Supreme Court deals blow to Rebel Flag

[Maryland Patriot]

In solidarity with my heritage I am changing my Avatar.

Your heritage is a four year period where your ancestors started a war in support of slavery and got their asses kicked?

you should study up a bit on history before you make the comments.
slavery was only a part of the war, it was started by the north when they fired on Ft Sumpter in Carolina.
Carolina being the first state to leave the union.
Up until the fall of 1862 slavery was not the reason for the war, so basically, the war was not fought over slavery.
The Federal government had explicitly declared that it was fighting solely to save the Union.
Slavery was brought into the equation in order to bring support from the French. At that time, Europe was very much against slavery and the thought of it was a moral travesty.
Since the confederates had already sent representatives to both Britan and France, James M. Mason of Virginia and John Slidell of Louisiana, Mason in England and Slidell in France, the north played the race card to stop the threat of external help for the south.
basically, the north at the time did not really care about slavery, but it was a valued tool of persuasion to foreign governments.

 

[bodecea]

holy smokes. these people won't be satisfied until they take away all OUR RIGHTS in this country
drip drip drip all over some freaking flag

If you want a rebel flag on your car, slap it on the bumper. Or in the back window. Or fluttering from your radio antenna. Paint it on the roof like the General Lee.

You have every freedom to express yourself. What you can't do is force the State to express your beliefs.

Right, but the state can force a baker to express your beliefs, right? The state is offering a service for a fee, just like the baker, so why would they be exempt from public accommodation laws?

You are complaining about PA laws...what have you done to get them repealed in your state?

No, I'm complaining that a state when engaged in for profit activities are not held to the same standards as any other business.

The state isn't in a for profit activity...

 

[BlindBoo]

Rick Perry, Tyrant of Texas, wants to be your next president too.

He would be a much better President than that corrupt stupid incompetent stolen valor bitch Clinton or that silly slobbering socialist goof Sanders.

I can only think of three reason why, the first two don't count and the third is......

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

holy smokes. these people won't be satisfied until they take away all OUR RIGHTS in this country
drip drip drip all over some freaking flag

I bet you weren't saying that when they ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby or passed CItizens United.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

holy smokes. these people won't be satisfied until they take away all OUR RIGHTS in this country
drip drip drip all over some freaking flag

I bet you weren't saying that when they ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby or passed CItizens United.

tell me again what rights were in play with the Hobby Lobby case?

 

[bendog]

In solidarity with my heritage I am changing my Avatar.

Your heritage is a four year period where your ancestors started a war in support of slavery and got their asses kicked?

you should study up a bit on history before you make the comments.
slavery was only a part of the war, it was started by the north when they fired on Ft Sumpter in Carolina.
Carolina being the first state to leave the union.
Up until the fall of 1862 slavery was not the reason for the war, so basically, the war was not fought over slavery.
The Federal government had explicitly declared that it was fighting solely to save the Union.
Slavery was brought into the equation in order to bring support from the French. At that time, Europe was very much against slavery and the thought of it was a moral travesty.
Since the confederates had already sent representatives to both Britan and France, James M. Mason of Virginia and John Slidell of Louisiana, Mason in England and Slidell in France, the north played the race card to stop the threat of external help for the south.
basically, the north at the time did not really care about slavery, but it was a valued tool of persuasion to foreign governments.

Not meaning to pick fights, and your post have a typo (which is something I'm very familiar with myself) but South not only fired on unarmed ships attempting to resupply Ft. Sumter, the South initiated the battle. And SC and 6 sister states had already voted to secede.

 

[OKTexas]

holy smokes. these people won't be satisfied until they take away all OUR RIGHTS in this country
drip drip drip all over some freaking flag

If you want a rebel flag on your car, slap it on the bumper. Or in the back window. Or fluttering from your radio antenna. Paint it on the roof like the General Lee.

You have every freedom to express yourself. What you can't do is force the State to express your beliefs.

Right, but the state can force a baker to express your beliefs, right? The state is offering a service for a fee, just like the baker, so why would they be exempt from public accommodation laws?

You are complaining about PA laws...what have you done to get them repealed in your state?

No, I'm complaining that a state when engaged in for profit activities are not held to the same standards as any other business.

The state isn't in a for profit activity...

