Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
Anyone engaged in commerce is subject to PA laws. Most PA laws don't express my beliefs.
A license plate isn't commerce.
Actually custom plates are commerce, the state makes a profit on them over and above normal fees.
Then it would follow that if something is offensive, then the state shouldn't promote it. I'm offended by what the states do. What are my rights?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.
I have never ever said any such thing.Communist BS. The flag hurts no one. It's just another "politically correct" statement to pacify the masses.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.
Justice thomas is a communist?
You're saying that the first bush appointed a communist to the supreme court?
Wow.
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?
Anyone engaged in commerce is subject to PA laws. Most PA laws don't express my beliefs.
A license plate isn't commerce.
Actually custom plates are commerce, the state makes a profit on them over and above normal fees.
that doesn't quite make them commerce.
it's a pretty narrow decision. it doesn't affect free speech rights of individuals, it affects the ability of individuals to force the state to place its imprimatur on something that the state doesn't wish to be associated with.
if someone wanted to put "allah Akbar" or "death to the infidel" on their license plate and force the state to do that, would you take the same position?
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 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?
Anyone engaged in commerce is subject to PA laws. Most PA laws don't express my beliefs.
A license plate isn't commerce.
Actually custom plates are commerce, the state makes a profit on them over and above normal fees.
that doesn't quite make them commerce.
it's a pretty narrow decision. it doesn't affect free speech rights of individuals, it affects the ability of individuals to force the state to place its imprimatur on something that the state doesn't wish to be associated with.
if someone wanted to put "allah Akbar" or "death to the infidel" on their license plate and force the state to do that, would you take the same position?
Yep, if the state choses to sell the right to place personal messages on plates it should be open to all comers.
Burning myself how? In what way? The conversation is about the Confederate Flag being offensive. Have you not been following the thread? If it's offensive, and not allowed on plates, then it follows that other symbols that are offensive shouldn't be allowed either. Am I correct, or is the argument one of just certain offensive items, and all others are A-OK?Because it is offensive does not make it constitutional or unconstitutional. Strawman, sonny, and you are burning yourself.
Right, but the state can force a baker to express your beliefs, right?
Anyone engaged in commerce is subject to PA laws. Most PA laws don't express my beliefs.
A license plate isn't commerce.
Actually custom plates are commerce, the state makes a profit on them over and above normal fees.
that doesn't quite make them commerce.
it's a pretty narrow decision. it doesn't affect free speech rights of individuals, it affects the ability of individuals to force the state to place its imprimatur on something that the state doesn't wish to be associated with.
if someone wanted to put "allah Akbar" or "death to the infidel" on their license plate and force the state to do that, would you take the same position?
Yep, if the state choses to sell the right to place personal messages on plates it should be open to all comers.
The Supreme Court clearly disagrees. I'm gonna go with their assessment over your assumptions.
Anyone engaged in commerce is subject to PA laws. Most PA laws don't express my beliefs.
A license plate isn't commerce.
Actually custom plates are commerce, the state makes a profit on them over and above normal fees.
that doesn't quite make them commerce.
it's a pretty narrow decision. it doesn't affect free speech rights of individuals, it affects the ability of individuals to force the state to place its imprimatur on something that the state doesn't wish to be associated with.
if someone wanted to put "allah Akbar" or "death to the infidel" on their license plate and force the state to do that, would you take the same position?
Yep, if the state choses to sell the right to place personal messages on plates it should be open to all comers.
The Supreme Court clearly disagrees. I'm gonna go with their assessment over your assumptions.
Yep, the court has proven time and again they have no problem with governments not following the laws they have in place for their citizens. Evidently neither do you big government types.
Actually custom plates are commerce, the state makes a profit on them over and above normal fees.
that doesn't quite make them commerce.
it's a pretty narrow decision. it doesn't affect free speech rights of individuals, it affects the ability of individuals to force the state to place its imprimatur on something that the state doesn't wish to be associated with.
if someone wanted to put "allah Akbar" or "death to the infidel" on their license plate and force the state to do that, would you take the same position?
Yep, if the state choses to sell the right to place personal messages on plates it should be open to all comers.
The Supreme Court clearly disagrees. I'm gonna go with their assessment over your assumptions.
Yep, the court has proven time and again they have no problem with governments not following the laws they have in place for their citizens. Evidently neither do you big government types.
Or.....you don't know what you're talking about.
One or the other.
that doesn't quite make them commerce.
it's a pretty narrow decision. it doesn't affect free speech rights of individuals, it affects the ability of individuals to force the state to place its imprimatur on something that the state doesn't wish to be associated with.
if someone wanted to put "allah Akbar" or "death to the infidel" on their license plate and force the state to do that, would you take the same position?
Yep, if the state choses to sell the right to place personal messages on plates it should be open to all comers.
The Supreme Court clearly disagrees. I'm gonna go with their assessment over your assumptions.
Yep, the court has proven time and again they have no problem with governments not following the laws they have in place for their citizens. Evidently neither do you big government types.
Or.....you don't know what you're talking about.
One or the other.
Damn, how could anyone possibly respond to such a well thought out, detailed rebuttal?
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.
Then it would follow that if something is offensive, then the state shouldn't promote it. I'm offended by what the states do. What are my rights?
You're trying to pick a fight that I'm not trying to put up.[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.
There are over 6 billion people on this planet. And, there are probably that many opinions on any given subject. What is offensive to one, may not be offensive to another. I'm not a mind reader, and do not spend my time taking surveys. So, to answer your question, I have no idea as to what others would find offensive that I myself find offensive.Then it would follow that if something is offensive, then the state shouldn't promote it. I'm offended by what the states do. What are my rights?
Would a reasonable man find offense in what offends you?
Yep, if the state choses to sell the right to place personal messages on plates it should be open to all comers.
The Supreme Court clearly disagrees. I'm gonna go with their assessment over your assumptions.
Yep, the court has proven time and again they have no problem with governments not following the laws they have in place for their citizens. Evidently neither do you big government types.
Or.....you don't know what you're talking about.
One or the other.
Damn, how could anyone possibly respond to such a well thought out, detailed rebuttal?
Laughing....you're basing your entire argument on your personal opinion that the court is wrong and you are right.
I'm pointing out that you being completely off base is most definitely an option. And given its you vs. the Supreme Court, its probable.
You're trying to pick a fight that I'm not trying to put up.[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.
I didn't need you to tell me Confederate soldiers did not fight to protect slavery, or even secession, but to protect their homeland.
At the end of the day you're simply demonizing Lincoln, and vindicating the south as if that whole struggle was black and white. South justified VS North evil.
On that, if I understand, we would dissagree
Enough with the junior high school books.You're trying to pick a fight that I'm not trying to put up.[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.
I didn't need you to tell me Confederate soldiers did not fight to protect slavery, or even secession, but to protect their homeland.
At the end of the day you're simply demonizing Lincoln, and vindicating the south as if that whole struggle was black and white. South justified VS North evil.
On that, if I understand, we would dissagree
I just call history as I see it, even if is is politically incorrect and is not the verson taught in Jr High School.
I would suggest that if you really want to know why the Confederate soldiers fought then go read some of their letters and accounts. They tell a much different story than the Jr High School History Text written by the winners of the Civil War.
