Posted on 04/04/2003 11:09:24 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
Negotiators approve flag compromise
By JIM GALLOWAY
Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer
Proposed new Georgia state flag.
Georgia's state flag would be changed immediately, with a public vote to follow, under a plan endorsed by a key House committee today.
The new flag would resemble the first national flag of the Confederacy -- three red and white bars, with a blue field in the top left corner. The state seal would be in the blue corner, and the words "In God We Trust" would be written to the right.
The bill adopted by the House Rules Committee calls for the Legislature to change the flag to the new design immediately. Then, in March 2004, a public referendum would be held to let voters decide whether they want to keep that flag.
Only if the new flag is rejected by voters would a second referendum be held, this time in July 2004, asking voters if they want to return to the Georgia flag dominated by the Confederate battle emblem, or the flag that flew before 1956. The current flag would not be on the ballot.
The Rules Committee proposal now heads to the full House for a vote next week, although the bill may be amended there and still requires Senate approval.
Gov. Sonny Perdue, who had proposed a statewide referendum on changing Georgia's flag, is endorsing the proposal.
"We believe this represents a compromise," said Rep. Glenn Richardson (R-Dallas), the governor's floor leader who sponsored Perdue's flag bill. "This will bring this to a conclusion."
The Legislature, led by former Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes, voted in 2001 to shrink the Confederate battle emblem on the state flag, which was added in 1956 as Georgia schools were being ordered to desegregate.
That is not so, and you have no grounds for saying so. As I told you, I quoted an account that I read in more than one source. That is not lying. I was not lying when I repeated it; I did not have and do not have grounds for knowing that the account that I repeated was not true and you have no grounds for knowing that yours is not false. But you are a hate-filled person who likes to insult people who don't agree with your distorted view of the world. I will never forget your once accusing me of being a Hitler sympathizer when I had said nothing to suggest anything of the sort. But you will stoop to any dishonest and dishonourable trick or insult which you think will make you look good in the eyes of biased and unperceptive observers like garbage_truck and Inconsequential. You are a thoroughly dishonourable man and a stupid one to boot.
You got way too excited by a supposed slur to your hero, Jeff Davis. You made a statement you couldn't possibly think to be true, unless you are about 11 years old.
Davis suggested the Yankees would grovel before him. He did the groveling, trying to escape like a woman.
And what you have to remember is that the so-called CSA had every chance to secure their independence and they blew it. And who would bear a lot of responsibillity for that?
Walt
Surely you could tell us?
Walt
Walt
This is what the rebs got from Uncle Sam.
Walt
So what it amounts to in this case is natural rights for me and slavery and economic laws untethered by legal rights for you. I demand my god-given freedom, and you have to struggle with economic laws and necessities and prove your economic efficiency. This inconsistency is a major reason why serious people don't take the Rockwellites seriously. Whatever one thinks of Lincoln or Harry Jaffa, they did go further in reconciling economics and morality than the Rockwellite Kool-Aid drinkers.
A recent issue of "Liberty" magazine had an article, I believe by R.W. Bradford on the Rockwellites' moral -- or amoral -- dilemma. Go here and here for more.
As always even the least subtle distinctions are beyond you. To suggest that your source may not be accurate is not to imply that you are deliberately lying. In fact I am sure you weren't because after several years of observing your steady mental deterioration (you were actually a fairly reasonable and rational person when I first encountered you on FR) and concommitant increase in the capacity for self-delusion, I realize that, like whiskeypoopoo, you now will implicitely believe any source that confirms what you wish to believe.
As I have told you and Inconsequental many times, Jefferson Davis is not my hero. My one concern is with the official falsification of history as it regards the War of Secession, and particularly the official creation of the mythical Abraham Lincoln, who bears no relation to the sleazy tyrant who prosecuted the immoral war to suppress Southern secession.
"You made a statement you couldn't possibly think to be true, unless you are about 11 years old.
Are you referring to the allegation that Lincoln sneaked into Washington disguised as a woman? Certainly, if true, it would have been suppressed in the official version of the history of the period. But there is no reason whatever why I couldn't believe it; it sounds perfectly plausible, given what is known of Lincoln's character.
Walt
It is your statement that is made of whole cloth. If you had more brain cells than could be counted on the fingers of one hand you would realize that you could not possibly have the basis to make such a statement. Think about it, you wouldn't read a book if you thought it might contain a negative statement about your false hero, Lincoln, so how could you have ever come across such a statement?
Put up or shut up.
Walt
When I get around to it. I have better things to do right now and I don't take orders from scum like you. For now, take my word for it (unlike yours, my word is worth something) or go to hell. On second thought, go to hell in any case; I take comfort in knowing that you will soon enough.
Walt
It looked like this.
Walt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.