Quote from: A DAS LIKE BIRDS on June 28, 2015, 04:17:27 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on June 28, 2015, 03:38:20 PM

Quote from: Rocketman287 on June 27, 2015, 07:14:54 PM

All this Confederate flag controversy is so stupid. It takes you this long to suddenly be offended?
Okay then.

The Confederate flag nonsense has been an issue since the Civil War. It only now has been boiling over because of current events combined with the fact that it isn't 1863 anymore.

No, it definitely hasn't been a thing here. Kids flew the stars and bars on their pickup trucks going to school senior year.
Maybe in Comradefornia it's an issue, but y'all can just keep your whole being offended at everything shtick to y'allselves.

the fact that you guys aren't bothered by flying a flag that represents racism, violence, and hatred speaks more about the south than anything else. there's a reason you guys are terrible at everything. maybe there's something in the water down there.

Quote from: Rocketman287 on June 28, 2015, 08:46:19 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on June 28, 2015, 06:14:47 PM

Quote from: A DAS LIKE BIRDS on June 28, 2015, 04:17:27 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on June 28, 2015, 03:38:20 PM

Quote from: Rocketman287 on June 27, 2015, 07:14:54 PM

All this Confederate flag controversy is so stupid. It takes you this long to suddenly be offended?
Okay then.

The Confederate flag nonsense has been an issue since the Civil War. It only now has been boiling over because of current events combined with the fact that it isn't 1863 anymore.

No, it definitely hasn't been a thing here. Kids flew the stars and bars on their pickup trucks going to school senior year.
Maybe in Comradefornia it's an issue, but y'all can just keep your whole being offended at everything shtick to y'allselves.

the fact that you guys aren't bothered by flying a flag that represents racism, violence, and hatred speaks more about the south than anything else. there's a reason you guys are terrible at everything. maybe there's something in the water down there.

I personally don't fly them, but the Confederate flag is pretty much accepted around here. Doesn't matter anyways, they lost.

The south WILL rise again.

Quote from: Mad Max on June 28, 2015, 06:14:47 PM

Quote from: A DAS LIKE BIRDS on June 28, 2015, 04:17:27 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on June 28, 2015, 03:38:20 PM

Quote from: Rocketman287 on June 27, 2015, 07:14:54 PM

All this Confederate flag controversy is so stupid. It takes you this long to suddenly be offended?
Okay then.

The Confederate flag nonsense has been an issue since the Civil War. It only now has been boiling over because of current events combined with the fact that it isn't 1863 anymore.

No, it definitely hasn't been a thing here. Kids flew the stars and bars on their pickup trucks going to school senior year.
Maybe in Comradefornia it's an issue, but y'all can just keep your whole being offended at everything shtick to y'allselves.

the fact that you guys aren't bothered by flying a flag that represents racism, violence, and hatred speaks more about the south than anything else. there's a reason you guys are terrible at everything. maybe there's something in the water down there.

okay faggot, listen up

There's more to that flag than racism.

The flag means different things to different fucking people and just because YOUR unfuckingcultured orthodox californian brain processes it one way does not mean every other brain does.

The flag represents, depending entirely on the person observing it:

Southern culture, history, and heritage.

State's rights, decentralization of power, and opposition to the Federal government

And yes, slavery and white supremacy.

I don't expect someone from California to understand anything about Southern culture, but I do expect you to acknowledge the position of ignorance you are actually in, instead of rambling like a holier-than-thou cunt.

I'm not going to argue that racial interpretations of the flag are wrong, because they aren't. Any combination of the three meanings is a legitimate interpretation. I believe it's something to display sensetively, because some people interpret the flag solely negatively, and it's totally reasonable. I can't stand guys who have a problem with people taking offense to it, because it's okay to see the flag and think "slavery". Plenty of people, yes, including many African Americans, see it and just think "I'm proud of my background", and if you're going to throw the uncle tom card at that I'm going to respond by telling you to kill yourself and getting myself banned again.

I can't stand people with their heads up their ass about how evil it is, especially ones as far up as yours. If you think the Dixie flag is too evil, you should write off American flags too, because trust me, that flag represents some pretty FUCKED UP shit to Native Americans. But I guess it's okay to salute that flag because at least it won.

I'm fucking sick of dumbfuck outsiders writing off Southerners as dumb racist hicks just because they can be proud of parts of their heritage. Sick of this elitist, classist bullshit. If California's such a liberal fucking paradise, enjoy it and stop telling outsiders how to live their fucking lives.


Every flag has some blood on it.

LOL every southern fucktard sympathizer liked this.

Quote from: A DAS LIKE BIRDS on June 28, 2015, 04:17:27 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on June 28, 2015, 03:38:20 PM

Quote from: Rocketman287 on June 27, 2015, 07:14:54 PM

All this Confederate flag controversy is so stupid. It takes you this long to suddenly be offended?
Okay then.

The Confederate flag nonsense has been an issue since the Civil War. It only now has been boiling over because of current events combined with the fact that it isn't 1863 anymore.

No, it definitely hasn't been a thing here. Kids flew the stars and bars on their pickup trucks going to school senior year.
Maybe in Comradefornia it's an issue, but y'all can just keep your whole being offended at everything shtick to y'allselves.

the fact that you guys aren't bothered by flying a flag that represents racism, violence, and hatred speaks more about the south than anything else. there's a reason you guys are terrible at everything. maybe there's something in the water down there.

Quote from: Mad Max on June 28, 2015, 11:05:18 PM

Quote from: Luciana on June 28, 2015, 07:28:25 PM

Also for the record, stores refusing to sell it and all that is retarded. Take it off of government buildings, sure. But uhh, yeah. Free speech and freedom of expression is a two way street. Something more and more people are seeming to forget.

So stores can't make their own business choices now?

If the status quo is forcing bakeries to support gay weddings, then correct.

>That flag stands for more than racism

Yeah, it stands for the wartime era of a state which was fighting for the right to own slaves.

And was then brought into the public spotlight in the 1940's when used by the KKK

So yeah, it's pretty much "Fuck Niggers; The Flag"

Quote from: Cindo on June 29, 2015, 01:05:52 AM

>That flag stands for more than racism

Yeah, it stands for the wartime era of a state which was fighting for the right to own slaves.

And was then brought into the public spotlight in the 1940's when used by the KKK

So yeah, it's pretty much "Fuck Niggers; The Flag"

I read that the confederate states of America's constitution outlawed the owning of slaves. So...

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 10:42:04 AM

Quote from: Mad Max on June 29, 2015, 10:36:25 AM

Quote from: WAIFU MASTER II on June 29, 2015, 07:30:23 AM

Quote from: Mad Max on June 28, 2015, 11:05:18 PM

Quote from: Luciana on June 28, 2015, 07:28:25 PM

Also for the record, stores refusing to sell it and all that is retarded. Take it off of government buildings, sure. But uhh, yeah. Free speech and freedom of expression is a two way street. Something more and more people are seeming to forget.

So stores can't make their own business choices now?

If the status quo is forcing bakeries to support gay weddings, then correct.

But there's a difference.

Bakeries denying wedding cakes to certain customers is not the same as pulling a product from the shelves.

How are they in anyway different?

Both are denying services to a specific customer base, and both will lose out on potential revenue, such as the free market dictates.

The only difference is that you find one of them uncomfortable to accept.

What specific customer base is being denied their confederate flag, while another is able to purchase it? they're refusing to sell it to anyone, not just certain people. That's not discrimination.

Quote from: Lord Starch on June 29, 2015, 10:45:00 AM

Quote from: Cindo on June 29, 2015, 01:05:52 AM

>That flag stands for more than racism

Yeah, it stands for the wartime era of a state which was fighting for the right to own slaves.

And was then brought into the public spotlight in the 1940's when used by the KKK

So yeah, it's pretty much "Fuck Niggers; The Flag"

I read that the confederate states of America's constitution outlawed the owning of slaves. So...

Lmao what the fuck?

Mississippi

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

Texas

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?
The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States.

South Carolina

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." [editor's note: this is the Fugitive Slave Clause in the original Constitution whereby the North promised to return escaped slaves to their "owners" in the South]

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

Florida

. . . In 1820 the North demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution. After a bitter and protracted struggle the North was defeated in her special object, but her policy and position led to the adoption of a section in the law for the admission of Missouri, prohibiting slavery in all that portion of the territory acquired from France lying North of 36 [degrees] 30 [minutes] north latitude and outside of Missouri. The venerable Madison at the time of its adoption declared it unconstitutional. Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. This particular question, in connection with a series of questions affecting the same subject, was finally disposed of by the defeat of prohibitory legislation.
The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

Alabama

And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as a permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States,

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 07:13:29 AM

The fact that you're bothered over what is essentially a panel of cloth that represented antiquated values 200 odd years ago speaks more wonders about the personality of your character than the people who consciously decide to display it on their private property.

"It's worse to be disgusted at somebody flying the nazi flag than it is to fly the nazi flag"

LOL
O
L

Quote from: Mad Max on June 29, 2015, 11:07:38 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 10:55:33 AM

Quote from: Mad Max on June 29, 2015, 10:46:07 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 10:42:04 AM

Quote from: Mad Max on June 29, 2015, 10:36:25 AM

Quote from: WAIFU MASTER II on June 29, 2015, 07:30:23 AM

Quote from: Mad Max on June 28, 2015, 11:05:18 PM

Quote from: Luciana on June 28, 2015, 07:28:25 PM

Also for the record, stores refusing to sell it and all that is retarded. Take it off of government buildings, sure. But uhh, yeah. Free speech and freedom of expression is a two way street. Something more and more people are seeming to forget.

So stores can't make their own business choices now?

If the status quo is forcing bakeries to support gay weddings, then correct.

But there's a difference.

Bakeries denying wedding cakes to certain customers is not the same as pulling a product from the shelves.

How are they in anyway different?

Both are denying services to a specific customer base, and both will lose out on potential revenue, such as the free market dictates.

The only difference is that you find one of them uncomfortable to accept.

What specific customer base is being denied their confederate flag, while another is able to purchase it? they're refusing to sell it to anyone, not just certain people. That's not discrimination.

Confederate fans can't buy Confederate flags at Wal-Mart, Amazon etc, and gay couples can't buy wedding cakes from a select number of caterers. Both can purchase their desired services from another seller willing to satisfy their demands. That's the beauty of the free market.

At the end of the day, the only people getting the short end of the stick are the people refusing to satisfy a specific market.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

>"I can't rebuke his argument"
>"better crack out the troll card"