Please ATS, nobody is BANNING the flag.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yea, I'm not surprised by this. The military really isn't one to allow customization anyways.

a reply to: beezzer

It certainly isn't a legal ban, you know what concerns the 1st Amendment? And the only type of ban that matters. But hey, I see you are still trying to split hairs on the definition of ban. Trying to conflate the idea of a social ban or government policy to remove the symbol from government buildings as an official ban.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

My intentions have been clear since the very beginning (despite Beezer trying to put words in my mouth). I am all for the removal of ANY symbol from government buildings and property. They are public buildings so the public gets to determine what should be there or not be there. I am NOT for banning these symbols outright. I have no problems with them showing up in a museum or history books or anything like that. I'm NOT trying to hide history or ban something that is important to people.

I believe you. But, do you speak for all the people who wished to remove this flag from the SC buildings? Some of them aren't as nice as you are.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: beezzer

It certainly isn't a legal ban, you know what concerns the 1st Amendment? And the only type of ban that matters. But hey, I see you are still trying to split hairs on the definition of ban. Trying to conflate the idea of a social ban or government policy to remove the symbol from government buildings as an official ban.

So you're qualifying the type of ban that you support.

Okay.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

I wonder if there would be a fine associated with flying the confederate flag in SC public property now.

Not sure what you mean by this... it's hard to tell with all the disjointed statements. Do you mean fined for private display in public? Like if you carried flag or displayed it on your person?

If so, no there shouldn't be a fine. That's violating free speech.

I'm not sure but I think the bunny may be referring to the removal of Confederate flags from cemetery graves of Confederate soldiers. IIRC I recently saw a story about that happening. I'll try to find a link. I think I understand your position. No Confederate flags on government buildings and I can agree with that. But what is your opinion on flags being removed from graves and memorials?

Those are federal cemeteries so the government has every right to remove them.

in light of Augustus' post showing that these flags are part of the headstone, what are your feelings on this?

a reply to: network dude

I think we forget that the SCOTUS has already presided over cases that involved issues such as this. There has been a precedent already set and any effort to outright ban the display of such symbols is unconstitutional.

Rest easy. If some group of people try to push forward they will be quickly rejected.

a reply to: beezzer

NANCY PELOSI: FEDERAL CONFEDERATE FLAG BAN ‘IS ABOUT OUR MORALS’

During a July 9 discussion on a spending bill, Democrat members of the House—led by House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)9% (D-CA-12th Dist)—began pushing a vote to ban all “Confederate symbols from the Capitol.” This was a continuation of a push that began Tuesday, wherein Democrats sought to ban Confederate flags from all federal cemeteries.

According to Politico, on Tuesday, Democrats not only pushed to ban the flag from federal cemeteries, but also “to stop the U.S. Park Service from doing business with enterprises that sell the flags.”

'NO' politicians support banning it

Since the Nazi Germany comparison is fair game - let's pretend it's 1938. Nobody is calling for the Jews to be removed, I mean Germany is still a Republic. Don't worry about those brownshirts, all that broken glass is just a distraction a red herring. Besides, it's not the government calling for a ban on Jews, right? Just malcontents.

Things are being done to others (or their private property) but since it isn't the government doing it there's nothing to worry about. Got it Chief. Applauding the girl who took the flag down in SC is exactly the same - tacit support. The Obama administration has made it's position known and now we have a social media campaign calling for the theft and destruction of private property. Is the government going to do anything to stop it? No, they won't and you know it.

These are the exact same kinds of tactics used by Communists as well as Fascists to destroy their opposition. Tear down the traditional structures and ostracize conservatives.

I'm not the one calling for anyone to do anything. You and others are writing post after post supporting the very acts I describe above and changing public policy because suddenly everything about the Confederacy can now be conflated as being racist. Another poster here calls me a racist just for disagreeing with their idea of how we should change things concerning the flag. Again, it isn't ME calling to do anything yet I'm the racist you see for disagreeing with their view of the meaning of the flag. It's history, not an act of racism. If we want to start passing moral judgment on historical figures and movements in the US nobody will be left in the history books.

Clean slate also works well for communist indoctrination, just ask Mao.

People are going to be assaulted over this I guarantee and the excuse of race baiting is going to legitimize theft and assault. Those displaying the flag will be publicly vilified as racist and the fault will be laid on them for daring to display such a horrifying and racist symbol.

Give it a couple of weeks, that is precisely how it will be portrayed.
Instead of protecting people and their property the government will blame them.
But hey, the government isn't banning anything.
Just the acts of malcontents with tacit approval.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Khaleesi

Privatize them. Let the people who care about honoring the Confederacy take over responsibility for their maintenance. Then no one gets to have a say about what flags are flown at them or anything else about them. Sons of the Confederacy and Daughters of the Confederacy are both pretty big right? Let the government give it all to them.

What a fantastic idea. Have the government give all the land and monuments to a public group to maintain these. Then we can display any damn thing we like and the rest of the whiners can suck eggs. I like this.

I absolutely agree! Much better idea than what is happening now. Just a few examples:

www.oanow.com...

www.tylerpaper.com...

www.komonews.com...

www.wsfa.com...

Just to name a few and let's not forget that Memphis has voted to disinter a Confederate general and his wife and sell the statue that marks his grave.

a reply to: neo96

I know. And as we've seen already, people will twist themselves into pretzels in order to justify the on-going work to further ban the flag.

They will play with definitions, change verbage, obfuscate.

They will support politicians who want to ban the flag.

They qualify terms and don't call a ban a ban.

Kind of like when Obamacare wasn't a "tax".

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Well until there is even a legitimate chance of it happening, there is no point in worrying about it. It's just wasted effort on your part.

no opportunity to whine about imagined wrongs is ever a wasted effort for Neo.

a reply to: neo96

Exactly - perfect examples of misuse of het word "ban".

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: neo96

Exactly - perfect examples of misuse of het word "ban".

Last time I checked politicians are the masters of that.

They have a long,lurid,sorted history of calling one thing another as Beezer pointed out.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Since the Nazi Germany comparison is fair game

I thought it was. They get to call people racist for a damn flag.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

No one can swallow that amount of hyperbole... well, maybe two others.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Your post is full of false equivalencies, rhetoric and, frankly, is a bit disturbing but I will address this one statement:

I'm not the one calling for anyone to do anything.

Neither am I. I'm saying that people have the right to have their government represent them in whatever way they see fit. We have laws and rights in place to ensure that the individual's right to free speech is protected and those that wish to deny that right, or act-out violently against them, are quickly dealt with.

Government does not have free speech and it should represent the will of the people within the confines of law and constitutionality.

This will all blow over eventually and I hope we can look back and laugh at how the conspiracies rose to a ridiculous level.

If by some chance some people or groups of people decide to escalate this even further. I will be right by your side protecting individual freedoms. Please be sure of that.

a reply to: beezzer

Didn't he say "If you like your flag you can keep your flag"?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Asktheanimals

No one can swallow that amount of hyperbole... well, maybe two others.

When you run out of rational arguments just say "hyperbole"!
Works like magic.
Almost as good as "racist".

a reply to: network dude

My guess is that that flag will be associated with racism and that the social justice warriors will bully anybody who dares to use it. It's not banning, but it's close enough. I've seen too many times how people who said something that was sexist or racist have lost their jobs and been forced to appologize after being hang out to dry in both media and in social media.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

When you run out of rational arguments just say "hyperbole"!
Works like magic.
Almost as good as "racist".

You're equating the use of the word "hyperbole" to that of "racist"?

Really? Do I need to explain the ridiculousness of that statement?

Well, you did say "almost". I guess that makes it better?