Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
This topic about license plates reminds me of this idiotic post:
I have lived in the South a long time and I have hardly seen any Confederate flags ever.
To which I replied:
Too bad for the Sons of Confederate Veterans
Supreme Court says states can block Confederate flag license plates
The justices said in a 5-4 decision that Texas' specialty license plate program is a form of government, not private, speech. The First Amendment does not prohibit the state from rejecting some designs, they said.
"States have long used license plates in this country to convey government messages," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the majority, which included the court's other more liberal justices along with Clarence Thomas. Just as the state cannot force drivers to espouse a particular message, he said, drivers cannot force a state to espouse theirs.
.
The 13th Amendment was passed by the House on January 31st, 1865.But the 13th passed while Lincoln was alive, and he was arguably the most involved person in getting it pushed through.
If you want to get technical, yes, the EP didn't free any slaves, and the 13th was passed by Republicans and Democrats in the House.
I think you're trying to demonize Lincoln and the Union, and in doing so, you are trying too hard to shoe-horn technicalities into an argument that turns American history on it's head.
I am perfectly willing to settle for my opinion that neither side was an less moral than the other. Good and bad in both, because that's how we all really are as people.
A good example of that is Hollywood's examples of male slave owners. They're always the sweaty old drunk fat guy who rapes the young slave girls. In reality, there were laws against that, and any slave owner who did that, would have lot's of trouble socially, at church, and in business because of the distaste for it within southern society.
There are many examples of slaves that were well treated and stayed with their former owners after the war. Junior high school textbooks would not include that.
The 13th was not ratified until several months after his death.
Lincoln was a lunatic that was hell bent to go to war over secession and that was the wrong moral thing to do and it resulted in the deaths of almost a million people, the destruction of scores of American cities and the economic ruin of a third of the country for almost 100 years.
To me Americans should not be killed because they want self determination and freedom. The Union should not be a suicide pact or like the Mafia that when you join you can never get out.
It was not the act of secession that caused the war. That was only a political act. It was Lincoln undoing the secession by force that was the war. It started with Lincoln breaking the fragile truce at Ft Sumter that Buchanan worked so hard to preserve and started in full force when the army crossed the Potomac River to kill Americans and take away their arms. The war was Americans defending their homeland against an invasion.
The issue of slavery was a side show. Lincoln even said in the quote I posted above that it was.
No, I'm complaining that a state when engaged in for profit activities are not held to the same standards as any other business.
Do you have any evidence that bakeries in Texas are forced to make cakes for gay weddings?
There's no cakes mentioned in the quote you posted. Care to try again?
No, but your insinuation is clear. If the government can disallow the public from refusing service for gay weddings when it's against the business owner's beliefs, how can the government rightfully refuse to accommodate people who want a confederate license plate design? I'm inclined to agree that you raise a valid ethical dilemma, generally speaking.
However, there is one problem because the dilemma doesn't actually exist in this particular. Texas does not have public accommodation laws that prohibit a baker or other business from discriminating against gay marriages. Thus, the government is not refusing to follow its own rules.
Thank you for pointing that out.This topic about license plates reminds me of this idiotic post:
I have lived in the South a long time and I have hardly seen any Confederate flags ever.
To which I replied:
That's a specialty plate and you're stupid as shit.
I have lived in the south a long time, and I have hardly seen any confederate flags ... ever ... I never said they don't exist, I said I hardly ever see them to your point what a bunch of racists all the whites in the south are.
You want to show people again that you can surf for pics though, wow, impressive, it's not like just anyone can surf for pics, is it?
Thank you for pointing that out.This topic about license plates reminds me of this idiotic post:
I have lived in the South a long time and I have hardly seen any Confederate flags ever.
To which I replied:
That's a specialty plate and you're stupid as shit.
I have lived in the south a long time, and I have hardly seen any confederate flags ... ever ... I never said they don't exist, I said I hardly ever see them to your point what a bunch of racists all the whites in the south are.
You want to show people again that you can surf for pics though, wow, impressive, it's not like just anyone can surf for pics, is it?
Except for Texas, New Orleans, Memphis, and Florida, I have little exposure to the south, and I didn't see any Confedreate flags waving in those areas, but I didn't stay long.
I did however picture them waving around all over Mississippi/Alabama/Georgia, and thank you for disspelling that myth for me.
Too much shit to wade through
But, to the OP:
Actually, what the SCOTUS did was rule that it's up to the state to decide.
Be very careful what you applaud today......
Did you bother to look at the link I provided that shows what government messages are approved by the State, several could be considered controversial.
Did you bother to look at the link I provided that shows what government messages are approved by the State, several could be considered controversial.
It doesn't matter how controversial any approved message is perceived to be by anyone. Your claim is that the government is not following its own rules because it requires private businesses to provide customer determined speech yet exempts itself from doing the same.
Your claim is bogus. The state of Texas does not require private businesses from provide customer determined speech. Thus, the state is not creating a separate set of rules for itself.
Did you bother to look at the link I provided that shows what government messages are approved by the State, several could be considered controversial.
It doesn't matter how controversial any approved message is perceived to be by anyone. Your claim is that the government is not following its own rules because it requires private businesses to provide customer determined speech yet exempts itself from doing the same.
Your claim is bogus. The state of Texas does not require private businesses from provide customer determined speech. Thus, the state is not creating a separate set of rules for itself.
And you're claiming TX doesn't have PA laws that cover one circumstance, they do however have PA laws.
Did you bother to look at the link I provided that shows what government messages are approved by the State, several could be considered controversial.
It doesn't matter how controversial any approved message is perceived to be by anyone. Your claim is that the government is not following its own rules because it requires private businesses to provide customer determined speech yet exempts itself from doing the same.
Your claim is bogus. The state of Texas does not require private businesses from provide customer determined speech. Thus, the state is not creating a separate set of rules for itself.
BULLSHIT, STUPID SOCIALIST/FASCIST FUCK
Tobacco packaging warning messages
The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 (Public Law 89–92) required that the warning "Caution: Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your Health" be placed in small print on one of the side panels of each cigarette package. The act prohibited additional labeling requirements at the federal, state, or local levels.
Did you bother to look at the link I provided that shows what government messages are approved by the State, several could be considered controversial.
It doesn't matter how controversial any approved message is perceived to be by anyone. Your claim is that the government is not following its own rules because it requires private businesses to provide customer determined speech yet exempts itself from doing the same.
Your claim is bogus. The state of Texas does not require private businesses from provide customer determined speech. Thus, the state is not creating a separate set of rules for itself.
BULLSHIT, STUPID SOCIALIST/FASCIST FUCK
Tobacco packaging warning messages
The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 (Public Law 89–92) required that the warning "Caution: Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your Health" be placed in small print on one of the side panels of each cigarette package. The act prohibited additional labeling requirements at the federal, state, or local levels.
Take a look at what you just said. While you're at it, take some time to learn the different between state governments and the federal government.
True enough.Too much shit to wade through
But, to the OP:
Actually, what the SCOTUS did was rule that it's up to the state to decide.
Be very careful what you applaud today......
How on earth did 4 supreme court justices vote against it? This is a government license, that they have to put anything anyone wants on it is stupid
True enough.Too much shit to wade through
But, to the OP:
Actually, what the SCOTUS did was rule that it's up to the state to decide.
Be very careful what you applaud today......
How on earth did 4 supreme court justices vote against it? This is a government license, that they have to put anything anyone wants on it is stupid
Money talks. Here on Florida anyway.
Heck, we even have Choose Life plates
It is a matter of state law, and the legislature says your argument is in the toilet. You are not correct in your argument.Burning myself how? In what way? The conversation is about the Confederate Flag being offensive. Have you not been following the thread? If it's offensive, and not allowed on plates, then it follows that other symbols that are offensive shouldn't be allowed either. Am I correct, or is the argument one of just certain offensive items, and all others are A-OK?Because it is offensive does not make it constitutional or unconstitutional. Strawman, sonny, and you are burning yourself.
Is the whole problem not a flag that is offensive? Is it because it's a symbol of slavery to blacks? So, how am I incorrect concerning citizens being offended?It is a matter of state law, and the legislature says your argument is in the toilet. You are not correct in your argument.Burning myself how? In what way? The conversation is about the Confederate Flag being offensive. Have you not been following the thread? If it's offensive, and not allowed on plates, then it follows that other symbols that are offensive shouldn't be allowed either. Am I correct, or is the argument one of just certain offensive items, and all others are A-OK?Because it is offensive does not make it constitutional or unconstitutional. Strawman, sonny, and you are burning yourself.
