Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

WaPo: School bus driver fired over Confederate flag


Rocky21

Recommended Posts

Back it up.
You really want me to dig up your posting history? Sorry, ain't gonna do it. That would put me in danger of violating the call out rule.
I've pointed out three completely fictional claims you've made in this very thread. Find three from me ever.
1) I have posted links to different articles from respected sources that clearly state that prior to the 14th Amend it was open to interpretation whether a state could legally secede.

2) I NEVER stated that states seceded, I stated states used secession when the Fed Govt overstepped their bounds. So you in fact failed to point that one out. You can't comprehend the difference, not my issue.

3) Lincoln said:

In January 1848,Lincoln(directly referring to Texas)said:

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,-- most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit.

Lincoln said this in support of Texas seceding from Mexico.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, flying the confederate flag is celebrating treason. Even if you get away from the racial stuff it is celebrating the secession. The people who quit the Union, spilled their brother's blood and fought against the United States. Was there a Confederate flag prior to the Civil War? I'm for freedom of speech, but it's one of the most anti-U.S. symbols in the U.S. It celebrates our division and almost the destruction of the country by people who wanted to tear the U.S. apart. It's not Southern pride. It's rebel pride.

Following this logic celebrating the US flag is treason today to the UK flag is it not?

If any case then why is displaying the UK flag today in the US not treasonous in the US?

In both cases one group wanted to split from the other, and the group being separated from fought in a war to not allow it. In one case the Brits lost in the other the northerners prevailed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following this logic celebrating the US flag is treason today to the UK flag is it not?

If any case then why is displaying the UK flag today in the US not treasonous in the US?

In both cases one group wanted to split from the other, and the group being separated from fought in a war to not allow it. In one case the Brits lost in the other the northerners prevailed.

And in both cases, the just side prevailed. That is, if you believe in American values - individual liberty and all that stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3) Lincoln said:

Lincoln said this in support of Texas seceding from Mexico.

Your mixing and matching terms. Texas didn't legally secede. They have a revolution to secede. Lincoln is talking about revolution. Not a legal secestion. Nobody has ever said that the south didn't have the right to have a revolution, but that doesn't mean they had a Constitutional right to secede.

"In the public debate over the Nullification Crisis the separate issue of secession was also discussed. James Madison, often referred to as “The Father of the Constitution”, spoke out against secession as a constitutional right.[18] In a March 15, 1833, letter to Daniel Webster congratulating him on a speech opposing nullification, Madison discussed “revolution” versus “secession”:

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.
"

Also during this crisis, President Andrew Jackson, in his “Proclamation to the People of South Carolina”, made the case for the perpetuity of the Union while also contrasting the differences between “revolution” and “secession”[20]:

But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure.

Places like Texas and the south had a right to a revolution, that is an extra-Constitutional solution to the problem. Not a Constitutional right to secede.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States

Texas had a right to forcibly, via revolution to secede from Mexico. That doesn't mean the Mexican laws (whatever basis of laws they had) gave them the right to secede.

Madison would have said the south had the God given right to secede forcibly. Not the Constitutional right to do so. Secession would have been extra-Constitutional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Henry you mean you think this is politically motivated? :)

Where does it end? Scouring the parking lot for Pro Choice or Pro Life bumper stickers?

This is what i was gonna say. Where does it end? What if the principal was against the Redskins Logo thinking it was racist and one of us was fired for not scrapping it off our car? That's insane. I actually like when people have stuff on their car that i don't agree with. Just tells me to stay away from that person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of us Southern Gentlemen couldn't give two squirts of piss if anyone likes our flag or not. Some have tried to take it but failed. It still flys high and proud and represents those who have given their life to protect their family and home. Unless you can show that every Confederate soldier owned or even believed in slavery then all this foolishness about a flag should stop. It represents the lives lost. Who actually thinks that every man who lined up on the front lines facing certain death thought about protecting their right to own a slave as justification to die?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is that relevant to what the flag symbolizes? At the time, the entire country was racist.

Here's why:

Frankly, honoring the participants in the Civil War struggle is in some ways not even the problem.

The Battle Flag was not the overriding symbol of the Confederacy - but it WAS the overriding symbol of the opposition to racial integration in the 1950s and 60s. That was a lot more recent and had virtually nothing to do with tariffs or any other genuine states rights grievances. It was just racism, pure and simple.

When you display that flag, that is the message you are sending. "I stand with Bull Conner, not with Martin Luther King." It may not be fair, it may not be the message you want to send, but you are sending it anyway. :whoknows:

It's not just a happy coincidence that Georgia incorporated the Confederate battle flag into it's state flag in 1956, or that Alabama started flying the flag over it's state house in 1961, or that South Carolina did the same in 1962. Those states didn't mysteriously ignore their 'heritage' for 100 years. In the 50s and 60s the flag was resurrected specifically to be used as a symbol of resistance to desegregation.

Again I have to ask, if you want to display your regional pride, why insist on using a symbol that has so much historical baggage attached to it? You really don't get why this specific symbol upsets people in this country?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again I have to ask, if you want to display your regional pride, why insist on using a symbol that has so much historical baggage attached to it? You really don't get why this specific symbol upsets people in this country?

Some people just need attention.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's why:

It's not just a happy coincidence that Georgia incorporated the Confederate battle flag into it's state flag in 1956, or that Alabama started flying the flag over it's state house in 1961, or that South Carolina did the same in 1962. Those states didn't mysteriously ignore their 'heritage' for 100 years. In the 50s and 60s the flag was resurrected specifically to be used as a symbol of resistance to desegregation.

Again I have to ask, if you want to display your regional pride, why insist on using a symbol that has so much historical baggage attached to it? You really don't get why this specific symbol upsets people in this country?

I have only seen burned crosses as a child. 30 some odd years ago. That was in Tennessee. The Confed Flag was a staple there.

I can assure you from my opinion it wasn't out of a lack of racism.

White guy for the record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't the confederate flag just be a symbol of Southern Hospitality or heritage? Yes, there are those asshats that like to display it as a negitive. But it is by far the minority. The south is different than the rest of the country, just like the west.

I for one like the confederate flag and my reasoning is, it looks good, it represents the 13 colonies and has the American colors. So if I fly it, you can judge me, and you will be wrong. And for those saying flying that flag is not part of American Heritage, you need to go back to school, it is, it may be a bad side, but it still is part of the USA.

There is a huge difference living below Richmond and above DC. Slower paced and more relaxed. I worked 12hrs a day when I lived in GA and had time to get errands done. In NVA, I work 8 hrs and cant seem to find time to take a ****, at times.

I'll prob, be ignored or flamed, no matter with either decision.

confederate_flag.jpg

There is still racisim because we still choose to offset colors, when there are no polls that say blacks this and whites that, and orientals kill whales.

Just classify us a humans an be done with it. Then we will be one, but I doubt that will ever happen. The USA is prety much by far the LEAST racist of the rest of the world.

Have travel much of it, and we are doing well compared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the Confederate flag isn't a big deal to me. Sure, it's closely associated with one of the darkest moments in U.S. History; when the people that marched under it supported an agenda that subjected people to the worst kind of oppression.

But, it doesn't really register on my meter anymore because

A.) For a lot of people, it's a symbol of regional pride

B.) The CSA doesn't exist anymore

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRu0t8PQiNI5_UMPXsfMgpo4L775TEe5aE9Zv4gtE6WUJokiyU1

A winnar is us :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't the confederate flag just be a symbol of Southern Hospitality or heritage? .

It's not like the confederate flag existed before the Civil War. It wasn't just some southern pride flag. It was a flag that was created specifically for a treasonous government that was fighting--in large part--to save slavery. Find something else.

Semi-related story. I was stationed at Fort Lee for my AIT way down in southern Va. I get a weekend pass and go out with some buddies and then catch a cab back to base later on. The driver was this old white guy, probably in his 60's. So we get to the base and they stop us and do the little inspection. This was just a couple of months after 9/11 so things were still kinda tense. They get the driver to pop the trunk. Now I'm standing outside of the car just waiting for the guard--black dude btw--to do his thing. Next thing I know he starts pulling out framed photos from the trunk of the taxi. It was a bunch of pictures of old Klan meetings and cross burnings from like the 30's. Turn's to the driver and says "What the hell is this?" "Ah ain't nothing wrong with that, it's history." The guard starts staring me down and I got nothing to say. One of the biggest "oh my god :doh:" moments of my life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one like the confederate flag and my reasoning is, it looks good, it represents the 13 colonies and has the American colors. .

The Confederate flag represents the 13 colonies? It represented Mass and NY and Conn? Come on...

Following this logic celebrating the US flag is treason today to the UK flag is it not?

I already answered this. Yes, seceeding from Britain was an act of rebellion and an act of treason. The FFs acknowledged it. One of Franklin's more famous quotes was

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we will all hang separately." So yes, in the 1770's a flag for the U.S. represented treason.

The reason that the U.S. flag today is not treasonsous is that we won. The U.S. is a soverign nation. The reason flying the UK flag is not treasonous here is because over the last 200 years we have made friends and become allies with England. Even so, you see relatively few people fly the UK colors, not even with anglophiles who love and are nostalgic about Brit culture.

The Confederate Flag represents the rebels that lost. The guys who wanted to tear the U.S. in half and attempted to kill her. It symbolizes the bloodiest war in American History. I'm trying to steer clear of the racist side the flag, but it reps that too as others point out. Those sporting the Confederate flag are saluting the enemies of the U.S. even if they don't realize or acknowledge it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really want me to dig up your posting history? Sorry, ain't gonna do it. That would put me in danger of violating the call out rule.

You've already made the claim. And it's false. Back it up.

1) I have posted links to different articles from respected sources that clearly state that prior to the 14th Amend it was open to interpretation whether a state could legally secede.

In response to your claim that The Constitution stated that states had the right to secede, and specified the procedure for doing so, you quoted some guy's opinion that well, before the Constitution existed, states used a procedure to ratify the Constitution.

And your opinion that there's s principle that you've invented, that says that any agreement that has procedures for agreeing can be canceled, after agreement, by following the same procedure.

2) I NEVER stated that states seceded, I stated states used secession when the Fed Govt overstepped their bounds. So you in fact failed to point that one out. You can't comprehend the difference, not my issue.

You stated that states used secession all the time, and when called on it, responded with "well, they threatened to". And claimed that this proved that EVERYONE (your emphases) believed that it was allowed. (Actually, that's two claims, neither of which is true.)

3) Lincoln said:

Lincoln said this in support of Texas seceding from Mexico.

That's actually some pretty good support.

Granted, you have to weigh that against the fact that Lincoln went to war to prevent a different secession.

Perhaps his feelings on the issue were conflicted. :)

Still, please consider my complaint about your third claim to be retracted, since your third claim obviously isn't entirely untrue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've already made the claim. And it's false. Back it up.
Larry, see the rest of your response. That is twisting enough.
In response to your claim that The Constitution stated that states had the right to secede, and specified the procedure for doing so, you quoted some guy's opinion that well, before the Constitution existed, states used a procedure to ratify the Constitution.

And your opinion that there's s principle that you've invented, that says that any agreement that has procedures for agreeing can be canceled, after agreement, by following the same procedure.

I stated that before the 14th Amendment the Constitution left open the possibility for secession. I posted articles from respected sources stating that. What else do you want me to do? Resurrect one of the FF so he can tell you southern states felt they had the right to secede? I think it is fairly obvious they felt that waysince they held a convention and voted to secede.
You stated that states used secession all the time, and when called on it, responded with "well, they threatened to". And claimed that this proved that EVERYONE (your emphases) believed that it was allowed. (Actually, that's two claims, neither of which is true.)
I stated that states used secession when they felt that the federal govt overstepped their bound. I never said states actually seceded. You and 1 other poster obviously can't tell the difference between using something as a tool and actually doing it. The NFLPA is using desertification as a negotiating tactic with the owners. Does that mean they actually already decertified? No. Comprende?
That's actually some pretty good support.

Granted, you have to weigh that against the fact that Lincoln went to war to prevent a different secession.

Perhaps his feelings on the issue were conflicted. :)

A politician changing his mind on an issue when it affected him negatively? I am SHOCKED I tell you, SHOCKED!
Still, please consider my complaint about your third claim to be retracted, since your third claim obviously isn't entirely untrue.
I don't form my opinions on BS. I actually have studied US history up to the end of the Civil War. I am fascinated by it. I am even more fascinated by the revisionist history that forgets all the atrocities committed by Lincoln and the Union. And the hypocrisy politically of Lincoln. He was not this righteous, do no wrong man that he is painted as. The Civil War is not as cut and dry as people say it is. States may have gone to war to support an archaic, illegal, and immoral practice, but the majority of the people fighting on the Confederate side were not slave owners. 90% of all the slaves in the South were owned by 10% of the people. Slavery was rampant in the North. Southern slaves were actually freed before most Northern slaves. There is plenty of writing on Lincoln that show that he did not feel that blacks were equal to whites. He still thought they were a sub-class to whites. He is on record stating that they would never be able to meet the standard of living of whites. And our "more perfect Union" was threatened internally more than once from its signing to the Civil War.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't the confederate flag just be a symbol of Southern Hospitality or heritage? .

You know why.

Same reason you'd be smart to not wear a swastika armband, even though it's originally a hindu symbol for a lucky charm.

You mention a "few asshats who display it to be negative.."

well, there's an old phrase that you learned when you were a kid. one bad apple spoils the whole bunch, and like it or not, those asshats have spoiled your symbol of southern pride and turned it into a symbol of racism and oppression. There's nothing you can do to change that, nor is there anything that can be done to change the collective mindset of those who view it as such.

Why this is hard to understand I'll never know. People didn't just arbitrarily pick this symbol to assign the racial hatred and violence it has flown over.

As I said before. You may think it stands for pride. But nobody else cares what you think. And it just seems to me that if you know that the majority of people find it offensive (not just a little bit, either.) then why continue to rub it in their faces?

To me it's just a self-serving scream for attention. Being a dick for the sake of being a dick.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to previous posts about why doesn’t the guy in the original article use an American flag to show his pride the guy has a big ol’ tattoo of the American Flag that covers the length of his entire arm.

The main point in my posting this article is to point out the political crazy times we live in. The dude has a flag that people find offensive on his personal car and he was fired because he refused to remove it. It has ZERO to do with his job performance. That to me is Crazy Town USA.

I’ve heard it said in The Tailgate a million times that you can never change any one’s mind in an argument. And I don’t aim to do that here. My only hope is that someone considers the possibility that although a great many people see the Confederate Flag as a symbol of white supremacy it doesn’t represent that to every one. (I don’t own a Confederate flag and wouldn’t display one because I know what negative images it conjures up.) It doesn’t represent that to me and from reading what the guy in question has stated, it doesn’t represent that to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve heard it said in The Tailgate a million times that you can never change any one’s mind in an argument. And I don’t aim to do that here. My only hope is that someone considers the possibility that although a great many people see the Confederate Flag as a symbol of white supremacy it doesn’t represent that to every one. (I don’t own a Confederate flag and wouldn’t display one because I know what negative images it conjures up.) It doesn’t represent that to me and from reading what the guy in question has stated, it doesn’t represent that to him.

The point you seem to be missing is that no one cares whether or not anyone else sees that symbol a certain way. The overwhelming majority of folks see it the offensive way, and those who are wishing to persuade people otherwise will never make a bit of headway over it.

It's like i keep saying,, wear a swastika. Spend all day explaining to pissed off people that you think it stands for something else.

See how much any of them care.

It's not like anyone is demanding that people stop liking puppies or chocolate ice cream. It's about what that symbol represents to a vast number of people.

Fly it all you want.. but don't expect people in that vast majority to not think you're a dick over it, don't expect that they might not treat you differently because of it, and don't complain when they decide to not be around you as a result of the symbols you choose to represent who you are and what you're proud of. To others, that symbol means something entirely different, and for very GOOD reason. No one just decided to be angry about that flag because they don't like the design, or they don't like Jimbo so they want to make him stop flying it off his truck. There are plenty of real reasons why that flag represents hate.

Living like a pariah. Angering and insulting practically everyone around you. Sure seems worth it to me.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main point in my posting this article is to point out the political crazy times we live in. The dude has a flag that people find offensive on his personal car and he was fired because he refused to remove it. It has ZERO to do with his job performance. That to me is Crazy Town USA.
But that's not what happened. If it was, I'd agree with you that its crazy. From the article:
At issue is the time he parks the pickup at the bus yard, which is on school property.

So they don't want that symbol, which is unarguably controversial, in a place that might represent the school or the company. That's legitimate. They are not firing him for displaying it on his vehicle, they are firing him for displaying it on school grounds (and refusing to stop). That's not crazy, that's their right. The driver decided his need to show the flag at all times was greater than his need for the job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So they don't want that symbol, which is unarguably controversial, in a place that might represent the school or the company. That's legitimate. They are not firing him for displaying it on his vehicle, they are firing him for displaying it on school grounds (and refusing to stop). That's not crazy, that's their right. The driver decided his need to show the flag at all times was greater than his need for the job.

Yep, exercise your 1st rights on your own time

Ordering a item removed that can be offensive to some is justifiable at the workplace...next up burkas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

already there

http://www.khou.com/news/khou-93810709.html

Texas City student banned from wearing cross necklace

I have a problem with that. Simply wearing a cross is more of a declaration than promoting a religion and it is certainly not supressing my ability to worship, think, or act as I would hope to. I think that's going to far. It is interesting when the Freedoms intersect and the frictions they cause. Sometimes, I think law is not ruled by reason, but is too reactive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...