The Confederate Flag and the US Govermnent

If this is confirmed by the officer as the reason he was pulled over, than it is most definitely a free speech issue and a violation of his rights. Officer should be suspended.

I don't know who the officer was but he didn't penalize my friend for it, he simply asked for him to take it off. It's not on his truck anymore (was in the front, hanging under his normal plates). Anyways, the cops around here are stupid, they're everywhere when you don't need them and nowhere to be found when you do...or they are eating donuts and the local DD...
 
because a private entity cannot threaten you with jail time for refusng to pay a fee.

You really want to go with that?


If all the roads were private, they would probably be toll roads for the most part(have to make money to upkeep the roads as well as make a profit). If you were to bypass said toll that would be trespassing, which can indeed land you in jail.

I'm also well aware we pay for the roads out of our taxes, frankly though it's like $5/year, not really worth going all anti-government over.
 
Somthing that might suprise you...but I'm black and in no way am I offended by the confederate flag...

Doesn't really surprise me. You shouldn't be. But I couldn't exactly hold it against you if you were either. Not that white people couldn't be offended by it, I just think black people are more likely to be offended by it because it points more directly at you.

government should not be paying for it

👍
 
again,you're bring up mainstream history as oppose to real historical fact. If you really want to know what really provoked the Civil War, I suggest you read the writings of civil war historian/economist Thomas Di Lorenzo. Overall it was not slavery that provoked the war, but rather the policies of Lincoln


If anything, I would suggest you challenge mainstream history as oppose to wholly accepting it as fact because in many cases its not. Take it from somebody who is history nut like myself.

"Mainstream" history definitely espouses the view that the Civil War was not about slavery, so your challenge rings a little hollow.

And I've read plenty of legitimate historical accounts of the Civil War that propose slavery as the catalyst of the war.

Which in the end, is what I love about history: It's always open to interpretation. You can have your view, I can have mine, and we can both find evidence to back it up. 👍
 
Danoff
Doesn't really surprise me. You shouldn't be. But I couldn't exactly hold it against you if you were either. Not that white people couldn't be offended by it, I just think black people are more likely to be offended by it because it points more directly at you.

Part of the reason why I'm not offended it stand from the fact that I came from a different country as oppose to having roots in america. The second reason stand from the fact animosity towards the flag is a product of indoctrination by organizations such the NAACP, SPLC, not mention both idiots Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton
 
Seriously, how big was Texas' role in the Confederacy...really not more than a footnote?


Danoff
First of all, I don't think the Texas (or any state) DMV should be producing a confederate license plate. You're using tax dollars to create a symbol [...] and sanctioning it with government approval.

Which is particularly funny when you consider that the Arizona Tea Party wanted their own license plate.

Shark, meet jump.

A2K78
I'm all for privatized roads instead of the socialist that you and I have to commute on everyday. Other than that government-controlled roads(or anything) is nothing but a socialist form of monopoly.

Until you apologize, you can't use our interstate system. It's one of the more beneficial and impressive uses of surplus tax revenues, until NIMBYs got involved.

I'm not crazy about privatization of toll roads, since at least a tolling authority has the pretext of putting profits back into the improvements and maintenance of the said system. A lease in which a private company could literally take the profits and run leaves little in the way of accountability, after its ruined. If the contract is iron-clad to which there's a high level of responsibility for maintenance, then I'm okay with it. It's basically so the maintenance runners of the said stretch of road can then bypass the bidding and contracting process.
 
Last edited:
Until you apologize, you can't use our interstate system. It's one of the more beneficial and impressive uses of surplus tax revenues, until NIMBYs got involved.

I don't agree. Just because someone doesn't want public funding for x doesn't mean he can't use the x that he was forced to pay for. The existence of publicly-funded programs fundamentally changes the market landscape and can make it impossible for people not to use it.
 
....Overall it was not slavery that provoked the war, but rather the policies of Lincoln....

Can you expand on which policies implemented by Abraham Lincoln provoked the Civil War?

Its my rememberance that South Carolina declared its sucession on December 20, 1860 while James Buchanan was still President and would be President for another 2 1/2 months.


GTsail
 
Can you expand on which policies implemented by Abraham Lincoln provoked the Civil War?

Its my rememberance that South Carolina declared its sucession on December 20, 1860 while James Buchanan was still President and would be President for another 2 1/2 months.


GTsail

Nothing A2K78? I've been really interested in a response to this...
 
Well, you are right to an extent.

Yes, one of the main ideas of the Civil War was slavery, however it was part of a much larger perspective. It was part of States Rights, in which they thought that, as states, they should be given the right to do certain things, slavery was one. It's actually found that Abraham Lincoln didn't really think about slavery as an issue until a General confronted him with many ideas included in the Emancipation Proclamation. If I find the article again, I'll be sure to post it up here, however it was something we studied, and eventually wrote an essay on in school.
 
Can you expand on which policies implemented by Abraham Lincoln provoked the Civil War?

Its my rememberance that South Carolina declared its sucession on December 20, 1860 while James Buchanan was still President and would be President for another 2 1/2 months.


GTsail

Read Thomas DiLorenoz commentaries on america's first imperial president and you'll see what I mean:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo-arch.html
 
I don't agree. Just because someone doesn't want public funding for x doesn't mean he can't use the x that he was forced to pay for.

Er, joke much?

How serious would you take people who've seen a movie five times, and then proceed to to tell you how terrible it was?
 
Read Thomas DiLorenoz commentaries on america's first imperial president and you'll see what I mean:

Nice advertising for Thomas DiLorenzo

I have read a bit of what he writes, and he does seem to like conspiracy theories.

However, this doesn't answer my question about what you posted.

You mentioned that Abraham Lincoln implemented some policies that provoked the US Civil War (and implied that they had nothing to do with slavery).

I am just curious as to what these policies were, and when did Lincoln implement them.

Can you enlighten us?

GTsail
 
Er, joke much?

How serious would you take people who've seen a movie five times, and then proceed to to tell you how terrible it was?

Not parallel.

The existence of publicly-funded competition alters the market in ways that can prevent people who would otherwise gladly participate in a private alternative from being able to do so. To take it to extreme, imagine that the government outlaws private medicine (as Canada has done). Do you now begrudge a libertarian any healthcare at all given that the only option is public?
 
....It's actually found that Abraham Lincoln didn't really think about slavery as an issue until a General confronted him with many ideas included in the Emancipation Proclamation. If I find the article again, I'll be sure to post it up here, however it was something we studied, and eventually wrote an essay on in school...

Actually, Abraham Lincoln delved quite deeply into the issue of slavery, far in advance of the Emancipation Proclamation.

I'm not sure what source you might be referring to, but if you would like to know a bit more about Abraham Lincoln's thoughts on slavery: one very good place to start would be to read his Cooper Union Speech, which he gave on February 27, 1860 (one year before he became President of the United States).

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm

In this speech, Lincoln is clearly saying that his position is that slavery is wrong, and that he and his like-minded fellow Republicans wish to prevent any spread of slavery into any US Territories, "an evil not to be extended".

And if read closely, I think you can see that Lincoln's desire would be to end slavery everywhere, as soon as practical.

Respectfully,
GTsail
 
Many see the confederate flag associated with slavery, but I would argue that we don't look at the Union Jack today and think, "that flag represents the oppression of people the world over for hundreds of years during Colonialism".

An awful lot of people doi, though. The Union Flag has become seen to be a symbol of oppression and racism, as illustrated here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-15735221

there have also been plenty of instances of people being told to take down Union Flags from houses, pubs and places of work becuse they could be construed to be "racist".
 
Actually, Abraham Lincoln delved quite deeply into the issue of slavery, far in advance of the Emancipation Proclamation.

I'm not sure what source you might be referring to, but if you would like to know a bit more about Abraham Lincoln's thoughts on slavery: one very good place to start would be to read his Cooper Union Speech, which he gave on February 27, 1860 (one year before he became President of the United States).

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm

In this speech, Lincoln is clearly saying that his position is that slavery is wrong, and that he and his like-minded fellow Republicans wish to prevent any spread of slavery into any US Territories, "an evil not to be extended".

And if read closely, I think you can see that Lincoln's desire would be to end slavery everywhere, as soon as practical.

Respectfully,
GTsail

But he also understood that the border states of the North also had slavery. Him making the war about slavery earlier on could have been a blunder. Those border states may as well joined the South if he declared slavery to be illegal in the entire union.

He sought to preserve the union, but ultimately decided to put slavery in the mix in order to exploit the South's dependence on agriculture.

It also helped that England and France didn't jump in due to making slavery a focal issue later on.
 
We cannot continue to twist the constitution to make ourselves feel good. If this government can ban religious activity, how can we let support any other way of thinking?
 
Back