ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
Its still against the flag code, genius.


You mean like I responded to in my next reply. The flag was banned from a single room in the UC Irvine campus, not campus wide. I was neither wrong, nor a hyprocrit, youre just a liar.

And since you want to get personal, I'm absolutely over 25. I bet you only have a highschool degree and make under $40k. Personal attacks are fun, huh?

You can think whatever the hell you want. But I guarantee you, youre incorrect.

Scroll back a few days and you'll see where it was banned from a high school. Also, there was a story a year or so ago where it was banned because it offended the Spanish kids at school.
 
Obviously. Plenty of lifelong republicans brag about Hillary and defend our campuses as rational.
When did I brag about Hillary? I just said she got more votes than Trump. Christ you guys have a hard on for trying to root out liberals.
 
You support traitors. Period. Secession was not legal, thats why there was a civil war. You guys lost. Jesus.
Secession is legal if voted for by the people. Are you really this dumb or just trying to just rile people up.




"There is no evidence that secession was illegal or prohibited by the Constitution, and in fact there is almost overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that secession was a legal, constitutionally sanctioned act. Historian Kenneth M. Stampp, in his book The Imperiled Union, maintains that it is impossible to say that secession was illegal because of the ambiguity of the original Constitution as to state sovereignty and the right of secession. He points out that "the case for state sovereignty and the constitutional right of secession had flourished for forty years before a comparable case for a perpetual Union had been devised," and even then its logic was "far from perfect because the Constitution and the debates over ratification were fraught with ambiguity."

 
You can think whatever the hell you want. But I guarantee you, youre incorrect.

Scroll back a few days and you'll see where it was banned from a high school. Also, there was a story a year or so ago where it was banned because it offended the Spanish kids at school.
Show me a single college where its banned in the United States. Not from a specific room, but from the campus like you stated. Don't tell me to google it, you made the claim so back it up. If you can't do that, just admit you are lying.
 
When did I say I didn't accept the POTUS results? He won the election fair and square. Theres a difference between winning an election and having a mandate.
Also a difference in challenging a mandate and incessant tantrums demeaning him. BTW republicans hold more elected office nationwide than they have in decades.
 
Secession is legal if voted for by the people. Are you really this dumb or just trying to just rile people up.




"There is no evidence that secession was illegal or prohibited by the Constitution, and in fact there is almost overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that secession was a legal, constitutionally sanctioned act. Historian Kenneth M. Stampp, in his book The Imperiled Union, maintains that it is impossible to say that secession was illegal because of the ambiguity of the original Constitution as to state sovereignty and the right of secession. He points out that "the case for state sovereignty and the constitutional right of secession had flourished for forty years before a comparable case for a perpetual Union had been devised," and even then its logic was "far from perfect because the Constitution and the debates over ratification were fraught with ambiguity."
Yeah, the people that held that opinion lost the war. The people that held my opinion won the war. Thus, my opinion is the correct one.
 
Also a difference in challenging a mandate and incessant tantrums demeaning him. BTW republicans hold more elected office nationwide than they have in decades.
Incessant tantrums demaning him? What are you talking about?

And I'm aware that we hold more elected offices nationwide than we have in decades. I love my local republican party (Wright-Patterson Airforce Base), the national one is the one that concerns me.
 
When did I brag about Hillary? I just said she got more votes than Trump. Christ you guys have a hard on for trying to root out liberals.
my bad, last few pages have moved quickly, I assuredly missed the non-liberal postings.
 
Show me a single college where its banned in the United States. Not from a specific room, but from the campus like you stated. Don't tell me to google it, you made the claim so back it up. If you can't do that, just admit you are lying.

I actually didn't make the claim.
 
Yeah, the people that held that opinion lost the war. The people that held my opinion won the war. Thus, my opinion is the correct one.
Not at all, winning the war did not change the constitutionality of succession. That is an ignorant position to take. But, ignorance is the position you are posting from and have been for a while now.
 
In typical fashion the usual suspects like salon and huffpo come out with their outage articles today. One headline "millenials are as racist as their grandparents"

A. Assuming everyone is a racist
B. A handful of racists exist so all white ppl are racist, meanwhile Islamic terrorists we need to not be so quick to label.....make up your minds.

This is why im confident the left will never win another election
 
  • Like
Reactions: mdlUK.1
Whataboutism is weak. Obama was weak on calling out BLM rioting, just like Trump is weak on calling out Nazi murders. You must be under the assumption that I'm an Obama fan, which couldn't be further from the truth.

Trump did call them out, over and over since before the election. At what point do people start to realize he isn't a fan of Nazis? His daughter, son in law and grandchildren are Jewish for crying out loud.
 
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/4472433/american-flag-ban-south-carolina/?source=dam

Banned at a game because they were playing a team with Spanish players.


Here's one that was taken to court.
http://www.thomasmore.org/news/cour...-asks-supreme-court-review/?fdx_switcher=true

Here's one in Michigan


http://eagnews.org/michigan-school-district-bans-american-flag/


Should I keep going @Global Havok or is ten seconds worth of researching enough to make you realize you're an ignorant fool?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill - Shy Cat
Not at all, winning the war did not change the constitutionality of succession. That is an ignorant position to take. But, ignorance is the position you are posting from and have been for a while now.
My view is based on reality. Period. The government decided it was not legal, and that precedent has been backed up by the union going to a civil war.
 
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/4472433/american-flag-ban-south-carolina/?source=dam

Banned at a game because they were playing a team with Spanish players.


Here's one that was taken to court.
http://www.thomasmore.org/news/cour...-asks-supreme-court-review/?fdx_switcher=true

Here's one in Michigan


http://eagnews.org/michigan-school-district-bans-american-flag/


Should I keep going @Global Havok or is ten seconds worth of researching enough to make you realize you're an ignorant fool?
Well considering that none of those are college campuses... not sure how that proves me wrong.

1. It was to be banned during a single football game, and even that decision was reversed.
2. That shit is just dumb, you've found 1 example that actually meets the requirements (aside from not being a college). 1 example is hardly what I'd call "schools everywhere".
3. Once again, banning flag clothing which IS against the flag code, no matter how much you want to disagree. Relevant text below. Its obviously not illegal to wear (hell, its not even illegal to burn), but it absolutely against the flag code. And I have no issue with anyone wanting to respect the flag code. The flag code is a HUGE deal at my work (Air Force Base).

The Flag Code addresses the impropriety of using the flag as an article of personal adornment, a design on items of temporary use, and item of clothing.48 The evident purpose of these suggested restraints is to limit the commercial or common usage of the flag and, thus, maintain its dignity. The 1976 amendments to the Code recognized the wearing of a flag patch or pin on the left side (near the heart) of uniforms of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic CRS-14 49 P.L. 94-344, § 1(16). 50 4 U.S.C. § 8(i). 51 See, United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990) and Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). 52 See, e.g., Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34 (1907). 53 4 U.S.C. § 3. 54 See, e.g., Central Hudson Gas and Electric Co. V. PSC, 447 U.S. 557 (1980). 55 Aug. 21, 1959, 29 F.R. 6865; see 4 U.S.C. §§ 1-2. 56 P.L. 109-243. organizations.49 The Code also states that the flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever.50 While wearing the colors may be in poor taste and offensive to many, it is important to remember that the Flag Code is intended as a guide to be followed on a purely voluntary basis to insure proper respect for the flag. It is, at least, questionable whether statutes placing civil or criminal penalties on the wearing of clothing bearing or resembling a flag could be constitutionally enforced in light of Supreme Court decisions in the area of flag desecration.51 In the past, the Supreme Court has held that states may restrict use of pictures of the flag on commercial products.52 There is a federal criminal prohibition on the use of the flag for advertising purposes in the District of Columbia.53 While commercial speech does not receive the full protection of the First Amendment,54 the status of these statutes and cases can not be taken for granted in light of Eichman and Johnson.
 
Easy to do when you think everyone who has a differing opinion than you is just a racist hilljack bigot.
I literally called one person a hick after he personally attacked me first. Did your feelings get hurt for him? Unless it was you, I'm not gonna scroll back and look. If it was you, well if the shoe fits...
 
Typical mental gymnastics. @Global Havok

What's the difference between high school and college? It's actually worse at a high school as it is tax payer funded.

And actually the only comment I made on the subject was about high schools.

Those were the first 3 listed. I'm sure you have enough time to read they the million other pages of google search results.
 
Typical mental gymnastics. @Global Havok

What's the difference between high school and college? It's actually worse at a high school as it is tax payer funded.

And actually the only comment I made on the subject was about high schools.

Those were the first 3 listed. I'm sure you have enough time to read they the million other pages of google search results.
The difference is the initial guy I was talking to specifically brought up college campuses banning the flag which is what got this whole conversation started in the first place. And I rightfully called BS. Then it was "Schools everywhere are banning the flag". So far I've seen one instance of a single district in California. Thats hardly "schools everywhere". I'm not the one playing mental gymnastics and moving the goal posts here.
 
My view is based on reality. Period. The government decided it was not legal, and that precedent has been backed up by the union going to a civil war.
The question of legality of succession has not been answered and as I have posted earlier, a states rights to govern itself is in the constitution and a matter of much discussion with many noted experts saying it is legal so, the civil did not answer that question. It merely imposed the wishes of many in the south as well as the north to remain through force.
 
You know she's messed up when she's lost Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Seriously, how the hell did your side let that happen? It's going to happen again in 2020, and add Minnesota next time.

As for Fox News, it's more "fair and balanced" than ever. You'll see everything from Hard Right people like Carlson to Hard Left people like Shep.
 
The question of legality of succession has not been answered and as I have posted earlier, a states rights to govern itself is in the constitution and a matter of much discussion with many noted experts saying it is legal so, the civil did not answer that question. It merely imposed the wishes of many in the south as well as the north to remain through force.
It has absolutely been answered. Secession can only be legal if the government you are trying to secede from recognizes your right to leave. The US Government has made it pretty clear that they do not recognize that right.
 
These guys are sooo sure I'm a closet liberal. They aren't realizing that the republican party is at risk of chasing away actual conservatives by pandering to these identity politics.
"Playing identity politics" is precisely why your side lost to Trump- and I'm not talking about Trump as the player; I'm talking about the near-entirety of your party. And it's going to happen again if it doesn't stop.
 
When it comes to Trump, Timpf might as well be part of the resistance. She's almost John McCain level bad.
She's a lovely imbecile, though. I'll give her that. One would expect a bit less virtue signaling from her, given that she herself was victimized by one of those psychotic SJWs recently.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT