Supreme Court deals blow to Rebel Flag

[toxicmedia]

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?

My great, great great grandfather never own a slave in his life but he joined the 5th Florida Regiment when the filthy union threaten to attack his state and threaten his family.

He fought at the Battle of Olustee when an invasion force of filthy union troops were trying to kill Floridians. He later fought at the defense of Richmond when the the filthy union army was trying to kill Southerners. He was in the Battle of Cold Harbor.

His letters are in the library at the University of Florida. You should go read them. It will tell you a lot more about the reasons the Southern patriots fought than that stupid Jr High School history book that you read that was written by the winners.

One of the things I'm quite guilty of is rockin' my General Sherman avatar on this site when a southern White Nationalist comes along, but you seem like a reasonable fellow.

Another thing I'm guilty of is comparing the morality of 1850's southerners with that of today regarding the justifications for secession written by southerners before the war, especially those of South Carolina and Texas.

I've read a great deal about the etiquette practiced by slave owners, that many ignored, and many think was the standard, I'm not apologizing for any of it, but within that concept the southern slave owners were no more evil on average than anybody else, at any period in our history.

You call the Union soldiers "filthy" and I half expected you to call them "blue bellied devils"...but they too were no more evil than any other invading army tends to be. Robert E. Lee once said 'it is good that war is terrible, otherwise men would grow fond of it.'. The accounts you may have grown up with could be equally romantic in the reverse.

It was a terrible time in America between 1865-1880. Lot's of young civil war vets with PTSD running wild and lawless.

That said...there is no way out of the facts that the North cared less about abolition than they did using that cause to win the war, and there is no doubt that the south seceded over the state's rights issue of the legality of slave ownership

One of the things that the Jr High School history text book written by the winners fail to mention is that the act of secession was not an act of war. The act of war was when Lincoln broke the truce at Ft Sumter with the intent of creating hostilities and he accomplished that goal. He did it without approval of Congress or even with the council of his Cabinet. The real war started the day the sonofabitch sent Union troops to attack Americans.

There are two dimensions to the cause of the war that the Jr High school history text books written by the winners fails to mention.

First is the fact that the North was trying to raid the cash rich South by the imposition of tariffs on the exports of cotton and tobacco to Europe. The North had a couple of recessions (Panics) and they used their majority in Congress to create redistribution of wealth and the South didn't like that oppression. The same thing we see with the Libtards nowadays. Now that didn't affect the average Southern but it did affect he more powerful political leaders.

Second the issue of slavery was a bogus issue for the most part. Slavery was legal in the US for almost 100 years before the war, during the war and for almost a year after the war. However, the issue of slavery was used as a political tool for power in Congress.

During this time there was expansion into the west and the issue of if a new state was going to be admitted would it be free or slave. If it was going to be admitted as free then it was going to be dominated by Republicans and if slave Democrats. That would strengthen the corresponding parties influence in Congress and the governemnt. The great slave debates and speeches in Congress were nothing more than typical political posturing for power. We see the same kind of crap nowadays.

If the war was fought to free the slaves as the Jr High School Histry text says then why did one third of the Confederate states first decide not to leave for the same reasons as SC but changed their mind after that lunatic Lincoln declared he was going to raise an army and kill Americans for the political act of secession? Why was slavery allowed to exist in the US during the war? Why was slavery even exempted in the US from the Emancipation Proclamation in many areas like West Va and occupied New Orleans? Why was DC fortified with slave labor during the war? Why did Lincoln himself say that the war was not fought to free the slaves but "to save the Union"?

The average Southerner during this time (like my Grandfather(3) mentioned above) did not fight for the political reasons. They fought against an Union invasion. They fought to protect their homes from the filthy ass Union troops. There is a lot of evidence of that but it is always ignored by the Jr High School History text written by the winners.

After the deaths of almost a million Americans and the destruction of a third of the country it is too little and too late but the US government owes the people of the South a major apology. The issues of secession could have been settled over time without war if it wasn't for that lunatic Lincoln. That man was crazy.

I think you're asking for too much from junior high school history books, and none of what I wrote, did I learn from them.

I prefer books written by authors that cite directly the words used by politicians and civilians, of which there is an abundance, on the period.

I would recommend "The Firey Trial" by Eric Foner, and I hope you'll forgive my presumptions if I'm mistaken...but it sounds like your assessment of Lincoln's intentions may be unbalanced.

As far as Fort Sumter. I think that issue has less to do with the Confederacy and the Union, than is does Anderson VS Beauregard, and their dialog prior to the "battle". But it was merely the spark that ignited the dry tinder.

The argument is quite simple as has nothing to do with liberals and conservatives today. The south thought they should be able to secede, and the north thought they shouldn't. From there, the arguments get emotional and prone to varying bias up to irrationality.

The US doesn't owe the south an apology because the people who needed to apologize, and hear an apology are dead.

I'm not underexposed to the southern perspective, and paid little attention in junior high, but I feel like my overall feelings about the "hows, whats, and whys" are pretty balanced. If you're looking to justify either side's morality, anyone can find that if they want, most likely at the expense of reality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Their is no true comparison of the patriots of 1775 and the traitors of 1861: none. That is a fallacy of false comparison. The king was violating the law and insisting on taxation without represenation. The South had the law and representation both, working for them. The South could not accept that a Republican for the first time would be president, like many when Obama was elected.

 

[guno]

Too bad for the Sons of Confederate Veterans

Supreme Court says states can block Confederate flag license plates

The justices said in a 5-4 decision that Texas' specialty license plate program is a form of government, not private, speech. The First Amendment does not prohibit the state from rejecting some designs, they said.
"States have long used license plates in this country to convey government messages," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the majority, which included the court's other more liberal justices along with Clarence Thomas. Just as the state cannot force drivers to espouse a particular message, he said, drivers cannot force a state to espouse theirs.




.

And it will be getting much worse for these neo confederates as the demographic shift keeps steamrolling along

 

[JakeStarkey]

The bad old ways of the neo-confederates and racists today continue to slide into the past.

They are on the ash bin of history.

 

[Flash]

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?

My great, great great grandfather never own a slave in his life but he joined the 5th Florida Regiment when the filthy union threaten to attack his state and threaten his family.

He fought at the Battle of Olustee when an invasion force of filthy union troops were trying to kill Floridians. He later fought at the defense of Richmond when the the filthy union army was trying to kill Southerners. He was in the Battle of Cold Harbor.

His letters are in the library at the University of Florida. You should go read them. It will tell you a lot more about the reasons the Southern patriots fought than that stupid Jr High School history book that you read that was written by the winners.

One of the things I'm quite guilty of is rockin' my General Sherman avatar on this site when a southern White Nationalist comes along, but you seem like a reasonable fellow.

Another thing I'm guilty of is comparing the morality of 1850's southerners with that of today regarding the justifications for secession written by southerners before the war, especially those of South Carolina and Texas.

I've read a great deal about the etiquette practiced by slave owners, that many ignored, and many think was the standard, I'm not apologizing for any of it, but within that concept the southern slave owners were no more evil on average than anybody else, at any period in our history.

You call the Union soldiers "filthy" and I half expected you to call them "blue bellied devils"...but they too were no more evil than any other invading army tends to be. Robert E. Lee once said 'it is good that war is terrible, otherwise men would grow fond of it.'. The accounts you may have grown up with could be equally romantic in the reverse.

It was a terrible time in America between 1865-1880. Lot's of young civil war vets with PTSD running wild and lawless.

That said...there is no way out of the facts that the North cared less about abolition than they did using that cause to win the war, and there is no doubt that the south seceded over the state's rights issue of the legality of slave ownership

One of the things that the Jr High School history text book written by the winners fail to mention is that the act of secession was not an act of war. The act of war was when Lincoln broke the truce at Ft Sumter with the intent of creating hostilities and he accomplished that goal. He did it without approval of Congress or even with the council of his Cabinet. The real war started the day the sonofabitch sent Union troops to attack Americans.

There are two dimensions to the cause of the war that the Jr High school history text books written by the winners fails to mention.

First is the fact that the North was trying to raid the cash rich South by the imposition of tariffs on the exports of cotton and tobacco to Europe. The North had a couple of recessions (Panics) and they used their majority in Congress to create redistribution of wealth and the South didn't like that oppression. The same thing we see with the Libtards nowadays. Now that didn't affect the average Southern but it did affect he more powerful political leaders.

Second the issue of slavery was a bogus issue for the most part. Slavery was legal in the US for almost 100 years before the war, during the war and for almost a year after the war. However, the issue of slavery was used as a political tool for power in Congress.

During this time there was expansion into the west and the issue of if a new state was going to be admitted would it be free or slave. If it was going to be admitted as free then it was going to be dominated by Republicans and if slave Democrats. That would strengthen the corresponding parties influence in Congress and the governemnt. The great slave debates and speeches in Congress were nothing more than typical political posturing for power. We see the same kind of crap nowadays.

If the war was fought to free the slaves as the Jr High School Histry text says then why did one third of the Confederate states first decide not to leave for the same reasons as SC but changed their mind after that lunatic Lincoln declared he was going to raise an army and kill Americans for the political act of secession? Why was slavery allowed to exist in the US during the war? Why was slavery even exempted in the US from the Emancipation Proclamation in many areas like West Va and occupied New Orleans? Why was DC fortified with slave labor during the war? Why did Lincoln himself say that the war was not fought to free the slaves but "to save the Union"?

The average Southerner during this time (like my Grandfather(3) mentioned above) did not fight for the political reasons. They fought against an Union invasion. They fought to protect their homes from the filthy ass Union troops. There is a lot of evidence of that but it is always ignored by the Jr High School History text written by the winners.

After the deaths of almost a million Americans and the destruction of a third of the country it is too little and too late but the US government owes the people of the South a major apology. The issues of secession could have been settled over time without war if it wasn't for that lunatic Lincoln. That man was crazy.

I think you're asking for too much from junior high school history books, and none of what I wrote, did I learn from them.

I prefer books written by authors that cite directly the words used by politicians and civilians, of which there is an abundance, on the period.

I would recommend "The Firey Trial" by Eric Foner, and I hope you'll forgive my presumptions if I'm mistaken...but it sounds like your assessment of Lincoln's intentions may be unbalanced.

As far as Fort Sumter. I think that issue has less to do with the Confederacy and the Union, than is does Anderson VS Beauregard, and their dialog prior to the "battle". But it was merely the spark that ignited the dry tinder.

The argument is quite simple as has nothing to do with liberals and conservatives today. The south thought they should be able to secede, and the north thought they shouldn't. From there, the arguments get emotional and prone to varying bias up to irrationality.

The US doesn't owe the south an apology because the people who needed to apologize, and hear an apology are dead.

I'm not underexposed to the southern perspective, and paid little attention in junior high, but I feel like my overall feelings about the "hows, whats, and whys" are pretty balanced. If you're looking to justify either side's morality, anyone can find that if they want, most likely at the expense of reality.

The morality justification for the war (not secession but the actual fighting) is pretty simple.

The Union troops invaded the South and the South resisted the invasion.

The Union raised it regiments to invade and kill and the South raised its regiments to defend against the killing.

Can't get much clearer than that.

You can argue all day long about the factors that led up to secession and if they were right or not. However, you can't deny the fact that several hundred thousand Southerners left their families and took up arms (including my grandfather(3)) because Lincoln had declared that he was going to raise an army and kill Americans.

Like most Southerners at that time my grandfather was more of a Libertarian that had little or no connect to the government or to the rich plantation owners. He paid very little taxes and except for the local sheriff probably had no contact with the government, especially on the Federal level. He left his family and joined the 5th Florida Regiment when he felt threaten by the Federal government and the Union troops. He says that in his letters written over 150 years ago. That is insight as to why Southerners fought that is always left out of the Jr High School history text book written by the winners.

Slavery was used as a moral justification for the war. The winners always get to pick the moral justification for their victories. However, the fact do not support that justification. Not by a long shot.

There are only a very very few reasons the US government should kill Americans. State secession does not meet that moral threshold.

 

[The Wolf]

Blow to free speech.

 

[toxicmedia]

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

My great, great great grandfather never own a slave in his life but he joined the 5th Florida Regiment when the filthy union threaten to attack his state and threaten his family.

He fought at the Battle of Olustee when an invasion force of filthy union troops were trying to kill Floridians. He later fought at the defense of Richmond when the the filthy union army was trying to kill Southerners. He was in the Battle of Cold Harbor.

His letters are in the library at the University of Florida. You should go read them. It will tell you a lot more about the reasons the Southern patriots fought than that stupid Jr High School history book that you read that was written by the winners.

One of the things I'm quite guilty of is rockin' my General Sherman avatar on this site when a southern White Nationalist comes along, but you seem like a reasonable fellow.

Another thing I'm guilty of is comparing the morality of 1850's southerners with that of today regarding the justifications for secession written by southerners before the war, especially those of South Carolina and Texas.

I've read a great deal about the etiquette practiced by slave owners, that many ignored, and many think was the standard, I'm not apologizing for any of it, but within that concept the southern slave owners were no more evil on average than anybody else, at any period in our history.

You call the Union soldiers "filthy" and I half expected you to call them "blue bellied devils"...but they too were no more evil than any other invading army tends to be. Robert E. Lee once said 'it is good that war is terrible, otherwise men would grow fond of it.'. The accounts you may have grown up with could be equally romantic in the reverse.

It was a terrible time in America between 1865-1880. Lot's of young civil war vets with PTSD running wild and lawless.

That said...there is no way out of the facts that the North cared less about abolition than they did using that cause to win the war, and there is no doubt that the south seceded over the state's rights issue of the legality of slave ownership

One of the things that the Jr High School history text book written by the winners fail to mention is that the act of secession was not an act of war. The act of war was when Lincoln broke the truce at Ft Sumter with the intent of creating hostilities and he accomplished that goal. He did it without approval of Congress or even with the council of his Cabinet. The real war started the day the sonofabitch sent Union troops to attack Americans.

There are two dimensions to the cause of the war that the Jr High school history text books written by the winners fails to mention.

First is the fact that the North was trying to raid the cash rich South by the imposition of tariffs on the exports of cotton and tobacco to Europe. The North had a couple of recessions (Panics) and they used their majority in Congress to create redistribution of wealth and the South didn't like that oppression. The same thing we see with the Libtards nowadays. Now that didn't affect the average Southern but it did affect he more powerful political leaders.

Second the issue of slavery was a bogus issue for the most part. Slavery was legal in the US for almost 100 years before the war, during the war and for almost a year after the war. However, the issue of slavery was used as a political tool for power in Congress.

During this time there was expansion into the west and the issue of if a new state was going to be admitted would it be free or slave. If it was going to be admitted as free then it was going to be dominated by Republicans and if slave Democrats. That would strengthen the corresponding parties influence in Congress and the governemnt. The great slave debates and speeches in Congress were nothing more than typical political posturing for power. We see the same kind of crap nowadays.

If the war was fought to free the slaves as the Jr High School Histry text says then why did one third of the Confederate states first decide not to leave for the same reasons as SC but changed their mind after that lunatic Lincoln declared he was going to raise an army and kill Americans for the political act of secession? Why was slavery allowed to exist in the US during the war? Why was slavery even exempted in the US from the Emancipation Proclamation in many areas like West Va and occupied New Orleans? Why was DC fortified with slave labor during the war? Why did Lincoln himself say that the war was not fought to free the slaves but "to save the Union"?

The average Southerner during this time (like my Grandfather(3) mentioned above) did not fight for the political reasons. They fought against an Union invasion. They fought to protect their homes from the filthy ass Union troops. There is a lot of evidence of that but it is always ignored by the Jr High School History text written by the winners.

After the deaths of almost a million Americans and the destruction of a third of the country it is too little and too late but the US government owes the people of the South a major apology. The issues of secession could have been settled over time without war if it wasn't for that lunatic Lincoln. That man was crazy.

I think you're asking for too much from junior high school history books, and none of what I wrote, did I learn from them.

I prefer books written by authors that cite directly the words used by politicians and civilians, of which there is an abundance, on the period.

I would recommend "The Firey Trial" by Eric Foner, and I hope you'll forgive my presumptions if I'm mistaken...but it sounds like your assessment of Lincoln's intentions may be unbalanced.

As far as Fort Sumter. I think that issue has less to do with the Confederacy and the Union, than is does Anderson VS Beauregard, and their dialog prior to the "battle". But it was merely the spark that ignited the dry tinder.

The argument is quite simple as has nothing to do with liberals and conservatives today. The south thought they should be able to secede, and the north thought they shouldn't. From there, the arguments get emotional and prone to varying bias up to irrationality.

The US doesn't owe the south an apology because the people who needed to apologize, and hear an apology are dead.

I'm not underexposed to the southern perspective, and paid little attention in junior high, but I feel like my overall feelings about the "hows, whats, and whys" are pretty balanced. If you're looking to justify either side's morality, anyone can find that if they want, most likely at the expense of reality.

The morality justification for the war (not secession but the actual fighting) is pretty simple.

The Union troops invaded the South and the South resisted the invasion.

The Union raised it regiments to invade and kill and the South raised its regiments to defend against the killing.

Can't get much clearer than that.

You can argue all day long about the factors that led up to secession and if they were right or not. However, you can't deny the fact that several hundred thousand Southerners left their families and took up arms (including my grandfather(3)) because Lincoln had declared that he was going to raise an army and kill Americans.

Like most Southerners at that time my grandfather was more of a Libertarian that had little or no connect to the government or to the rich plantation owners. He paid very little taxes and except for the local sheriff probably had no contact with the government, especially on the Federal level. He left his family and joined the 5th Florida Regiment when he felt threaten by the Federal government and the Union troops. He says that in his letters written over 150 years ago. That is insight as to why Southerners fought that is always left out of the Jr High School history text book written by the winners.

Slavery was used as a moral justification for the war. The winners always get to pick the moral justification for their victories. However, the fact do not support that justification. Not by a long shot.

There are only a very very few reasons the US government should kill Americans. State secession does not meet that moral threshold.

Wow, I agree factually, with everything you wrote. Imagine that.

Union troops did invade the South and the South resisted the invasion. That's the southern position. But people like Andrew Jackson had already existed by that time, and the US was long into it's mission to create one nation spanning the continent. Andrew Jackson raised regiments to invade Florida and kill the Spanish, and the Spanish defended against the killing. He captured military posts, and also arrested and killed British subjects. Then the US took over and your ancestors defended it again a generation later.

The justifications for secession all include the word slavery in great quantity, and those are their word, not mine or yours. Do a CTRL "F" on them, and see for yourself.

Legal Justification of the South in Secession

 

[JakeStarkey]

Slavery is central to the Old South and to secession.

That is all we need to know that the South had the low road.

 

[Flash]

[Wow, I agree factually, with everything you wrote. Imagine that.

Union troops did invade the South and the South resisted the invasion. That's the southern position. But people like Andrew Jackson had already existed by that time, and the US was long into it's mission to create one nation spanning the continent. Andrew Jackson raised regiments to invade Florida and kill the Spanish, and the Spanish defended against the killing. He captured military posts, and also arrested and killed British subjects. Then the US took over and your ancestors defended it again a generation later.

The justifications for secession all include the word slavery in great quantity, and those are their word, not mine or yours. Do a CTRL "F" on them, and see for yourself.

Legal Justification of the South in Secession

You missed my point entirely.

You can discuss and argue all day long about the reasons for secession and if they were justified or not.

I personally think that the real energy in the Republicans resisting slavery was so that they could get more political power by having non slave states into the expansion into the west. Politics of power, plain and simple. You see it today. You have to remember than nobody, even Lincoln, was advocating ending slavery in the US in 1861. There were people that were against slavery but there was no serious political movement, led by the Republicans, to put an immediate end to it.

However, all that political crap aside, the point that you missed is that the hundreds of thousands of Confederate soldiers did not fight to protect slavery or even secession. They fought to protect their homeland from the invasion that Lincoln initiated. That was the war.

The thing that most Americans have a very difficult time doing is separating the reasons for the secession from the reasons of the war.

Lincoln did not start the war and invade the South to free the slaves. He didn't even free the slaves in the US or parts of the occupied South. He invaded the South to "preserve the Union" (his words). The people in the South fought against the invasion, which was the proper and courageous thing to do.

The thing that we have to do nowadays is face the moral question of was it right to kill Americans that wanted the freedom of their own self determination.

I would never want to kill somebody because they did not want to part of the US anymore. That would be immoral, wouldn't it?

It Texas seceded from the Union nowadays would you think it was justified to kill them for it? I wouldn't it. I would want them to be free if that was their wishes.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually I agree with this ruling.

I do think people who's knee jerk reaction to the Rebel Flag is of derision and spite are as bigoted as they insist the display of the flag is.

In this case however the State of (any state) TX should not be forced to emblazon an image in a plate if it has a concern that it would be found offensive to a significant percentage of it's population for rational reasons.

I think black people particularly have a rational reason to be offended at the flag. Not everyone who displays it is a racist though. Some people feel it is a symbol of rebellion and heritage, not hate.

Now if the atheitards started getting butthurt about Christian symbols on plates they can just go get some Preparation-H and fuck themselves. There is no rational reason to be offended by religious symbols.

I do as well. The state has no business promoting any sort of symbol.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Communist BS. The flag hurts no one. It's just another "politically correct" statement to pacify the masses.

Be that as it may - or may not - the state putting it on a license plate is essentially endorsing it. You have the right to display what you please - but the state should no more have battle flag license plates than they should have Che Guevara plates for shitflinger and Blindfool.

 

[there4eyeM]

So, the troops on maneuvers in Texas are invading?
US troops moving across state lines in the US are invading those states?
Hmmm...

 

[Uncensored2008]

So, the troops on maneuvers in Texas are invading?
US troops moving across state lines in the US are invading those states?
Hmmm...

Don't you think you've huffed quite enough Easy-Off for one day?

 

[Sonny Clark]

Communist BS. The flag hurts no one. It's just another "politically correct" statement to pacify the masses.

Be that as it may - or may not - the state putting it on a license plate is essentially endorsing it. You have the right to display what you please - but the state should no more have battle flag license plates than they should have Che Guevara plates for shitflinger and Blindfool.

My plate has a University Of Alabama logo. I see plates with the Mason logo. I see plates with the U.S. Government logo. I see all kinds of plates. A U.S. Government plate is offensive to me. Should all plates that are offensive to different ones be discontinued? I'll bet a lot of people are offended by my Alabama logo that's on my Georgia plate. I see bumper stickers that offend me, should they be against the law? Where do we draw the line? How many people in this country aren't offended by anything at all?

 

[Sonny Clark]

Actually I agree with this ruling.

I do think people who's knee jerk reaction to the Rebel Flag is of derision and spite are as bigoted as they insist the display of the flag is.

In this case however the State of (any state) TX should not be forced to emblazon an image in a plate if it has a concern that it would be found offensive to a significant percentage of it's population for rational reasons.

I think black people particularly have a rational reason to be offended at the flag. Not everyone who displays it is a racist though. Some people feel it is a symbol of rebellion and heritage, not hate.

Now if the atheitards started getting butthurt about Christian symbols on plates they can just go get some Preparation-H and fuck themselves. There is no rational reason to be offended by religious symbols.

I do as well. The state has no business promoting any sort of symbol.

So, should state symbols be against the law? They promote a state, right? States promote tourism through literature, logos, symbols, signs, and ads.

 

[there4eyeM]

How does the movement of Federal troops equal invasion?

 

[Uncensored2008]

My plate has a University Of Alabama logo. I see plates with the Mason logo. I see plates with the U.S. Government logo. I see all kinds of plates. A U.S. Government plate is offensive to me. Should all plates that are offensive to different ones be discontinued? I'll bet a lot of people are offended by my Alabama logo that's on my Georgia plate. I see bumper stickers that offend me, should they be against the law? Where do we draw the line? How many people in this country aren't offended by anything at all?

In law, there is a test called "the reasonable man." This is essentially "would a reasonable man find a Government plate offensive?" Notice, this is NOT would an Al Qaeda member find offense.

The state should not advocate for controversial images. Not battle flags for you or Che license plates for Blindfool.

 

[jillian]

It's on our state flag, and we ain't gonna change it.

mississippi state flag pictures - Yahoo Search Results

I think you should keep flying a racist treasonous flag.

Damn right! And we celebrate Robert E. Lee Day and Confederate Memorial Day. In fact, I fly my Rebel flag every 4th of July and fire my little toy cannon in "meberence of the surrender of Vicksburg and the Battle of Gettysburg and the beginning of the end of the Glorious Cause.

My daughter better not bring home no Yankee from that fancy ass northern liberal arts school my wife made me let her go to. (-:

if she's smart enough for a "fancy ass northern liberal arts school", I'm pretty sure she will. so get used to it.

 

[Dana7360]

Actually I agree with this ruling.

I do think people who's knee jerk reaction to the Rebel Flag is of derision and spite are as bigoted as they insist the display of the flag is.

In this case however the State of (any state) TX should not be forced to emblazon an image in a plate if it has a concern that it would be found offensive to a significant percentage of it's population for rational reasons.

I think black people particularly have a rational reason to be offended at the flag. Not everyone who displays it is a racist though. Some people feel it is a symbol of rebellion and heritage, not hate.

Now if the atheitards started getting butthurt about Christian symbols on plates they can just go get some Preparation-H and fuck themselves. There is no rational reason to be offended by religious symbols.

Communist BS. The flag hurts no one. It's just another "politically correct" statement to pacify the masses.

Justice thomas is a communist?

You're saying that the first bush appointed a communist to the supreme court?

Wow.

 

[jillian]

It's on our state flag, and we ain't gonna change it.

mississippi state flag pictures - Yahoo Search Results

I think you should keep flying a racist treasonous flag.

"Treason" against a filthy out of control tyrannical government is a good thing, Moon Bat.

you calling me a "moonbat", loon doesn't make me one. it just means you're a rightwingnuthacktard

and neo-confederate insurrectionists who support treason shouldn't pretend they're patriots, little boy.