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

I'm referring to other anti American posts of yours, not this thread. You know...The "gun control" type of posts where you advocate violating the very oath you are so proud of taking.

I heard ebay might consider banning all sales with the flag in it as well. Silliness. Where am I going to buy my Dukes of Hazzard memorabilia now?

It's a lovely flag

Ditto, I agree

Maybe also ban Old Glory as these fine fellows seem to wish for:

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

http://i.imgur.com/1RL3cOC.jpg


.

i thought only two states were allowed to secede without being invaded.. texas and another state..

Good to see neo-Nazis who don't even live in the US expressing their distorted Stormfront views of southern US history. Their own country would probably throw their ass in jail for displaying their Nazi flag so they cling to the next best thing, defending the Confederate flag.




https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...01&oe=56214FAF

everything is for sale :2 cents:

for libs the definition of free speech it "anything I agree with is free speech, all other thoughts MUST be banned"

A moron says what?

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

damn those liberals and banning porn! oh wait.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

thank you for the perfect example of liberal though patterns... 'if you disagree with me, I'll belittle you in public" :thumbsup

there is no parallel between a Nazi flag and a confederate battle flag ... do some research, there is obviously an internet connection at your place :2 cents:

Are you saying The Civil War wasnt about slavery or that enslaving 13 million people was much better than gassing 11 million?

Dude, stop saying my name. I have nothing to say to you. If you want a good comeback, go lick your Mom's face.

gofuckyourself **********.

i was replying to one of my other followers with that post, he brought you into this, not me.

i understand why i have to spell that out for you. because you type shit like that while participating in my threads elsewhere.

more ********** logic

Nice to see the concerned members of the original party of slavery stepping up to deal with the symbols of their horrific past.

slavery was one factor leading to the cause of the civil war but not the only... do you think WWII was about jews? do think confederate soldiers went into battle screaming fuck n*ggers? or union soldiers screamed god save the blacks?

to break a civil war situation to such a simple statement, while fine for the common politicalized narrative, is hardly realistic... don't you think?

the Nazi flag symbolizes a political agenda and the policies of a political movement... have you ever heard of the Wehrmacht? Wehrmacht was and probably still is the German army with their own battle flags totally independent of the Nazi flags
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nkreuz.svg.png

St Andrews Cross or what is commonly mistaken for the confederate flag was a battle flag for the southern army/navy... and just as all battle standards do, the St Andrews Cross symbolizes honor, family and country... trust me on this one... there were no loud mouth politicians running to the flag in the fog of war... it was men just like you and, me trying desperately to save the lives of our friends and family...

to insist that the confederate battle flag is the flag symbolizing slavery is ... well just uneducated... by that analogy the marine corps flag and symbol are then flag and symbols of the United Sates.


my personal opinion is the battle flags being flown need to be lowered with honor and placed safely away somewhere ....

get down on your mother fucking knees.

Better late than never. :thumbsup