Hmm-m-m-m, I thought this was settled already...
1 posted on
02/12/2003 11:17:57 AM PST by
meandog
To: meandog
State and national Republicans had worried that a flag referendum the same day as the presidential election could spark a huge turnout by blacks and moderate whites and potentially affect the fortunes of GOP candidates, including President Bush. Yes. And it could also spark a huge turnout by conservatives, leading to an even greater victory for Bush and the GOP.
You know, kinda like what happened in 2002.
2 posted on
02/12/2003 11:20:34 AM PST by
Coop
To: meandog
Ok, I'll bite.
Why? Will voting to 'keep' the flag change the past? Will getting rid of it improve the future?
Seems like a waste of taxpayer dollars designed to inflame passions with no possibly good result.
To: meandog
![](http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2003/02/12-flag-inside.jpg)
Supporters of old flag march on Atlanta Tuesday
4 posted on
02/12/2003 11:23:27 AM PST by
meandog
To: meandog; FreedomPoster; AnAmericanMother; lugsoul
Most of the natives I have discussed this with, including myself, would have no problem going back to the pre-1956 flag.
The 1956-2001 flag was instituted soley for the reason of protest against segregation, so it does not belong.
The new flag is a hideous design, propagated through back room deals made possible by king roy Barnes. Therefore, it does not belong either.
8 posted on
02/12/2003 11:41:35 AM PST by
Vigilantcitizen
(We need to legislate legislators!)
To: meandog
By choosing to schedule the referendum during the March primary instead, Perdue averts that problem, but that is expected to be fought by Democrats. This move was a stroke of brilliance by Purdue. First, it takes a step toward undoing the leftist PC-revisionism of 'rat King Roy.
And at the same time it will make the confederate flag an issue in the Georgia Dem primary! It's already causing a stir in the SC one as the 'rat candidates try to win the state without stepping on the feet of their chief support group, the NAACP, and its stupid boycott. Now Georgia will be in the same position, and we all know what that means for the 'rat primary - good news for Revvvrund Al!
To: meandog
18 posted on
02/12/2003 12:40:39 PM PST by
mirkwood
(Georgia State Flag, 1879-1902 First official state flag)
To: meandog
If it were about history, then the people of Georgia would fly the 1861-1865 flag. Flying the Third National (as I occasionally do) is about sticking a thumb in the eyes of the Yankees who love to tell us what OUR country is about. (And the man promised a vote during the election, and that he's keeping his word ought to be good enough.) Deo Vindice.
To: meandog
Why don't they go back to the post colonial flag of the state of Georgia??
24 posted on
02/13/2003 8:50:55 AM PST by
ZULU
(You)
To: shuckmaster; stainlessbanner
Dixie Ping!!!
30 posted on
02/13/2003 12:16:32 PM PST by
TomServo
To: meandog
Dixie Ping! Sounds fair to me .. let the voters decide.
34 posted on
02/13/2003 3:10:48 PM PST by
arly
To: meandog
It Ain't over Yet!
< Good to see a politician keep a campaign promise.... >
To: meandog
The vote would not be binding. Why not? Why have a vote if the legislature could ignore it?
To: meandog
Tactically, this was a big mistake. It guarantees a big black turnout.
To: meandog
Oh goodie, another ctrl-C/ctrl-V South-hating Wlat thread.
98 posted on
02/14/2003 12:45:02 PM PST by
spodefly
(This is my tag line. There are many like it, but this one is mine.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson