• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ACLU case to be heard by Supreme Court

It's a handsome plate honoring those who sacrificed.

ap63013542737_custom-88cedd0c84dc33a8c62d1ea4f9ac47eb3ffabf8e-s800-c85.jpg
 
Hard Truth said:
Grey areas exist because those who want to ban something create one using one rationalization or other.
Click to expand...
No, they literally exist because they are there. I don't understand why it's so difficult for you to understand that license plates are a mix of private and governmental speech when that's what they literally are. Private citizens AND government are putting their speech on license plates. If you deny that, then you are rationalizing away the truth in order to defend your own narrow take on the 1st Amendment.

As far as your thinly veiled accusations that I want to ban points of view I disagree with, that's not my aim. I don't believe that profanity, slurs or any political/religious opinions should be put on license plates including those I agree with. License plates are not an appropriate platform for such expression as it risks coming across as a government endorsement.
 
WCH said:
It's a handsome plate honoring those who sacrificed.

ap63013542737_custom-88cedd0c84dc33a8c62d1ea4f9ac47eb3ffabf8e-s800-c85.jpg
Click to expand...
Those who sacrificed for what? Slavery? I guess it's good to know we're still honoring those who died to enslave millions of people in our country. It's grotesque.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Those who sacrificed for what? Slavery? I guess it's good to know we're still honoring those who died to enslave millions of people in our country. It's grotesque.
Click to expand...

Yep, go ahead and keep repeating that lie. Fact is, most who fought in the CW never owned a slave so they had no reason to fight for slavery.

The citizen-soldiers who fought for the Confederacy personified the best qualities of America. The preservation of liberty and freedom was the motivating factor in the South's decision to fight the Second American Revolution. The tenacity with which Confederate soldiers fought underscored their belief in the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. These attributes are the underpinning of our democratic society and represent the foundation on which this nation was built.


http://www.scv.org/about/whatis.php
 
Last edited:
chromium said:
No kidding. The fact i see the confederate flag on front lawns and trucks in *michigan* which certainly never was part of the confederacy, tells me all i need to know of their intentions. Aside from dressing up as the KKK, the flag is the penultimate symbol of racism. It's not about "southern heritage" or any of that trash
Click to expand...

I can honestly say I've never seen them outside the South. If this is true, and for now I'll accept it, then you're absolutely right. On a side note, the only truly hatefully, overtly racist persons I knew were my maternal grandparents, who lived in Detroit. So I guess Michigan probably still has many similar folks there who hate that AAs came up there and "took" their manufacturing jobs, etc.
 
WCH said:
Yep, go ahead and keep repeating that lie. Fact is, most who fought in the CW never owned a slave so they had no reason to fight for slavery.

The citizen-soldiers who fought for the Confederacy personified the best qualities of America. The preservation of liberty and freedom was the motivating factor in the South's decision to fight the Second American Revolution. The tenacity with which Confederate soldiers fought underscored their belief in the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. These attributes are the underpinning of our democratic society and represent the foundation on which this nation was built.


What is the Sons of Confederate Veterans? | SCV
Click to expand...

Two statements - one is true, most of those who fought and died for the Confederacy never owned a slave. The other one from the SCV is utter garbage and historical revisionism.

The Civil War happened because the One Percenters of the South wanted the right to treat some humans as nothing more than domestic chattel and just as today where far too many Americans believe the 'conservative' memes of an oppressive federal government, the gullible and mostly uneducated foot soldiers of the South thought they were fighting for something they could one day have - enough money and property to own their own slaves. Many in the South simply didn't believe in the United States of America, partially because at a time of very little wide communication, for most there was little connection or knowledge of the entity we know as America.

The concept that one's state was more crucial to a person's self-identity than American citizenship was the primary reason, educated men like Robert E Lee chose rebellion against the nation he had served for most of his life - he was a Virginian before he was an American.
 
Somerville said:
I was thinking about starting this post with a few changes and then at the bottom telling the real story. You know how the ACLU is defending some gay group that is being discriminated against by 'real Americans' but why bother

Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 14-144
Click to expand...

The ACLU is exactly right here. The Southern Cross is a part of American history, like other flags, and despite what people might think it represents, those descendants of confederate soldiers have every right to share the pride that they have in their grandfathers.
 
WCH said:
Yep, go ahead and keep repeating that lie. Fact is, most who fought in the CW never owned a slave so they had no reason to fight for slavery.

The citizen-soldiers who fought for the Confederacy personified the best qualities of America. The preservation of liberty and freedom was the motivating factor in the South's decision to fight the Second American Revolution. The tenacity with which Confederate soldiers fought underscored their belief in the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. These attributes are the underpinning of our democratic society and represent the foundation on which this nation was built.


What is the Sons of Confederate Veterans? | SCV
Click to expand...

Weird...nearly all of the states that seceded listed slavery as a major concern and they did so the minute a party formed to end slavery took over.

From Mississippi Secession documents.

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.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.
Click to expand...
 
I find wanting to end all messages on license plates a reasonable position that does not violate the 1st. Banning only some messages is not acceptable.
 
iliveonramen said:
Weird...nearly all of the states that seceded listed slavery as a major concern and they did so the minute a party formed to end slavery took over.

From Mississippi Secession documents.
Click to expand...

It was seen as economic tyranny even though Lincoln was [originally] in favor of a gradual draw down of slavery.

Lincoln was also in favor of states rights and secession years before.

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so many of the territory as they inhabit."

Abraham Lincoln
January 12, 1848.


The militant abolitionists forced his hand leading to the death of some 3/4 a million Americans.
 
WCH said:
It was seen as economic tyranny even though Lincoln was [originally] in favor of a gradual draw down of slavery.

Lincoln was also in favor of states rights and secession years before.

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so many of the territory as they inhabit."

Abraham Lincoln
January 12, 1848.


The militant abolitionists forced his hand leading to the death of some 3/4 a million Americans.
Click to expand...

His hand was forced by the south seceding from the Union as soon as he won an election. It was an unwillingness to abide by majority rule by southern states that led to them leaving. That action wasn't about an unjust government it was an action about not liking the results of an election and that line of reasoning ultimately leads to balkanization in the United States and anarchy.

At the end of the day, I'm not sure what that has to do with disproving that the south left due to protecting the institution of slavery. The country was heading on a collision course over the question of whether human beings could be purchased and sold as property. The Deep south was willing to fight over protecting the institution of slavery. You seem to to have a very low view of "militant abolitionist" as if being strongly against human slavery was a bad thing...
 
iliveonramen said:
His hand was forced by the south seceding from the Union as soon as he won an election. It was an unwillingness to abide by majority rule by southern states that led to them leaving. That action wasn't about an unjust government it was an action about not liking the results of an election and that line of reasoning ultimately leads to balkanization in the United States and anarchy.

At the end of the day, I'm not sure what that has to do with disproving that the south left due to protecting the institution of slavery. The country was heading on a collision course over the question of whether human beings could be purchased and sold as property. The Deep south was willing to fight over protecting the institution of slavery. You seem to to have a very low view of "militant abolitionist" as if being strongly against human slavery was a bad thing...
Click to expand...

It was used as a political wedge just as SSM and abortion are today. The 'militant' part came when some of these abolitionist began to encourage violence in hopes of sparking an all-out war. IMO they succeeded.
 
WCH said:
It was used as a political wedge just as SSM and abortion are today. The 'militant' part came when some of these abolitionist began to encourage violence in hopes of sparking an all-out war. IMO they succeeded.
Click to expand...

Violence occurred on both sides..in the south if you were spreading "abolitionist propaganda" you would of been grabbed by vigilantes and whipped. Being anti-slavery in the south was very very dangerous. If you're talking about bleeding Kansas specifically I want to point out that issue was settled regarding new slave states vs free states in the Missouri Compromise but the Kansas-Nebraska Act turned Kansas into a proxy war between abolitionist and pro-slavery folks. It was also started initially by John Whitfield and he Border Ruffians which were pro-slavery folks.
 
iliveonramen said:
Violence occurred on both sides..in the south if you were spreading "abolitionist propaganda" you would of been grabbed by vigilantes and whipped. Being anti-slavery in the south was very very dangerous. If you're talking about bleeding Kansas specifically I want to point out that issue was settled regarding new slave states vs free states in the Missouri Compromise but the Kansas-Nebraska Act turned Kansas into a proxy war between abolitionist and pro-slavery folks. It was also started initially by John Whitfield and he Border Ruffians which were pro-slavery folks.
Click to expand...


IMO the abolitionists were playing both sides. They wanted a war to resolve the issue once and for all.
 
WCH said:
IMO the abolitionists were playing both sides. They wanted a war to resolve the issue once and for all.
Click to expand...

Sure, abolitionist wanted to end slavery once and for all and the south wanted to keep it. Those are two opposing positions that can't co-exist. The south seceded rather than deal with a government with a majority of Republicans.
 
iliveonramen said:
Sure, abolitionist wanted to end slavery once and for all and the south wanted to keep it. Those are two opposing positions that can't co-exist. The south seceded rather than deal with a government with a majority of Republicans.
Click to expand...

An assuredly different brand of Republicans. The big government, power mad sort. ;)


My point was that Lincoln was anti-slavery but originally didn't want to force the issue. He was willing to slowly work toward emancipation. Political and religious pressures changed his mind. What came afterwards was a tragic, miscalculation on his part...IMO
 
Last edited:
Looks like small government conservatism in action. Nothing is more important than getting the state to validate your political beliefs.

Texas should offer exactly one plain license plate that serves the only legitimate government interest of providing vehicle identification. You can buy bumper stickers of whatever political slogans you want from private entities.
 
rathi said:
Looks like small government conservatism in action. Nothing is more important than getting the state to validate your political beliefs.

Texas should offer exactly one plain license plate that serves the only legitimate government interest of providing vehicle identification. You can buy bumper stickers of whatever political slogans you want from private entities.
Click to expand...

Circle gets square.

The ACLU is wrong on this one.
 
iliveonramen said:
Sure, abolitionist wanted to end slavery once and for all and the south wanted to keep it. Those are two opposing positions that can't co-exist. The south seceded rather than deal with a government with a majority of Republicans.
Click to expand...

That is some very editted history there.
 
rathi said:
Looks like small government conservatism in action. Nothing is more important than getting the state to validate your political beliefs.

Texas should offer exactly one plain license plate that serves the only legitimate government interest of providing vehicle identification. You can buy bumper stickers of whatever political slogans you want from private entities.
Click to expand...

After seeing this one...I tend to agree.

BOOMERPLATE.jpg
 
ThePlayDrive said:
When are we going to stop pretending that the Confederate flag is just "an emblem of Southern pride" to some people? Barring maybe 100 people in this country, every person who displays that flag is using it as a symbol of their racist and/or xenophobic attitudes. There are hundreds of things that could be used as an "emblem of Southern pride" that have no historical ties to racism and yet, some Southerners have chosen a Confederate flag that has long been used by White supremacists to represent their "pride". I wonder why.

As far as the ACLU case, whatever. If the government can't ban the racist flag from license plates, then it can't ban 4 letter words either? What about racial slurs or "Go ISIS"? Is it just a free for all now?

Sometimes I think the ACLU is just trying to prove that it's "fair" instead of actually fighting worthwhile battles.
Click to expand...

Sour grapes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom