon.
~~ an untrue story about a person that is meant to hurt that person's reputation
~~ a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization —often used attributively <a smear campaign> <a smear job>
~~sully, besmirch; specifically : to vilify especially by secretly and maliciously spreading grave charges and imputations
~~ to sully, vilify, or soil (a reputation, good name, etc.).
Now we know that Connie is going to have problems with this one, so let’s give her a hand. Connie, the key word here is “false”.
Not in the definitions I posted, shweethaht.
I’m glad Connie wrote “most of them”, because that means she is admitting that “some of them” aren’t “made-up crap”. Unfortunately, Chastain has declined to cite “any of them” that are “made-up crap”. We have to wonder if this is because “none of them” are? You all know the answer to that one.
No, I think Connie knows darned well there’s been no smearing, just a bunch of facts she and the “Silent One” can’t refute. How unfortunate.
Why, no, darling. Some of what Simpson says is not made up -- like his complaints about Susan's clothes, and her traveling around the South to speaking engagements. He means them to be slurs and smears, because that's his mentality, but of course, there's nothing wrong with her clothes and travels.Jimmy Dick -- What does she have to say about the SCV dissing the flaggers? That is more telling than anything. Here the flaggers run around waving CBFs and putting them up in the air, but when it comes time to make real decisions and actually discuss things the flaggers are not invited or allowed to be part of the discussion even in a controlled environment like the one the SCV set up.
Skim my blog, Sarah-kins. It's full of proof of Simpson's made up crap (or crap from commenters that he allows), from "disturbing Confederate graves" to cutting trees on the VDOT right of way, to accusations of putting Wonder Woman's address online, when she did that herself, and on and on and on.
Maybe the SCV doesn’t want to associate with people who aid and abet kidnappers or hang out with the League of the South and associated racists. According to Ben Jones, the SCV is opposed to racism. His silence on the subject has been deafening lately.
Alan -- @ Sarah What I don’t understand is if they are being slandered, that is, people are telling lies about them that are damaging their reputation, why aren’t they taking legal action? That’s an easy win for them if there are lies being peddled about them.
The SCV didn't dis the Flaggers, Mr. Dick. See my reply to Alan above.
Because the people doing it are TRYING to damage Flagger reputations; they aren't being very successful at it. The people who believe it are people whose opinions the Flaggers don't value, like you floggerettes. And most people in the Southern heritage community aren't litigious like leftists and liberals.