Vanity license plates are sold for a profit, just because those profits go into state coffers doesn't mean it's not a for profit activity. They sell the rights to private companies through license agreements. I posted a link to one of those companies web site.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

In solidarity with my heritage I am changing my Avatar.

Your heritage is a four year period where your ancestors started a war in support of slavery and got their asses kicked?

you should study up a bit on history before you make the comments.
slavery was only a part of the war, it was started by the north when they fired on Ft Sumpter in Carolina.
Carolina being the first state to leave the union.
Up until the fall of 1862 slavery was not the reason for the war, so basically, the war was not fought over slavery.
The Federal government had explicitly declared that it was fighting solely to save the Union.
Slavery was brought into the equation in order to bring support from the French. At that time, Europe was very much against slavery and the thought of it was a moral travesty.
Since the confederates had already sent representatives to both Britan and France, James M. Mason of Virginia and John Slidell of Louisiana, Mason in England and Slidell in France, the north played the race card to stop the threat of external help for the south.
basically, the north at the time did not really care about slavery, but it was a valued tool of persuasion to foreign governments.

Well that was sort of interesting. But you still left out the reason why everybody got mad at each other in the first place.

That would be cotton, and who grew it and who sold it.

The northern states and their textile mills, which were the backbone of the economy in the early 19th century, couldn't grow it but they would make sure they would control it. Northerners didn't give a phlying phuck about the slaves, most had never even SEEN one. They just wanted to keep the mills open.

If the south had seceded and just sold their cotton crops to Europe as they wanted to do, because they got a better price, the rest of the country would have gone into an unrecoverable economic crash. Everything is always about money.

600,000 Americans died. I can't help but think somebody couldn't have come up with a better solution than killing each other over cotton.

 

[BlindBoo]

In solidarity with my heritage I am changing my Avatar.

Your heritage is a four year period where your ancestors started a war in support of slavery and got their asses kicked?

you should study up a bit on history before you make the comments.
slavery was only a part of the war, it was started by the north when they fired on Ft Sumpter in Carolina.
Carolina being the first state to leave the union.
Up until the fall of 1862 slavery was not the reason for the war, so basically, the war was not fought over slavery.
The Federal government had explicitly declared that it was fighting solely to save the Union.
Slavery was brought into the equation in order to bring support from the French. At that time, Europe was very much against slavery and the thought of it was a moral travesty.
Since the confederates had already sent representatives to both Britan and France, James M. Mason of Virginia and John Slidell of Louisiana, Mason in England and Slidell in France, the north played the race card to stop the threat of external help for the south.
basically, the north at the time did not really care about slavery, but it was a valued tool of persuasion to foreign governments.

For the South it was all about slavery. The only reason the Slave States declared their independence from the Union was to be able to keep their slaves.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Not meaning to pick fights, and your post have a typo (which is something I'm very familiar with myself) but South not only fired on unarmed ships attempting to resupply Ft. Sumter, the South initiated the battle. And SC and 6 sister states had already voted to secede.

True, the confederates did fire on the northern ship, however the shots to Ft Sumter were the first shots fired by the confederates, it was on the ship that was coming in from the north to bring supplies and reinforcements to Major Anderson at Ft Sumter. The shots at FT Sumter were the first fired by the government, and for all purposes that is generally considered the first shots of the war.

Forgive the typo, I am one of limited education.

 

[g5000]

In solidarity with my heritage I am changing my Avatar.

Your heritage is a four year period where your ancestors started a war in support of slavery and got their asses kicked?

you should study up a bit on history before you make the comments.
slavery was only a part of the war, it was started by the north when they fired on Ft Sumpter in Carolina.
Carolina being the first state to leave the union.
Up until the fall of 1862 slavery was not the reason for the war, so basically, the war was not fought over slavery.
The Federal government had explicitly declared that it was fighting solely to save the Union.
Slavery was brought into the equation in order to bring support from the French. At that time, Europe was very much against slavery and the thought of it was a moral travesty.
Since the confederates had already sent representatives to both Britan and France, James M. Mason of Virginia and John Slidell of Louisiana, Mason in England and Slidell in France, the north played the race card to stop the threat of external help for the south.
basically, the north at the time did not really care about slavery, but it was a valued tool of persuasion to foreign governments.

