Tennessee school district bans all flags, including American Flag

[ogibillm]

but to be clear..you think the colonists in 1776 in the american revolution were traitors? Is that correct?

It's not a matter of what i think or believe, it's a matter of reality. They were traitors. They fought a rebellion against their own country.

 

[Rotagilla]

but to be clear..you think the colonists in 1776 in the american revolution were traitors? Is that correct?

It's not a matter of what i think or believe, it's a matter of reality. They were traitors. They fought a rebellion against their own country.

That's some interesting logic. You cite "reality" as your source over the written words of the people there at the time and published history.
you've been shown that what you say isn't true, yet you pretend not to hear.

Secession wasn't "illegal".

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

No, they were fighting for their own country just like American revolutionary soldiers.

no, they weren't. they were fighting against their own country - and so were the american revolutionary soldiers.

So by your own (il)logic, that makes you a traitor.

I'm not fighting against my country

You just said England was your country.

Please, provide the quote.

Look at this post. Go back about five lines. American revolutionaries "were fighting against their own country". Your words.

 

[ogibillm]

by definition they were traitors.
and you prove your idiocy by using the ignorant term "war of northern aggression"
there was nothing aggressive in the north's actions.

an invasion is "aggression".

a country can't invade itself.

that is correct.

The southern states had legally seceded after legally holding a legal vote in their legally elected legislatures.
The north invaded a sovereign country

No, they hadn't. Secession isn't and wasn't legal

Go ahead and post your source for that one.

Texas v white

 

[ogibillm]

no, they weren't. they were fighting against their own country - and so were the american revolutionary soldiers.

So by your own (il)logic, that makes you a traitor.

I'm not fighting against my country

You just said England was your country.

Please, provide the quote.

Look at this post. Go back about five lines. American revolutionaries "were fighting against their own country". Your words.

Right. They were fighting against england, they were subjects of england and a part of england and no other country

But i am not and never have been an english citizen or subject of the queen

 

[Rotagilla]

an invasion is "aggression".

a country can't invade itself.

that is correct.

The southern states had legally seceded after legally holding a legal vote in their legally elected legislatures.
The north invaded a sovereign country

No, they hadn't. Secession isn't and wasn't legal

Go ahead and post your source for that one.

Texas v white

irrelevant. Do you even know the dates of the war of northern aggression?
Look again at the "case" you cite.

 

[ogibillm]

a country can't invade itself.

that is correct.

The southern states had legally seceded after legally holding a legal vote in their legally elected legislatures.
The north invaded a sovereign country

No, they hadn't. Secession isn't and wasn't legal

Go ahead and post your source for that one.

Texas v white

irrelevant. Do you even know the dates of the war of northern aggression?
Look again at the "case" you cite.

There's no such thing as the "war of northern aggression"

 

[Rotagilla]

that is correct.

The southern states had legally seceded after legally holding a legal vote in their legally elected legislatures.
The north invaded a sovereign country

No, they hadn't. Secession isn't and wasn't legal

Go ahead and post your source for that one.

Texas v white

irrelevant. Do you even know the dates of the war of northern aggression?
Look again at the "case" you cite.

There's no such thing as the "war of northern aggression"

1861-1865 The U.S.A. vs. the C.S.A.
Call it whatever YOU want...

Regardless, your argument about the legality of secession regarding the C.S.A. is shot.

 

[ogibillm]

No, they hadn't. Secession isn't and wasn't legal

Go ahead and post your source for that one.

Texas v white

irrelevant. Do you even know the dates of the war of northern aggression?
Look again at the "case" you cite.

There's no such thing as the "war of northern aggression"

1861-1865 The U.S.A. vs. the C.S.A.
Call it whatever YOU want...

Regardless, your argument about the legality of secession regarding the C.S.A. is shot.

no, it isn't. there is no unilateral secession under our constitution. what the attempted secessionists did was un-constitutional as texas v white makes clear.

and the term for the war between the united states and the rebels is called the civil war, or more accurately the american civil war.

 

[Rotagilla]

Go ahead and post your source for that one.

Texas v white

irrelevant. Do you even know the dates of the war of northern aggression?
Look again at the "case" you cite.

There's no such thing as the "war of northern aggression"

1861-1865 The U.S.A. vs. the C.S.A.
Call it whatever YOU want...

Regardless, your argument about the legality of secession regarding the C.S.A. is shot.

no, it isn't. there is no unilateral secession under our constitution. what the attempted secessionists did was un-constitutional as texas v white makes clear.

and the term for the war between the united states and the rebels is called the civil war, or more accurately the american civil war.

texas vs white is completely irrelevant. I've explained this to you already. Look at the date of the case..look at the year the south seceded.

and further,
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You're in deep water..Way over your head here.

 

[ogibillm]

Texas v white

irrelevant. Do you even know the dates of the war of northern aggression?
Look again at the "case" you cite.

There's no such thing as the "war of northern aggression"

1861-1865 The U.S.A. vs. the C.S.A.
Call it whatever YOU want...

Regardless, your argument about the legality of secession regarding the C.S.A. is shot.

no, it isn't. there is no unilateral secession under our constitution. what the attempted secessionists did was un-constitutional as texas v white makes clear.

and the term for the war between the united states and the rebels is called the civil war, or more accurately the american civil war.

texas vs white is completely irrelevant. I've explained this to you already. Look at the date of the case..look at the year the south seceded.

and further,
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You're in deep water..Way over your head here.

the dates of the case don't matter, that just means that when the southern states attempted to secede the issue had not yet been decided by the scotus. the supreme court ruled that unilateral secession was un-constitutional and their decision was not based on any changes to the constitution enacted after the traitors tried to secede.

 

[Rotagilla]

irrelevant. Do you even know the dates of the war of northern aggression?
Look again at the "case" you cite.

There's no such thing as the "war of northern aggression"

1861-1865 The U.S.A. vs. the C.S.A.
Call it whatever YOU want...

Regardless, your argument about the legality of secession regarding the C.S.A. is shot.

no, it isn't. there is no unilateral secession under our constitution. what the attempted secessionists did was un-constitutional as texas v white makes clear.

and the term for the war between the united states and the rebels is called the civil war, or more accurately the american civil war.

texas vs white is completely irrelevant. I've explained this to you already. Look at the date of the case..look at the year the south seceded.

and further,
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You're in deep water..Way over your head here.

the dates of the case don't matter, that just means that when the southern states attempted to secede the issue had not yet been decided by the scotus. the supreme court ruled that unilateral secession was un-constitutional and their decision was not based on any changes to the constitution enacted after the traitors tried to secede.

"the dates of the case don't matter"?
Your whole "argument" hinged on that case...but it was AFTER the "civil war".... and you think somehow by magic you can make it retroactive.... that's priceless..

...you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[ogibillm]

There's no such thing as the "war of northern aggression"

1861-1865 The U.S.A. vs. the C.S.A.
Call it whatever YOU want...

Regardless, your argument about the legality of secession regarding the C.S.A. is shot.

no, it isn't. there is no unilateral secession under our constitution. what the attempted secessionists did was un-constitutional as texas v white makes clear.

and the term for the war between the united states and the rebels is called the civil war, or more accurately the american civil war.

texas vs white is completely irrelevant. I've explained this to you already. Look at the date of the case..look at the year the south seceded.

and further,
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You're in deep water..Way over your head here.

the dates of the case don't matter, that just means that when the southern states attempted to secede the issue had not yet been decided by the scotus. the supreme court ruled that unilateral secession was un-constitutional and their decision was not based on any changes to the constitution enacted after the traitors tried to secede.

"the dates of the case don't matter"?
Your whole "argument" hinged on that case...but it was AFTER the "civil war".... and you think somehow by magic you can make it retroactive.... that's priceless..

...you have no idea what you're talking about.

oh my. you're worse off than i thought. laws aren't retroactive. but the decision wasn't creating law (no decision does) it was interpreting the constitution. the constitution pre-dates the traitors moves to secede.

you really did fail history and civics, didn't you?

 

[Rotagilla]

1861-1865 The U.S.A. vs. the C.S.A.
Call it whatever YOU want...

Regardless, your argument about the legality of secession regarding the C.S.A. is shot.

no, it isn't. there is no unilateral secession under our constitution. what the attempted secessionists did was un-constitutional as texas v white makes clear.

and the term for the war between the united states and the rebels is called the civil war, or more accurately the american civil war.

texas vs white is completely irrelevant. I've explained this to you already. Look at the date of the case..look at the year the south seceded.

and further,
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You're in deep water..Way over your head here.

the dates of the case don't matter, that just means that when the southern states attempted to secede the issue had not yet been decided by the scotus. the supreme court ruled that unilateral secession was un-constitutional and their decision was not based on any changes to the constitution enacted after the traitors tried to secede.

"the dates of the case don't matter"?
Your whole "argument" hinged on that case...but it was AFTER the "civil war".... and you think somehow by magic you can make it retroactive.... that's priceless..

...you have no idea what you're talking about.

oh my. you're worse off than i thought. laws aren't retroactive. but the decision wasn't creating law (no decision does) it was interpreting the constitution. the constitution pre-dates the traitors moves to secede.

you really did fail history and civics, didn't you?

Ok.you've completely abandoned reason and honesty so I'm done with you.

The south tried to peacefully and legally withdraw from the union.

The north sent troops to re supply and reinforce a fort they no longer owned. That is an invasion. The patriots of the south, like the patriots in 1776 and patriots everywhere, fought to repel the invaders.


I can only hope you take those facts with you and do some research on your own.

 

[doctordog]

1. How lost is the USA when PC takes over and the American flag is banned from the school? Liberal policies are winning out turning our schools and communities into areas full of hatred.

Dickson County, TN- a Tennessee school district is banning all flags, including Old Glory.

School leaders in Dickson County decided, after a summer of controversy surrounding the Confederate flag, the wise thing to do would be to ban all flags and banners.

Some students are angry as they feel their patriotism is being compromised.

School leaders said there is a right and wrong way to show American pride:

"It's not an unpatriotic act by any means because we have a number of ways in which students do learn how to be patriotic and express American pride."

One student said, "I just think that's a right...it's freedom of expression and I don't think you should be able to take that away from us."

Tennessee school district bans all flags, including American Flag

That's Nashville.........bunch of idiots.

Homeless are all of the sudden everywhere.

Dickson County is not Nashville

 

[IsaacNewton]

Red States are now banning the American flag, what next conservatives? Banning pictures of Jesus from schools?

Red States are the new Red Menace.

 

[ogibillm]

no, it isn't. there is no unilateral secession under our constitution. what the attempted secessionists did was un-constitutional as texas v white makes clear.

and the term for the war between the united states and the rebels is called the civil war, or more accurately the american civil war.

texas vs white is completely irrelevant. I've explained this to you already. Look at the date of the case..look at the year the south seceded.

and further,
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You're in deep water..Way over your head here.

the dates of the case don't matter, that just means that when the southern states attempted to secede the issue had not yet been decided by the scotus. the supreme court ruled that unilateral secession was un-constitutional and their decision was not based on any changes to the constitution enacted after the traitors tried to secede.

"the dates of the case don't matter"?
Your whole "argument" hinged on that case...but it was AFTER the "civil war".... and you think somehow by magic you can make it retroactive.... that's priceless..

...you have no idea what you're talking about.

oh my. you're worse off than i thought. laws aren't retroactive. but the decision wasn't creating law (no decision does) it was interpreting the constitution. the constitution pre-dates the traitors moves to secede.

you really did fail history and civics, didn't you?

Ok.you've completely abandoned reason and honesty so I'm done with you.

The south tried to peacefully and legally withdraw from the union.

The north sent troops to re supply and reinforce a fort they no longer owned. That is an invasion. The patriots of the south, like the patriots in 1776 and patriots everywhere, fought to repel the invaders.


I can only hope you take those facts with you and do some research on your own.

you fundamentally do not understand the definition of 'patriot' and 'invasion'
your view of history and the constitution is troubling. how did you graduate high school? did you?

 

[Rotagilla]

Red States are now banning the American flag, what next conservatives? Banning pictures of Jesus from schools?

Red States are the new Red Menace.

weak.