It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Confederate Flag on Truck at La Crosse Campus Stirs Debate

page: 3
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Stormdancer777

We're being a bit dramatic, aren't we?

It was a sticker and even though these students were "offended", I doubt it would carry-over to being a media frenzy.


just joking,





posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

So what was done wrong in this situation? Again the man WILLINGLY removed the flag from his truck with ZERO complaints.
edit on 30-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

How exactly is the 1st Amendment on life support? Can you name ONE law that has been passed, EVER, that infringes on your 1st Amendment rights?


"Free speech" zones?
en.wikipedia.org...

areas set aside in public places that are used to restrict the ability for American citizens to exercise their right of free speech in the United States by forcing them into these zones. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression.


If that, by itself, doesn't indicate a massive assault on the First Amendment, then I honestly have no idea what the purpose of the First was when it was initially penned.


So did you miss the part in the wikipedia article that went over why these things are Constitutional?


The Supreme Court has developed a four-part analysis to evaluate the constitutionality of time, place and manner (TPM) restrictions. To pass muster under the First Amendment, TPM restrictions must be neutral with respect to content, narrowly drawn, serve a significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of communication. Application of this four-part analysis varies with the circumstances of each case, and typically requires lower standards for the restriction of obscenity and fighting words.[citation needed]


If you don't agree with that, take it up with SCOTUS.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

People have gotten too hypersensitive these days. As a Son of Confederate Veterans, I have a Confederate Flag on my truck, and a 3rd National flag waving at my house. The VC and the poor intimidated students would have just had to be offended because my truck is an extension of my privacy and definitely my free speech.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
The guy scraped it off in fear he would lose his job. That college should be ashamed of itself even asking that person to scrap it off. Fear over a bumper sticker, stupidest thing i have ever heard. They have some special cupcakes at the college.

How long before the same idiots start calling the police on cars driving down the road with bumper stickers they don't like.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Restricted
Free speech is dead.


True, freedom of speech is a one sided argument.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Passerby1996
a reply to: IAMTAT

Yes, but there's a fine line between what's "politically incorrect, but not dangerous" and "politically incorrect AND potentially dangerous".

To use an extreme example: If a person joked on Facebook about blowing up a hospital, that's not just politically incorrect but potentially dangerous.

Although not as "dangerous" per se, having a confederate flag ANYWHERE out in a public place in the United States is troubling. The flag owner either has no idea the soured history behind the flag, is delusional to the point of believing the flag is a POSITIVE symbol, or knows full-well what it means and doesn't care. Let me tell you now the last two scenarios are much more likely.

I'm sure you already knew this, but the Confederacy broke away from the U.S. due mainly to one sticking point: Slavery. So when you show your support for a bygone era of racism and forced-servitude by raising the Confederate flag, it's telling of a person's frame-of-mind.

Usually when we talk about "too much political correctness", it's usually reference to a particularly dark joke made on the media or internet. Showing this flag is NOT a case of political correctness. It represents the worst aspects of american history. You might as well have a flag on your car with the motto "I hate n****rs and think they should be enslaved." Don't act like this isn't what the Confederacy stood for.

To conclude, there's a difference between perceived incorrectness and downright inflammatory political statements.

EDIT: I forgot to mention what the studrnts made him do probably wasn't the best idea. However, this doesn't mean the Confederate flag isn't a symbol of hate and shouldn't be frowned upon in public places.


That's not what the Confederacy stood for. At all. They stood for freedom from a tyrannical government which they felt was corrupt. I'd hate to have to shut down another person clueless on what the Civil War was about, and who really cared about the freedom of slaves and all that, but I will if I have to. Please do not make ignorant statements about the Confederacy and what it stood for again.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
***Hyperbole and Red Herring alert***



Get over it he complied willingly.

Stop being so offended by people who are offended.


Oh please. Just like black people went to the back of the bus "willingly" before the sixties?

It was under threat of aggression.
edit on 30-11-2015 by Deny Arrogance because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

What's incorrect is to say that the Confederacy didn't secede from the union to protect slavery. Saying such is history revisionism. It's actually spelled out in the very speeches used for secession that they seceded for reasons involving protecting slavery. The idea of "State's Rights" is just a politically correct way of saying "defending the right to own slaves".
edit on 30-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   
I'm sure MANY students consider TRUMP a racist, are 'scared' of him being President...and find him offensive.

If students expressed 'fear and angst' over the construction worker's 'TRUMP 2016' bumper sticker, should he be approached by the vice chancellor to remove it?



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
So what was done wrong in this situation? Again the man WILLINGLY removed the flag from his truck with ZERO complaints.

I find this part extremely interesting.