Well that was sort of interesting. But you still left out the reason why everybody got mad at each other in the first place.

That would be cotton, and who grew it and who sold it.

The northern states and their textile mills, which were the backbone of the economy in the early 19th century, couldn't grow it but they would make sure they would control it. Northerners didn't give a phlying phuck about the slaves, most had never even SEEN one. They just wanted to keep the mills open.

If the south had seceded and just sold their cotton crops to Europe as they wanted to do, because they got a better price, the rest of the country would have gone into an unrecoverable economic crash. Everything is always about money.

The fatal flaw in your theory is that the South thought its economy could only survive with slavery as its underpinning.

The North knew that was a crock of shit. And THAT is why the Northern economy was so much stronger.

 

[bendog]

In solidarity with my heritage I am changing my Avatar.

Your heritage is a four year period where your ancestors started a war in support of slavery and got their asses kicked?

you should study up a bit on history before you make the comments.
slavery was only a part of the war, it was started by the north when they fired on Ft Sumpter in Carolina.
Carolina being the first state to leave the union.
Up until the fall of 1862 slavery was not the reason for the war, so basically, the war was not fought over slavery.
The Federal government had explicitly declared that it was fighting solely to save the Union.
Slavery was brought into the equation in order to bring support from the French. At that time, Europe was very much against slavery and the thought of it was a moral travesty.
Since the confederates had already sent representatives to both Britan and France, James M. Mason of Virginia and John Slidell of Louisiana, Mason in England and Slidell in France, the north played the race card to stop the threat of external help for the south.
basically, the north at the time did not really care about slavery, but it was a valued tool of persuasion to foreign governments.

For the South it was all about slavery. The only reason the Slave States declared their independence from the Union was to be able to keep their slaves.

Not really. Lincoln explicitly promised we could keep our slaves. (-: But, geographically, there would be more northern senators than southern in the future. I think No Tea Party is largely right. The North was going to exercise political power to curtail imports, and that would hurt us selling our cotton to Europe. But, really, we'd imported something like 7 million slaves to the South v. 11 or 12 million whites. It was untenable, and a moral and political clusterfk that his nation may never recover from.

 

[g5000]

Alexis de Tocqueville in 1834:

Undulating lands extend upon both shores of the Ohio, whose soil affords inexhaustible treasures to the laborer; on either bank the air is equally wholesome and the climate mild, and each of them forms the extreme frontier of a vast state: that which follows the numerous windings of the Ohio upon the left is called Kentucky; that upon the right bears the name of the river. These two states differ only in a single respect: Kentucky has admitted slavery, but the state of Ohio has prohibited the existence of slaves within its borders. Thus the traveler who floats down the current of the Ohio to the spot where that river falls into the Mississippi may be said to sail between liberty and servitude; and a transient inspection of surrounding objects will convince him which of the two is more favorable to humanity.

Upon the left bank of the stream the population is sparse; from time to time one descries a troop of slaves loitering in the half-desert fields; the primeval forest reappears at every turn; society seems to be asleep, man to be idle, and nature alone offers a scene of activity and life.

From the right bank, on the contrary, a confused hum is heard, which proclaims afar the presence of industry; the fields are covered with abundant harvests; the elegance of the dwellings announces the taste and activity of the laborers; and man appears to be in the enjoyment of that wealth and contentment which is the reward of labor.

The state of Kentucky was founded in 1775, the state of Ohio only twelve years later; but twelve years are more in America than half a century in Europe; and at the present day the population of Ohio exceeds that of Kentucky by two hundred and fifty thousand souls. These different effects of slavery and freedom may readily be understood; and they suffice to explain many of the differences which we notice between the civilization of antiquity and that of our own time.

Upon the left bank of the Ohio labor is confounded with the idea of slavery, while upon the right bank it is identifies with that of prosperity and improvement; on the one side it is degraded, on the other it is honored. On the former territory no white laborers can be found, for they would be afraid of assimilating themselves to the Negroes; all the work is done by slaves; on the latter no one is idle, for the white population extend their activity and intelligence to every kind of employment. Thus the men whose task it is to cultivate the rich soil of Kentucky are ignorant and apathetic, while those who are active and enlightened either do nothing or pass over into Ohio, where they may work without shame.

Tocqueville Book I Chapter 18

 

[bodecea]

In solidarity with my heritage I am changing my Avatar.

Your heritage is a four year period where your ancestors started a war in support of slavery and got their asses kicked?

you should study up a bit on history before you make the comments.
slavery was only a part of the war, it was started by the north when they fired on Ft Sumpter in Carolina.
Carolina being the first state to leave the union.
Up until the fall of 1862 slavery was not the reason for the war, so basically, the war was not fought over slavery.
The Federal government had explicitly declared that it was fighting solely to save the Union.
Slavery was brought into the equation in order to bring support from the French. At that time, Europe was very much against slavery and the thought of it was a moral travesty.
Since the confederates had already sent representatives to both Britan and France, James M. Mason of Virginia and John Slidell of Louisiana, Mason in England and Slidell in France, the north played the race card to stop the threat of external help for the south.
basically, the north at the time did not really care about slavery, but it was a valued tool of persuasion to foreign governments.

Oh, so many things wrong with your post.
1. Slavery was the reason for the war....even the South said so by word (VP Stephens) and by each state's articles of secession.
2. The South fired on the North at....
3. Fort Sumter, not Fort Sumpter
4. And it was South Carolina.
5. And SOUTH Carolina left the Union months before they decided to start the war by firing on the Union Fort Sumter.
6. The French? Since when did the North seek the help of the French? The French were busy messing with Mexico which pissed the U.S. off (remember the Monroe Doctrine?)

Too funny! You got a Southern edumacation, didn't you?

 

[g5000]

"Upon the left bank of the Ohio labor is confounded with the idea of slavery".

I can't tell you how many times I heard the expression "n*gger work" for hard labor jobs when I was growing up.

Alexis de Tocqueville nailed it.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

In solidarity with my heritage I am changing my Avatar.

Your heritage is a four year period where your ancestors started a war in support of slavery and got their asses kicked?

you should study up a bit on history before you make the comments.
slavery was only a part of the war, it was started by the north when they fired on Ft Sumpter in Carolina.
Carolina being the first state to leave the union.
Up until the fall of 1862 slavery was not the reason for the war, so basically, the war was not fought over slavery.
The Federal government had explicitly declared that it was fighting solely to save the Union.
Slavery was brought into the equation in order to bring support from the French. At that time, Europe was very much against slavery and the thought of it was a moral travesty.
Since the confederates had already sent representatives to both Britan and France, James M. Mason of Virginia and John Slidell of Louisiana, Mason in England and Slidell in France, the north played the race card to stop the threat of external help for the south.
basically, the north at the time did not really care about slavery, but it was a valued tool of persuasion to foreign governments.

For the South it was all about slavery. The only reason the Slave States declared their independence from the Union was to be able to keep their slaves.

Not really. Lincoln explicitly promised we could keep our slaves. (-: But, geographically, there would be more northern senators than southern in the future. I think No Tea Party is largely right. The North was going to exercise political power to curtail imports, and that would hurt us selling our cotton to Europe. But, really, we'd imported something like 7 million slaves to the South v. 11 or 12 million whites. It was untenable, and a moral and political clusterfk that his nation may never recover from.

it was actually both, the economics of the cotton trade, and the south feared that adding more states ( remember Carolina almost pulled out when California got statehood) that had voice in congress would eventually over rule the southern states, and they would lose their slaves and their cotton profits.
so it was a bit of both.
However, the government did not go into the war with the thought of slaves at the time. Slavery was NOT the reason behind the war.

 

[bendog]

Not meaning to pick fights, and your post have a typo (which is something I'm very familiar with myself) but South not only fired on unarmed ships attempting to resupply Ft. Sumter, the South initiated the battle. And SC and 6 sister states had already voted to secede.

True, the confederates did fire on the northern ship, however the shots to Ft Sumter were the first shots fired by the confederates, it was on the ship that was coming in from the north to bring supplies and reinforcements to Major Anderson at Ft Sumter. The shots at FT Sumter were the first fired by the government, and for all purposes that is generally considered the first shots of the war.

Forgive the typo, I am one of limited education.

I was not criticizing. I agree with your post. I was trying to be helpful.

