A
Anonymous
Might get you more credibility with those customers that are scared of you
Confederate Flag BAN
- Thread starter skyhightree1
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
TexasBred
Well-known member
skyhightree1":2zkiazp2 said:
Just realized that appears to be "Stevie Wonder". He77 he doesnt' even know he's wearing it. :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:
OP
OP
skyhightree1
Well-known member
hooknline":2be4a1f6 said:
Lol
OP
OP
skyhightree1
Well-known member
TexasBred":3ncgtgmo said:
nope thats rapper ludacris I think is how you spell it and he can see :lol: He wears a belt buckle with the flag on it alot as well :nod:
melking
Well-known member
Sky I don't fly one either don't own one.
What get's my panties in a wad is the trampling of our right's no matter where you stand on this flag or any other.
It has come down to some of our citizen's have right's and other's don't.
The government is lighting the fuse on a powder keg.
Just this year you have had search's without warrant's.
Marshal Law under the disguise of public safety over one teenager called a lock down. That is Marshal Law.
An American citizen being denied his 5th admendment right's to remain silent. Are you or I next.
We have the IRS acting as the SS of 1930's Germany targeting political enemies of the current regime.
We have flat out been lied to about Bengazi by the government that supposedly work's for us.
We are being spied on by our own government conjureing up image's of Soviet Block countries.
The 1 st admendment is under attack by the Justice dept. targeting the current regime's critic's.
I don't care what party you back this should scare every American to death.[/quote]
Well put
What get's my panties in a wad is the trampling of our right's no matter where you stand on this flag or any other.
It has come down to some of our citizen's have right's and other's don't.
The government is lighting the fuse on a powder keg.
Just this year you have had search's without warrant's.
Marshal Law under the disguise of public safety over one teenager called a lock down. That is Marshal Law.
An American citizen being denied his 5th admendment right's to remain silent. Are you or I next.
We have the IRS acting as the SS of 1930's Germany targeting political enemies of the current regime.
We have flat out been lied to about Bengazi by the government that supposedly work's for us.
We are being spied on by our own government conjureing up image's of Soviet Block countries.
The 1 st admendment is under attack by the Justice dept. targeting the current regime's critic's.
I don't care what party you back this should scare every American to death.[/quote]
Well put
john250
Well-known member
If I read this correctly, the ban is for putting flags on city owned light poles. The city may have good reasons for not allowing groups to use city prop in this way. If you let the "Sons of the Confederacy" put up flags, how can you stop the "gay pride" groups from putting up their flags. Or the Nazi's. If the Sons have a lodge or clubhouse they can fly as many flags as they wish on their private property. If they have a member with a property on Main St., he/she can fly any flag they want on their property.
I fly the Pirate flag here. I think folks deserve a little warning. :lol2:
I fly the Pirate flag here. I think folks deserve a little warning. :lol2:
TexasBred
Well-known member
skyhightree1":r4o7n0ar said:
Sky that's sounds totally Ludacris. :lol2: :lol2: :cowboy:
OP
OP
skyhightree1
Well-known member
john250":328c5i1l said:
Great point john I know I don't want to see any rainbow flags flying on my countys flag poles
TexasBred":328c5i1l said:skyhightree1":328c5i1l said:
Sky that's sounds totally Ludacris. :lol2: :lol2: :cowboy:
:lol:
denvermartinfarms
Well-known member
I would just like to think that in this country a confederate flag is a little more acceptable than a gay flag or a nazi flag. Unfortunately that may not be the case after the last 5 years but that's a whole nuther conversation.john250":t0uvugsb said:
backhoeboogie
Well-known member
In the end, we can all agree to disagree, or not.
The flag obviously has different meanings to everyone.
The flag obviously has different meanings to everyone.
ALACOWMAN
Well-known member
i choose the latter.. i never agree to disagree, to do that makes you weak and wrong :cowboy:backhoeboogie":1kvf4mti said:In the end, we can all agree to disagree, or not.
The flag obviously has different meanings to everyone.
TB....there is no doubt that inconsistencies exist.
Both parties violated the Constitution at numerous points during this time.
My issue is that once again, government expanded beyond it's intent takes an overreaching measure that it's unauthorized to take.
I have serious reservations that the kids that actually wore grey in the war did so to preserve an institution they had no stake in for the sake of men they didn't care for. I also have reservations that men wearing blue would leave home to fight for a cause that didn't exist at the beginning of the war when they themselves often viewed, spoke of, and treated slaves as sub-human. Other than to serve as a mercenary, I can see no reason to leave home for the opportunity to get shot at to preserve a "union". The Confederacy was using scare tactics to rev up momentum for their boys. The Union was pulling guys fresh off the boat from Europe as fast as they could, slapping a blue suit on them, and sending them to Virginia and Pennsylvania before they could grab a cup of coffee and enjoy a bowel movement. It is the utter failure of leadership that the war ever took place.
The beliefs held and argued over in the mid 19th century was eerily similar to the debates held during the revolutionary period. The only difference is that the current of statesmanship was stronger in 1770-1795, than from 1850-1875. In my opinion chiefly because they had a far clearer understanding of what truly bad government looked like (The British Parliament).
It really all boils down to this. Government by it's nature is eventually corrupt, and always seeks to expand itself. There is not a more consistent theme in history. A well prepared Republic enumerates extreme specifics within its written charter addressing the chief goal of restricting itself. As all governments are ultimately comprised of men, they inevitably have failings. And all men, particularly those who would seek public office, hold strong opinions on certain matters and ultimately the desire to leave a mark (be they pure or impure motives).
The larger a land, the greater the opportunity to have diverse representation. Laws made at a national scale inevitably are suggestions of men that are influenced by the culture of their own region. Unfortunately, the ramifications of these laws don't simply effect a region, they effect a nation. And what's good for Texas often is not good for Rhode Island and visa versa. And as our congress has shown with the consistency of the atomic clock: members of our legislative branch rarely collaborate to remove ineffective law, but rather agree to exchange vote on 2 new pieces of legalism. And so regulation expands. Regulation can not expand without a contraction in what is acceptable. And the totality of all those things that you are permitted to do is well summed and defined as.....and it's our favorite buzzword here in the good ole USA.....FREEDOM. You put 535 busy bodies who do well to keep up with and observe the wishes of their constituents much less the needs of the other 434 sub regions of America, failure is not only possible, it's comfortably predictable. Surely men will consider the wishes of those a thousand miles away more so than one individual standing in front of them with a 20 grand handshake. Yeah Uh huh :nod: At least one in 50 will.
It is the height of folly to believe that 535 +1 people can ever represent the needs of 330 million. It's the inability of men to practice desired behavior that often leads to the lazy assumption that it's effective to try and regulate to ensure desired behavior. You CAN'T.
Government is nasty, evil, and necessary. It's at it's best when it's biggest at home and diminishes in size the further you get from the house. All powers not specifically implied shall reside with the states. :cry2: :help:
Both parties violated the Constitution at numerous points during this time.
My issue is that once again, government expanded beyond it's intent takes an overreaching measure that it's unauthorized to take.
I have serious reservations that the kids that actually wore grey in the war did so to preserve an institution they had no stake in for the sake of men they didn't care for. I also have reservations that men wearing blue would leave home to fight for a cause that didn't exist at the beginning of the war when they themselves often viewed, spoke of, and treated slaves as sub-human. Other than to serve as a mercenary, I can see no reason to leave home for the opportunity to get shot at to preserve a "union". The Confederacy was using scare tactics to rev up momentum for their boys. The Union was pulling guys fresh off the boat from Europe as fast as they could, slapping a blue suit on them, and sending them to Virginia and Pennsylvania before they could grab a cup of coffee and enjoy a bowel movement. It is the utter failure of leadership that the war ever took place.
The beliefs held and argued over in the mid 19th century was eerily similar to the debates held during the revolutionary period. The only difference is that the current of statesmanship was stronger in 1770-1795, than from 1850-1875. In my opinion chiefly because they had a far clearer understanding of what truly bad government looked like (The British Parliament).
It really all boils down to this. Government by it's nature is eventually corrupt, and always seeks to expand itself. There is not a more consistent theme in history. A well prepared Republic enumerates extreme specifics within its written charter addressing the chief goal of restricting itself. As all governments are ultimately comprised of men, they inevitably have failings. And all men, particularly those who would seek public office, hold strong opinions on certain matters and ultimately the desire to leave a mark (be they pure or impure motives).
The larger a land, the greater the opportunity to have diverse representation. Laws made at a national scale inevitably are suggestions of men that are influenced by the culture of their own region. Unfortunately, the ramifications of these laws don't simply effect a region, they effect a nation. And what's good for Texas often is not good for Rhode Island and visa versa. And as our congress has shown with the consistency of the atomic clock: members of our legislative branch rarely collaborate to remove ineffective law, but rather agree to exchange vote on 2 new pieces of legalism. And so regulation expands. Regulation can not expand without a contraction in what is acceptable. And the totality of all those things that you are permitted to do is well summed and defined as.....and it's our favorite buzzword here in the good ole USA.....FREEDOM. You put 535 busy bodies who do well to keep up with and observe the wishes of their constituents much less the needs of the other 434 sub regions of America, failure is not only possible, it's comfortably predictable. Surely men will consider the wishes of those a thousand miles away more so than one individual standing in front of them with a 20 grand handshake. Yeah Uh huh :nod: At least one in 50 will.
It is the height of folly to believe that 535 +1 people can ever represent the needs of 330 million. It's the inability of men to practice desired behavior that often leads to the lazy assumption that it's effective to try and regulate to ensure desired behavior. You CAN'T.
Government is nasty, evil, and necessary. It's at it's best when it's biggest at home and diminishes in size the further you get from the house. All powers not specifically implied shall reside with the states. :cry2: :help:
greybeard
Well-known member
"It is the height of folly to believe that 535 +1 people can ever represent the needs of 330 million."
They don't have to and don't try to. They only try to represent the wants of enough to make up a simple majority voting block.
They don't have to and don't try to. They only try to represent the wants of enough to make up a simple majority voting block.
HOSS
Well-known member
Very well written Redhides. Very nice summarization :tiphat:Redhides":1u8muktk said:
backhoeboogie
Well-known member
Yes. Where is the "like" button?
Caustic Burno
Well-known member
Many a southern boy was conscripted (drafted).
TexasBred
Well-known member
Redhides":1i0qggaw said:
Red unfortunately gov't started expanding beyond it's original intent the day after the constitution became the law of the land and the abuse has accelerated ever since. Thanks for a very well written unbiased open minded commentary. :nod:
TexasBred":2xr5xa7q said:
Well crafted positions deserve a good length of thought, and a well crafted response.
Nice thread and good commentary gents. Speaks a lot to the nature of this board and character of it's posters when you can discuss the radioactive hot potato topic of confederate flags/civil war/and states v national centric government and it doesn't devolve into a bunch of name calling and hyperbole.
Not bad for a band of us cattle rustling hayseeds. :tiphat:
melking
Well-known member
Sounds like a compliment Redhides. It will go straight to Ryders head...
Ryder
Well-known member
:roll: :roll: :roll: :bang: :bang: :bang:melking":1ws2v42i said:
