50 bad ideas

Governor of SC Nikki Haley calls for removal of Confederate Flag from state capitol grounds...

Article here - Washington Post

I've seen and read ZERO stories calling for a ban, which would be against the First Amendment. The ONLY things I have seen are stories about removing the flag from government sponsored "speech" (government property other than museums, government flagpoles, license plates, etc). A US citizen can fly any flag he or she wants, provided they are willing to accept the consequences of exercising their free speech rights.

The question is should it be banned on government buildings (part of a state flag).

The answer is "Yes. Ban it as s state flag or flown on government buildings or government property (exception: historical reenactment or at historical location where appropriate to tell the story."

Ban it outright? "No." Why not? I want to see who the racists are.

The Confederate flag did not make that crazy boy shoot those people in that church, neither did his gun. The people who "have feelings" abot the flag, will find something else to be butthurt about.

Soon we'll see people who have feelings about the American flag's history calling for it to be removed, at minimum, redesigned, just you wait and see. "Just too much negative history behind it"

You're an idiot lost in revisionist history.

The confederate flag is the flag of treason against America.
They went to war against an elected standing American president.

End of story.

yeah the flag is shooting and killing people ...

let's see..... black on black crime/murder is at genocidal proportions, black fathers are abandoning their families at an all time high, 70%, generally a large percentage of the black population is illiterate at worst, semi illiterate at best, high unemployment if not completely unemployable, the terror threat is in the red, Russia and China are making moves to consolidate territory... uhmmmm I wonder..... what could it be......???????


oh yeah..... I see that being the fault of some piece of shit flag hanging on some shitty building is SC... makes perfect sense and thank God POTUS is shouting out to his 'niggas' in the media.....

we should have gotten rid of that piece of shit flag 150 years ago and we would all be sitting around the campfire singing Kumbaya in racial fucking harmony!!!!!!

Voted for yes.

Flying the Confederate flag on a US Gov't building is flying a rebel flag for traitors. The South wanted to break away and become their own country. It's ridiculous and remains there simply to race bait and stir up the population because it suits a political agenda by the powers that be. It's retarded and Southerners who relish their 'tradition'....well, I could go on and on about how retarded they are.

Hey Southern States: Get rid of the flag or we'll pull a General Sherman on you and burn your cities to the ground. Remember those fun times? No? Rent Gone With The Wind.

Larry Wilmore on The Nightly Show pretty much summed it up well. His two best points:

1. Take it down NOW then 'debate' whether to put it back up or not. How about that?
2. Why don't we fly the Union Jack on The White House lawn as 'respect' for our 'traditions'?

Whatever. Like abortion, guns, taxes, immigration and welfare (and many others) this topic is simply distraction and diversion so the people in power can continue to do whatever the fuck they want while Americans 'debate' this nonsense. Carry on....

Walmart and Sears are banning all merchandise with any link to the confederate flag.

The first line out of the Walmart spokesman's mouth regarding their decision: ""We never want to offend anyone with the products that we offer. "

And American revolution was a treason against Great Britain. Are you mildly retarded?

Let societal and free market pressure take care of it. Banning involves government coercion limiting free speech. If people wish to vote to bring down the flag from a government building, that's fine. However they don't have the right to dictate to individuals or private businesses what they can say, or flag they fly, with the use of government force.

Even speaking as a Jew, I object to the banning of the Nazi flag, or banning holocaust denial, or banning ANY kind of speech. Does some speech offend me? Sure. Do I have some right to not be offended by anybody, which enables me to use government force to dictate what they can say, or what symbols they can use? NO!!





.

Good point, no British government buildings fly the American flag or vice versa.

Idiot.


:1orglaugh

I doubt very seriously if they study the American revolution in black history, a black girl I was shooting had never heard of romans before, no shit.... ... black history goes like this:

*Africa is the garden of Eden until the white man fucks it up
*Egyptian were the greatest black race ever lived and had flying saucers until the white homosexual child killers came and fucked it up
*Egyptians founded Greece and then Greeks founded Rome and it was awesome until white homosexual child killers came and fucked it up
*black Christopher Columbus discovered America 1000 years after black Egyptians had already been here and left... because the blacks loved and respected the American Indians
*black taken as slaves by the white homosexual child killers.
*the civil war
*whitey fucks black people over
*George Washington Carver invents peanut butter
*martin Luther King
*whitey fucks black people over
*Barck Jesus Obama
*kanya west
*whitey fucks black people over

very positive statement .. that's my thinking on Christians

I think that the flag should come down from government buildings, because it symbolizes slavery.... however, you should read the 10th amendment, as well as the federalist papers, to see the clear right that states were granted, to secede from the union. Slavery is the most hideous crime on the planet, and I'm glad it was eradicated here.... (I wish it wasn't still sanctioned in so much of the world still...), however these are two separate issues.

There may be another time in the future when a state votes that they wish to secede from the union, (maybe New Hampshire), and they will, and should, have the right to do so without being invaded by federal troops.


:2 cents:

actually, you're the revisionist. the secession was not treason.

the Constitution created a confederation of sovereign states.

Well there you go. Since every single damn thing in the US is about MONEY these days take the flag down based on economic reasons. Bad for business.

Unless, of course, you are in the business of racism. Ever been to Charleston? I have. It's like a living breathing museum of racism, the Confederacy and slavery. Fun, bring the whole family.

you might find this enjoyable

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secess..._United_States

I find a lot of debate an uncertainty about whether a state can secede in the way the confederates did it.

Some say they had no right to secede and others say they did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

Years ago there was a Jewish professor at a college in NY and someone painted a swastika on his office door. The offenders were arrested and punished, but the professor wasn't in a hurry to remove the swastika. When he was asked about it by the local news he told them the swastika was a constant reminder of a time when good triumphed over evil. For him the swastika wasn't a symbol of hate, but instead a symbol of hope.

The confederate flag is very similar. It represents a massive failure by the southern states. While I understand it's a part of our history and should not be ignore, it also should not be flown on government buildings.

Seriously dude, the professor simply wanted to milk the sympathy.

:1orglaugh

Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god?

And if you look around any Government office you will find some interesting religious icons.

The founders were completely in favor of the right to secede. The United States had just seceded from the British Empire, exercising the right of the people to “alter or abolish”, by force, if necessary, a despotic government. The Declaration of Independence is the most famous act of secession in our history, even though now, somehow “secession” sounds different from, and more sinister than, "claiming independence". The fact was that the US colonies had seceded from the British Empire. The states were then known as a "confederation" of states, in which each state retained it's freedom, independence, and sovereignty, and powers of the federal government were granted and delegated by those sovereign states. Three states ratified the Constitution with the provision that they could later secede if they chose; the other ten states accepted this condition as valid with no need to memorialize it.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers granted to the federal government, and the power to prevent secession is not one of them. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments state that the powers not delegated to the United States (federal government) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. This being the case, there was no legal force to use federal troops to oppose secession.

In the Federalist papers, Hamilton and Madison hoped secession would never happen, but they never denied that it was an acceptable possibility. They envisioned the people taking arms against the federal government if it exceeded its delegated powers (delegated by the sovereign states), or invaded their rights, and they admitted that this would be justified. Secession, including the resort to arms, was the final remedy against tyranny. (This is the one of the points of the Second Amendment).




:2 cents:




.

That stuff is like here on GFY; it gets banned but comes back with a fake nick.

:1orglaugh

well i can say with all this media coverage there are going to be a lot more people buying and flying that flag.

http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content...081.cached.jpg

Dylann Roof Visited Slave Plantations, Confederate Landmarks - The Daily Beast

No. Proud heritage and states' rights :helpme

Our First Amendment gives us freedom of speech. ANYBODY who voted to ban the flag is either not from America or they are like Rochard who is OK with stomping on our Constitution and God given rights as free people.

It blows my mind that anybody involved in the Adult Industry would ever support banning anything that has to do with free speech.

Well, the poll is written as it is and you can't edit a poll question. The first option of Yes was voted for by people who think it should be banned.. from GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. Not from private businesses or homes.

Walmart is the only one proposing a ban and they're only talking about themselves. No idea if they support adult industry.

meanwhile, the sun shines bright on the state flag of Mississippi, flying high over the state capital.

http://i.imgur.com/FDFbuIM.jpg

:thumbsup

Although - it is mostly blacks and "liberals" who voted to ban... So they even voted for the wrong reasons, not for what you are talking about.

Proud state of Mississippi :thumbsup

Not true.

Confederate Flag History

That analysis does not really make much sense because the powers reserved to the states are powers to govern people in areas not covered in the US Constitution...not a power to secede from the union all together.



Wait, are you saying that because the founding fathers never denied the "acceptable possibility" of secession, that means they recognized the right for States to secede?

