Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Confederate Flag Clothing Causes Controversy
WSBTV.com ^ | 10-6-2006 | WSBTV

Posted on 10/10/2006 5:08:28 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo

The principal at a Fayette County middle school has banned all clothing with the confederate flag emblem...

(Excerpt) Read more at wsbtv.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: Georgia
KEYWORDS: cbf; confederate; crossofsaintandrew; dixie; education; saintandrewscross; schools; segregation; southernheritage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 521-535 next last
To: houeto
every thread, that conceivably can be "turned that way" is invaded by the members of the "DAMNyankee coven of lunatics, south-HATERS, bigots, fools & at least ONE outright racist", such that they can "run their big mouths" about how awful the southland & southerners supposedly are.

PRETTY LADY!

free dixie,sw

241 posted on 10/13/2006 2:20:23 PM PDT by stand watie ("Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God." - T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket

;o)


242 posted on 10/13/2006 2:20:51 PM PDT by 4CJ (Annoy a liberal, honour Christians and our gallant Confederate dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: houeto
every thread, that conceivably can be "turned that way", is invaded by the members of the "DAMNyankee coven of lunatics, south-HATERS, bigots, fools & at least ONE outright racist", such that they can "run their big mouths" about how awful the southland & southerners supposedly are.get used to the idea that they are HATERS;all too many are also clueLESS FOOLS!

PRETTY LADY, though!

free dixie,sw

243 posted on 10/13/2006 2:21:56 PM PDT by stand watie ("Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God." - T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
Representative Burnett of Kentucky speaking...

The would be Henry Cornelius Burnett, would it not? Expelled from the House December 3, 1861 for his support of the southern rebellion? About-to-be appointed confederate army officer? Soon-to-be confederate senator? Well I hate to bust his bubble but fortunately the Constitution did not give him the right to decide what was constitutional and what was not. So his speech, while colorful, is crap.

And I wonder, did he have any problem with the Jefferson Davis administration committing the same "crimes" he complained about? No, I suppose not.

244 posted on 10/13/2006 2:31:10 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
actually that TOO is BALONEY!

So you believe that all states that have entered the Union since 1865 believe that they can leave it on a whim at any time? Despite Texas v. White saying that they can't?

245 posted on 10/13/2006 2:32:32 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
If the Confederate X is banned for offensivness, why isn't the Malcolm X?

At one point, there was a t-shirt with a pic of Malcolm X and the words "It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand"

Somebody put together a t-shirt with Albert Einstein with the words "It's a white thing, you wouldn't understand"

I'm thinking a kid wearing the latter would be expelled

246 posted on 10/13/2006 2:32:56 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor (A planned society is most appealing to those with the arrogance to think they will be the planners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
despite ANY decision of ANY federal court, which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, secession remains an OPTION for every state.

i for one am no fan of the federal courts deciding ANYTHING of importance given the Plessy, Dredd Scott,Roe & other "USSC fiats" that DEFY both the plain text of the Constitution & common sense too.

free dixie,sw

247 posted on 10/13/2006 2:40:52 PM PDT by stand watie ("Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God." - T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: houeto
I thought this thread was supposed to be about Battle Flag clothing?

Amen. You have any more pics?

248 posted on 10/13/2006 2:40:54 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor (A planned society is most appealing to those with the arrogance to think they will be the planners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
btw, can you point me to the part of the Constitution that sets the courts up to declare ANY act UN-Constitutional OR to make the "appointed for life" judges the SUPERIOR BRANCH of the 3 branches, as they seem to be NOW???

free dixie,sw

249 posted on 10/13/2006 2:42:53 PM PDT by stand watie ("Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God." - T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
there's also a tee-shirt with the cross of St Andrew that says: it's a Scottish thing; you wouldn't understand.

free dixie,sw

250 posted on 10/13/2006 2:44:38 PM PDT by stand watie ("Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God." - T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: stand watie

Never seems to fail. When losing ground, many go look up all the porno pics and insult and degrade as many folks as they can. Now that's really mature! 3 cheers for the popcorn section...


251 posted on 10/13/2006 2:51:46 PM PDT by Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: stand watie

That's not the issue. The issue is that USSC review is, for good or bad, well established in the US and has been since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. In the face of that, how can you claim that states entering the Union since 1865 believe that they can leave the Union on a whim at any time? Can you find any statement by any of the 14 states admitted to the Union since 1865 to that effect?


252 posted on 10/13/2006 2:59:34 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
I take it you couldn't find anything in the Constitution outlawing secession.

Can't find anything forbidding expulsion either, can you?

253 posted on 10/13/2006 6:23:22 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
Can you show me where in the Constitution that Congress is given the powers to authorize the President to violate the Constitution? Congress does not have that authority.

First you would need to point out the Constitutional violations.

Withdraw herself! No approval required from any other state to withdraw and no armies marching into the state to force it to remain in the Union. Get it?

No, you don't get it. The actions in question took place in 1779 and the confederacy they were suggesting New Hampshire should have withdrawn from was the Continental Congress. The quote, in context, reads: "Another circumstance, worthy of notice, is the conduct of New Hampshire, by her Delegate in Congress, in the case of the sloop Active. Acts of Congress, 6th March, 1779. By this decision, New Hampshire concurred in binding the other states. Did she not also bind herself? Before the articles of confederation were ratified, or even formed, a league of some kind subsisted among the states; and, whether that league originated in compact, or a sort of tacit consent, resulting from their situation, the exigencies of the times, and the nature of the warfare, or from all combined, is utterly immaterial. The States, when in Congress, stood on the floor of equality; and, until otherwise stipulated, the majority of them must controul. In such a confederacy, for a state to bind others, and not, in similar cases, be bound herself, is a solecism. Still, however, it is contended, that New Hampshire was not bound, nor Congress sovereign as to war and peace, and their incidents, because they resisted this supremacy in the case of the Susanna. But I am, notwithstanding, of opinion, that New Hampshire was bound, and Congress supreme, for the reasons already assigned, and that she continued to be bound, because she continued in the confederacy. As long as she continued to be one of the federal states, it must have been on equal terms. If she would not submit to the exercise of the act of sovereignty contended for by Congress, and the other states, she should have withdrawn herself from the confederacy."

4CJ was a dollar short and several years too late.

254 posted on 10/13/2006 6:43:21 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Can't find anything forbidding expulsion either, can you?

Nope. It's not outlawed.

255 posted on 10/13/2006 8:25:14 PM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
what you propose is SILLY on its face.

can you list ANY state that has chosen to leave the union, for ANY reason whatever, since 1861???

in point of fact though, come the establishment of Los Estados Unidos de Azatlan (which i believe WILL occur within a generation), the rest of the union's members will be faced with the requirement of allowing the western states to depart in PEACE or to make WAR to stop those states from leaving the "union of the UNwilling".

let's say that YOU are POTUS on that day. how many MILLION Americans will you happily rape/rob/torture/jail/KILL to keep Azatlan from being born??? may i remind you that lincoln, the GREAT BLOOD-SPILLER, personally caused the DEATH of about a MILLION Americans for his LUST for $$$$/political POWER (and for his EGOMANIA!) & nothing else.

free dixie,sw

256 posted on 10/13/2006 9:42:54 PM PDT by stand watie ("Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God." - T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
imVho, the other 2 branches of government should NOT have "laid down for" the USSC. i suspect that the executive/legislative branches would NOT have done so, had they had any inkling of how RIDICILOUS the court's overreaching was to be!

free dixie,sw

257 posted on 10/13/2006 9:45:17 PM PDT by stand watie ("Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God." - T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
NOPE. because expulsion is NOT in the Constitution. otoh, what does THAT prove???

the answer is NOTHING, "Mr Minister of DAMNyankee Propaganda".

as i said, i would be PLEASED if EVERY northern/"blue"/LEFTIST state was expelled.

free dixie,sw

258 posted on 10/13/2006 9:48:03 PM PDT by stand watie ("Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God." - T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin
fyi, of itself, i do NOT find pictures of pretty ladies in bathing suits (or for that matter in the nude)pornographic.

otoh, pictures of ANYBODY can be pornographic, if wrongly done, in such a manner as to "appeal to UNHEALTHY or PURIENT interests".

free dixie,sw

259 posted on 10/13/2006 10:07:35 PM PDT by stand watie ("Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God." - T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
No, you don't get it.

I suppose the New York ratification delegates didn't get it either. From the New York ratification of the Constitution, July 26, 1788:

We, the delegates of the people of the state of New York, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the 17th day of September, in the year 1787, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (a copy whereof precedes these presents,) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, — Do declare and make known, —

... That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness ...

... Under these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, and in confidence that the amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature consideration, — We, the said delegates, in the name and in the behalf of the people of the state of New York, do, by these presents, assent to and ratify the said Constitution.

You've admitted to me in the past that the Constitution would not have been ratified if it said that secession was not permitted. I don't think the New York or Virginia delegates would have ratified the Constitution under those circumstances, and the Union as we know it would not have come to be.

260 posted on 10/13/2006 11:02:41 PM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 521-535 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson