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 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 521-535 next last
To: stand watie

I'm sure you are not alone. My husband, as well as many other husbands would also view it as such. However, the particular porno shot presented by the popcorn section was a deliberate attempt to promote gutter behavior, for the bathing beauty was about ready to discard her bikini bottoms. And this is all the crap that is floating around the airwaves. There are just as many folks willing to take the bait as there are those who put it out for all to see. I'm also quite certain a deliberate attempt was made to do some pitting of so and so, against so and so. So, in the end the perpertrators are dumber than a box of rocks...


301 posted on 10/15/2006 1:44:03 PM PDT by Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
Actually, the 14th state (Vermont) did officially ratify the Constitution.

And how nice for them. But ratifying the Constitution did not make them a state. It took a vote in Congress on February 18, 1791 to admit Vermont as a state effective March 4, 1791.

Note that they expected to receive the full benefits enjoyed by other states in the Union, not a reduced set of priviledges and immunities that you have alleged.

And once Congress allowed them to be admitted they did.

302 posted on 10/15/2006 2:36:43 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
They expected presidents to abide by it too, but apparently somebody forgot to tell Lincoln.

Yes, well we all know that you believe that to be true.

303 posted on 10/15/2006 2:42:25 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
actually, as i stated, those were the words of Professor Ramsey of Tulane University

Well then Professor Ramsey, assuming he actually existed, is as wrong as you are. Must make him proud, the acorn not falling far from the tree and all.

304 posted on 10/15/2006 3:02:40 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin
too VERY true!

free dixie,sw

305 posted on 10/15/2006 5:23:21 PM PDT by stand watie ("Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God." - T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
pardon me, but i'm giving your comment all the credit it deserves =ZILCH.

fwiw, everyone here has figured out that you're nothing except a PROPAGANDIST for the DAMNyankee elitists.

free dixie,sw

306 posted on 10/15/2006 5:25:24 PM PDT by stand watie ("Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God." - T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
The powers of the Presidency during rebellion were used by Lincoln and upheld by Congress. 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.

The President did not violate the Constitution, he has authority based on his responsibilty to stop rebellion.

The Congress supported his actions.

Bush is going to through the same issue with wire-tapping, with the opposition using the Courts in an attempt to hamstring his efforts to defend the U.S.

I take it you haven't read Article 1, section10 which removes the right of any state to act as a sovereign nation. Including entering into a Confederation or making a compact with another state. As long as states remain in the Union, they are bound by that section of the Constitution. The Constitution does not apply to Canadian provinces or states that have withdrawn from the Constitutional compact. When states withdraw their delegation of powers to the federal government and resume governing themselves, they are no longer bound by any limitations in the Constitution.

The fact is that they cannot withdraw and no where does it state in the Constitution that they can.

What the Constitution does say is that they cannot form compacts or Confederations.

Interesting how you read what is not there but not what is.

Canada never entered into the Union and gave up its rights to have compacts and Confederations.

From a US Supreme Court finding in Penhallow v. Doane's Adm'rs, 3 U.S. 54 (1795) [Thanks, 4CJ for finding this]: As long as she [New Hampshire] 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. 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? These were Founders saying this, not folks from a later time like yourself trying to put their spin on the Constitution.

Since when is the Union a Confederacy?

The Union made the Articles of Confederation more binding and permanent then the Articles.

The fact that New Hemphsire agreed to the Constitution means she was bound to it.

When New England attempted secession, it was the South that stated that they were not able to do so-and they were right.

A State can no more withdraw from the Union then it can be ejected from the Union.

Interesting, that wasn't mentioned either in the Constitution either, but no one questions that it is impossible to do that!

307 posted on 10/16/2006 2:32:10 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth? (Gal.4:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
given the FACT that the TURNCOATS to their own STATE couldn't be TRUSTED, doesn't the action seem PRUDENT???

Let's hope the day doesn't come when a government as intrusive and oppressive as the CSA again feels that free American citizens are not to be trusted with firearms.

And the real turncoats to Tennessee were the governor and his group of slavery-worshipping politicians who took Tennessee out of the Union against the expressed will of the people.

308 posted on 10/16/2006 2:35:35 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
fwiw, today's USA is FAR more tyrannical that the CSA ever was, especially given the fact that the CSA was being invaded (without JUST cause!) AND had "a fight on her hands" from TURNCOATS, renegades, common criminals & guerrillas from within as well.

fyi, we TRUE southerners have NO respect for the so-called "unionists" in the old dixie, any more than we do for today's TURNCOATS/collaborators against the southland.

free dixie,sw

309 posted on 10/16/2006 8:25:33 AM PDT by stand watie ("Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God." - T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

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

Of course not, but that's not the question. The question is whether states that have been admitted since 1865 BELIEVE that they can leave at their whim, despite Texas v. White. You claim that they believe they can. I'd like to see some evidence to that effect.

310 posted on 10/16/2006 8:57:11 AM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
fwiw, there (to my limited knowledge) isn't any evidence, as no state has attempted to leave the union.

some years ago, in the face of MULTIPLE MILLIONS of MURDERS of the UNBORN (ordered by the USSC!), i thought that MIGHT be the spark that took at least SOME states out of the union.

otoh, i truly believe that at 60YO, that i will live to see LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AZATLAN established from the former states of AZ,CA,CO,NM,NV,OR & WA.i believe this will happen in 10-20 years.

UNLESS the rest of the states/the federal government decides to prosecute a CIVIL WAR, that will make the "Late Unpleasantness of 1861-65" look like a Sunday School picnic, Azatlan will be FREE. (imVho, the NEW & MUCH improved SOUTHRON REPUBLIC will PEACEFULLY secede shortly after that.)

fwiw, i believe that my 2YO niece will live to raise her family in a FREE southland.

free dixie,sw

311 posted on 10/16/2006 9:07:33 AM PDT by stand watie ("Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God." - T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
btw, WHERE did you come up with that screen-name??? i like it.

free dixie,sw

312 posted on 10/16/2006 9:08:20 AM PDT by stand watie ("Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God." - T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
fwiw, there (to my limited knowledge) isn't any evidence, as no state has attempted to leave the union

But over a dozen have been admitted, none of them apparently thinking to mention that they think they can leave at their whim. You'd think that somewhere, sometime, one of them would have said "Despite what Texas v. White says, we're joining the union only with the understanding that we can leave anytime we want." You'd think that, especially after the Civil War, they'd make that clear. If they believed it, of course.

313 posted on 10/16/2006 9:26:18 AM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
btw, WHERE did you come up with that screen-name??? i like it.

Old Elvis and JFK (played by Ossie Davis Jr in an inspired bit of casting) team up at a small town Texas nursing home to fight the mummy that's preying on the life energy of the inhabitants.


314 posted on 10/16/2006 9:32:31 AM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
and you point IS??? do you HAVE a point???

imVho, the secession of AZATLAN will show you that the union is ANYTHING but perpetual.

free dixie,sw

315 posted on 10/16/2006 9:35:06 AM PDT by stand watie ("Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God." - T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
did it cross your mind that NO state has been terribly interested in SECESSION so far because:

a.MOST people aren't ANGRY enough at the central government to "vote with their feet" (but let national GUN CONFISCATION take place as it did in AUS & you'll see either secession or OPEN warfare!) &

b.MOST people believe that the TENTH AMENDMENT means PRECISELY what the plain text says.

SECESSION is NOT one of the POWERS of the STATES that was ceded to the federal government. (FYI, a UNCONSTITUTIONAL decision of the USSC does NOT alter what the plain text says!)

free dixie,sw

316 posted on 10/16/2006 9:43:16 AM PDT by stand watie ("Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God." - T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
and you point IS??? do you HAVE a point???

My point is that your belief that states that have joined the union since Texas v. White still believe that they can leave the union any time they wish is incorrect. I've seen nothing from you to change that.

mVho, the secession of AZATLAN will show you that the union is ANYTHING but perpetual.

Why isn't Texas on your list? They seem a lot more likely to be part of this Aztlan than, say, Washington or Oregon.

317 posted on 10/16/2006 9:45:15 AM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
NOPE. TEXANS (including me) will FIGHT (the rest of the western states, imVho, will NOT any more than the "blue" states will!) to remain TEXICAN.

also TX will NOT be majority Hispanic by 2020. (btw, our Latinos are "TEJANOS", rather than "RECONQUISTAS".)

fwiw, TEXANS are UNIQUE in the country.

free dixie,sw

318 posted on 10/16/2006 9:50:23 AM PDT by stand watie ("Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God." - T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
NOPE. TEXANS (including me) will FIGHT (the rest of the western states, imVho, will NOT any more than the "blue" states will!) to remain TEXICAN.

And if the state votes to secede anyway, will you become a "turncoat"?

also TX will NOT be majority Hispanic by 2020.

But Oregon will?

fwiw, TEXANS are UNIQUE in the country.

Less so every day.

319 posted on 10/16/2006 9:54:38 AM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: stand watie; Bubba Ho-Tep
and you point IS??? do you HAVE a point???

Why does anyone need to have a point? Since when have YOU ever had a point that was recognizable to anyone with any sense at all?

320 posted on 10/16/2006 10:17:43 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 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