Mostly since it would have been a breach of contract for the campus staff to speak to the sub trade directly, all communication would have gone through the prime.

Ergo, we have no idea what the reaction of the individual in question would have actually been.

I have been through my share of 'willing compromises'...that came out of multi-hour, yell-fest meetings. The end client doesn't need to know, nor do they really care, how a task gets accomplished, just that it does get accomplished.

If I had to guess, the school is now paying the contractor, who will be paying the sub, for a new sticker once the job is complete. I know...seems trivial, but subs get money however they can, as they are usually at the receiving end of the stick, in most disputes. But, that is how the majority of minor disputes get settled. No mess, no real fuss, everybody is happy for the price of a Big Mac meal.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

probably should also make the point is slavery was such a big issue why did Lincoln wait 3 years after the civil war started to free the slaves in the southern states? and then another 2 years after that to free the rest. If slavery was such a big issue to the civil war why not free them all from the beginning?
edit on 30-11-2015 by Mokoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

You have no proof about that...


& the comparison alone is worthy of ignoring your bait.

Keep crying and being offended.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: DBCowboy

HE GAVE UP his free speech! No one denied him that. Good Lord!


Did he give up his rights spontaneously?

Or was he forced to?



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
So what was done wrong in this situation? Again the man WILLINGLY removed the flag from his truck with ZERO complaints.

I find this part extremely interesting.

Mostly since it would have been a breach of contract for the campus staff to speak to the sub trade directly, all communication would have gone through the prime.

Ergo, we have no idea what the reaction of the individual in question would have actually been.

I have been through my share of 'willing compromises'...that came out of multi-hour, yell-fest meetings. The end client doesn't need to know, nor do they really care, how a task gets accomplished, just that it does get accomplished.

If I had to guess, the school is now paying the contractor, who will be paying the sub, for a new sticker once the job is complete. I know...seems trivial, but subs get money however they can, as they are usually at the receiving end of the stick, in most disputes. But, that is how the majority of minor disputes get settled. No mess, no real fuss, everybody is happy for the price of a Big Mac meal.


Yet all of this is guess work considering all that was reported in the article is that the man removed it willingly. All the contempt for this story is centered around people inventing a narrative in the story that wasn't reported. You may be right with what you said here. I can't say for sure since I don't have much experience dealing with contractors as a business owner, so I can't say if what you said can't be true or not. All I can say for sure is what was reported or not. Everything else is circumstantial.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

You tell us. This is what the article in the OP says:

In a follow-up email Tuesday, Knudson clarified the university had asked for the flag's removal while the truck was on campus, and the driver "willingly complied." She said she would continue to defend free speech and work to guard students' "right to live and be educated free from hatred."



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Yet all of this is guess work considering all that was reported in the article is that the man removed it willingly. All the contempt for this story is centered around people inventing a narrative in the story that wasn't reported. You may be right with what you said here. I can't say for sure since I don't have much experience dealing with contractors as a business owner, so I can't say if what you said can't be true or not. All I can say for sure is what was reported or not. Everything else is circumstantial.

It must not have been that big of a deal. Guy would have at least pulled off of site temporarily, in protest, if he was really mad about it. Sounds like something that was settled with an email and a conversation, just too fast to have involved any of the higher ups from the prime or the sub.

In all honesty, it is probably something he put on years ago, and really didn't care about in the 'ideological sense'. I would put money down, that if you followed this truck for a week, after sub's services were completed, there will be some other sticker in the same spot. Whatever the guy feels is cool at the moment.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So she defends free speech by denying it to others.

Got it.

Again, how can anyone defend free speech while denying it at the same time?



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: peck420

That sounds plausible actually. Hell maybe the guy knows how to get the stickers for really cheap, removed it quickly to prevent any unnecessary confrontations and will put it right back when he is done the job.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

What's incorrect is to say that the Confederacy didn't secede from the union to protect slavery. Saying such is history revisionism. It's actually spelled out in the very speeches used for secession that they seceded for reasons involving protecting slavery. The idea of "State's Rights" is just a politically correct way of saying "defending the right to own slaves".


Heads of the Southern states wrote those Declarations of Secession. 90% of the boys and men fighting for freedom from the Union had nothing to do with slaves, nor with those DoS papers but you don't mention any of those other reasons, you're too focused on the slave portion. Lincoln had runaway slaves captured and returned to their owners. Some that he captured, he kept so that they could serve the white men fighting for the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation was just a paper he had written up to threaten the Confederates into submission because he was afraid of losing and he got desperate, and it only applied to the slaves that were below the border states. State's Rights went a lot further than "owning a slave."

I always find it interesting when people concentrate solely on the slavery part, and then call the real version a "revisionist's" version.







 
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join