Last night, I said "Wife turn off the pot, you're burning the rice." JFC you think she'd appreciate my help. (-"

 

[bodecea]

If you want a rebel flag on your car, slap it on the bumper. Or in the back window. Or fluttering from your radio antenna. Paint it on the roof like the General Lee.

You have every freedom to express yourself. What you can't do is force the State to express your beliefs.

Right, but the state can force a baker to express your beliefs, right? The state is offering a service for a fee, just like the baker, so why would they be exempt from public accommodation laws?

You are complaining about PA laws...what have you done to get them repealed in your state?

No, I'm complaining that a state when engaged in for profit activities are not held to the same standards as any other business.

The state isn't in a for profit activity...

Vanity license plates are sold for a profit, just because those profits go into state coffers doesn't mean it's not a for profit activity. They sell the rights to private companies through license agreements. I posted a link to one of those companies web site.

Nope, not for profit, it's considered a fee....unless you want to show us the state's profit line and business license.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

In solidarity with my heritage I am changing my Avatar.

Your heritage is a four year period where your ancestors started a war in support of slavery and got their asses kicked?

you should study up a bit on history before you make the comments.
slavery was only a part of the war, it was started by the north when they fired on Ft Sumpter in Carolina.
Carolina being the first state to leave the union.
Up until the fall of 1862 slavery was not the reason for the war, so basically, the war was not fought over slavery.
The Federal government had explicitly declared that it was fighting solely to save the Union.
Slavery was brought into the equation in order to bring support from the French. At that time, Europe was very much against slavery and the thought of it was a moral travesty.
Since the confederates had already sent representatives to both Britan and France, James M. Mason of Virginia and John Slidell of Louisiana, Mason in England and Slidell in France, the north played the race card to stop the threat of external help for the south.
basically, the north at the time did not really care about slavery, but it was a valued tool of persuasion to foreign governments.

Oh, so many things wrong with your post.
1. Slavery was the reason for the war....even the South said so by word (VP Stephens) and by each state's articles of secession.
2. The South fired on the North at....
3. Fort Sumter, not Fort Sumpter
4. And it was South Carolina.
5. And SOUTH Carolina left the Union months before they decided to start the war by firing on the Union Fort Sumter.
6. The French? Since when did the North seek the help of the French? The French were busy messing with Mexico which pissed the U.S. off (remember the Monroe Doctrine?)

Too funny! You got a Southern edumacation, didn't you?

who said the North wanted help from the French? do you also have a reading problem? The north brought up slavery because the South had send representatives to France for support. The French finding slavery morally wrong, would then refuse to help maintain slavery.
See how that works?

 

[bodecea]

In solidarity with my heritage I am changing my Avatar.

Your heritage is a four year period where your ancestors started a war in support of slavery and got their asses kicked?

you should study up a bit on history before you make the comments.
slavery was only a part of the war, it was started by the north when they fired on Ft Sumpter in Carolina.
Carolina being the first state to leave the union.
Up until the fall of 1862 slavery was not the reason for the war, so basically, the war was not fought over slavery.
The Federal government had explicitly declared that it was fighting solely to save the Union.
Slavery was brought into the equation in order to bring support from the French. At that time, Europe was very much against slavery and the thought of it was a moral travesty.
Since the confederates had already sent representatives to both Britan and France, James M. Mason of Virginia and John Slidell of Louisiana, Mason in England and Slidell in France, the north played the race card to stop the threat of external help for the south.
basically, the north at the time did not really care about slavery, but it was a valued tool of persuasion to foreign governments.

Well that was sort of interesting. But you still left out the reason why everybody got mad at each other in the first place.

That would be cotton, and who grew it and who sold it.

The northern states and their textile mills, which were the backbone of the economy in the early 19th century, couldn't grow it but they would make sure they would control it. Northerners didn't give a phlying phuck about the slaves, most had never even SEEN one. They just wanted to keep the mills open.

If the south had seceded and just sold their cotton crops to Europe as they wanted to do, because they got a better price, the rest of the country would have gone into an unrecoverable economic crash. Everything is always about money.

600,000 Americans died. I can't help but think somebody couldn't have come up with a better solution than killing each other over cotton.

Well, the South had a hissy fit and left...and when that didn't give them the fight they wanted, they fired on a Federal fort. They reaped the whirlwind and are lucky only part of the South got laid waste.