By the way, the Supreme Court already REJECTED the idea that there is any Constitutional right for a state to secede....and the Federalist Papers already indicate that it is the right of the Court to interpret the Constitution as it sees fit:

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."

The Federalist #78

And now a letter from Justice Scalia clearly stating that there is no Constitutional right for a State to secede:

http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryatto...ter-763174.jpg

Wrong. The "Stars & Bars" is not the Confederate Flag, it's the First National Flag. This is a very common mistake. :2 cents:

First White House of the Confederacy, Montgomery, AL

Maybe you meant 'the first national flag' of the confederacy CSA.

I'm having a busy day today, with back to back conference calls, so I can't give this as much time and attention as it deserves, but this writer does a fair job of addressing that opinion...

"Three Supreme Court justices, one famous president, a bloody war, and the language of a modern pledge of allegiance offer conclusive proof that secession, while an entertaining philosophical exercise, has no legal basis. Their various opinions and conclusions, however, all have gaping holes.

Scalia?s positions are the most vapid. Secession, as accomplished by the Southern states in 1860 and 1861 and as discussed by the North at the Hartford Convention in 1815, is an independent act by the people of the states, and accomplished in the same fashion as the several conventions that occurred throughout early American history. The United States would never be a party to a lawsuit on the issue because secession, both de facto and de jure, is an extra-legal act of self-determination, and once the States have seceded from the Union, the Constitution is no longer in force in regard to the seceded political body. This same rule applies to the Article I, Section 10 argument against secession. If the Constitution is no longer in force?the States have separated and resumed their independent status?then the Supreme Court would not have jurisdiction and therefore could not determine the ?legality? of the move.

The Union, then, through a declaration of war could attempt to force the seceded States to remain, but even if victorious that would not solve a philosophical issue. War and violence do not and cannot crush the natural right of self-determination. It can muddle the picture and force the vanquished into submission so long as the boot is firmly planted on their collective throats, but a bloody nose and a prostrate people settles nothing. Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut said in 1788 that he feared a ?coercion of arms? in relation to a delinquent state. ?This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states, in their political capacity. No coercion is applicable to such bodies, but that of an armed force. If we should attempt to execute the laws of the Union by sending an armed force against a delinquent state, it would involve the good and the bad, the innocent and the guilty, in the same calamity.? Ellsworth recognized, as did the majority of the founding generation, that force did not destroy sovereignty. It created artificial supremacy, but sovereignty, the basic tenant of the founding, could not be surrendered in such a manner. Sovereignty, in fact, cannot be surrendered at all; it can be delegated, as in the powers granted to the general government in Article I, but never surrendered.

His ?Pledge of Allegiance? analogy is the most absurd argument of the bunch. The modern pledge was written by Francis Bellamy, a socialist minister who wanted to indoctrinate American schoolchildren with a nationalist message, one based on the ?great speeches? of Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln in relation to the ?One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove.? Sprinkle in some ?liberty and justice? from the French Revolution and you have a message that any good leftist nationalist can embrace. The founding generation would not have said such a pledge, if for no other reason that most did not view the United States as a ?nation? in the strict sense of the word, a single people.

The other issues involved in the debate are slightly more complicated, but in several instances come back to Scalia?s more simplistic analysis. In the Texas v. White decision, Chase implicitly reasoned that the Union was an ?indissoluble? contract between the ?American people? and the federal government, or in this case the people of Texas and the federal government. All contracts are intended to be perpetual. But if this were the case, how could nine States ratify a new Constitution while four States remained part of another Union in clear violation of the language of the Articles of Confederation. Changes to the Articles required the consent of all thirteen States, not nine, and thus the Constitution can be viewed, in part, as an act of secession.

Moreover, James Madison argued that the Union was a different type of contract. ?We are not to consider the Federal Union as analogous to the social compact of individuals: for if it were so, a majority would have a right to bind the rest, and even to form a new constitution for the whole? .? The Constitution was framed by the unanimous consent of the States present in convention assembled in Philadelphia, but it had no teeth until the States, in convention, ratified it. Even at that point, Madison suggested, the States could not bind the rest into accepting the document or remaining in the Union. The Constitution does not have a coercive principle, as Ellsworth called it. An ?indissoluble? Union would suggest that it does.

Waging war ?against them (the States)? is an act of treason, and as per the Constitution, a State can only be ?protected? by the central government on the application of the legislature or the executive in the case of invasion. Lincoln violated both constitutional safeguards against coercion by the central government in 1861, of course only if the states remained in the Union, as he insisted they did. If not, war required a declaration from Congress, something Lincoln did not have, and by declaring war, Congress would have recognized the Confederate States as a legitimate government. Either way, Lincoln violated the Constitution, thus rendering the ?bloody nose? argument against secession void."





:2 cents:



.

This monologue was published in the Washington Post a few days ago.

Jon Stewart?s blistering monologue about race, terrorism and gun violence after Charleston church massacre

I honestly have nothing other than just sadness once again that we have to peer into the abyss of the depraved violence that we do to each other and the nexus of a just gaping racial wound that will not heal, yet we pretend doesn?t exist. And I?m confident, though, that by acknowledging it, by staring into that and seeing it for what it is, we still won?t do jack shit. Yeah. That?s us.

And that?s the part that blows my mind. I don?t want to get into the political argument of the guns and things. But what blows my mind is the disparity of response between when we think people that are foreign are going to kill us, and us killing ourselves.

If this had been what we thought was Islamic terrorism, it would fit into our ? we invaded two countries and spent trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives and now fly unmanned death machines over five or six different countries, all to keep Americans safe. We got to do whatever we can. We?ll torture people. We gotta do whatever we can to keep Americans safe.

Nine people shot in a church. What about that? ?Hey, what are you gonna do? Crazy is as crazy is, right?? That?s the part that I cannot, for the life of me, wrap my head around, and you know it. You know that it?s going to go down the same path. ?This is a terrible tragedy.? They?re already using the nuanced language of lack of effort for this. This is a terrorist attack. This is a violent attack on the Emanuel Church in South Carolina, which is a symbol for the black community. It has stood in that part of Charleston for 100 and some years and has been attacked viciously many times, as many black churches have.

I heard someone on the news say ?Tragedy has visited this church.? This wasn?t a tornado. This was a racist. This was a guy with a Rhodesia badge on his sweater. You know, so the idea that ? you know, I hate to even use this pun, but this one is black and white. There?s no nuance here.

And we?re going to keep pretending like, ?I don?t get it. What happened? This one guy lost his mind.? But we are steeped in that culture in this country and we refuse to recognize it, and I cannot believe how hard people are working to discount it. In South Carolina, the roads that black people drive on are named for Confederate generals who fought to keep black people from being able to drive freely on that road. That?s insanity. That?s racial wallpaper. That?s ? that?s ? you can?t allow that, you know.

Nine people were shot in a black church by a white guy who hated them, who wanted to start some kind of civil war. The Confederate flag flies over South Carolina, and the roads are named for Confederate generals, and the white guy?s the one who feels like his country is being taken away from him. We?re bringing it on ourselves. And that?s the thing. Al-Qaeda, all those guys, ISIS, they?re not (shit) compared to the damage that we can apparently do to ourselves on a regular basis.

i actually find this letter unbecoming of an SC judge. the logic that it's illegal to secede, as proofed by the Pledge of Allegiance? that's insulting, primarily because of how silly it is but also because it's written by a sitting SC judge.

but hey, same cats who decided corps are people too!

It is probably legal to display the ISIS flag in the USA too ...

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/def...?itok=r-kaM5XI

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CICqjeRUkAA2J0E.jpg

Neo-Nazi and not a Klansman^

Get over it. It has been 160 years now and was the bloodiest war in US history -- what is there to celebrate -- defeat?

There was no "stomping on our Constitution" on my part. I simply stated a flag that represents a failed nation should not fly on government buildings.

The confusion is my fault entirely. I would have thought it obviously implied that the "ban" option wasn't a blanket banning but a discontinuance of displaying the flag at government buildings. I'd like to believe that most who voted 'yes' did so with that in mind. But I'm sure some didn't, and would prefer it be banned entirely.

I should have put it up there as a 3rd option. My bad.

But as the responses in thread have shown, a very large % are in favor of it being banned at gov't buildings. In fact it seems the governor of SC herself favors this opions...


Nikki Haley, South Carolina Governor, Calls for Removal of Confederate Battle Flag
Gov. Nikki Haley's call to remove the flag from Capitol grounds came in the wake of the killing of nine people in a Charleston church.

Headline in today's NYTimes.

Hawaii, WTF!?!

http://i.imgur.com/GDgfUXc.jpg