:eek: What’s wrong with wolves?
So they are wrong across the board. Flying a racist symbol makes them 5 for 5. 
Back in 308 AD along the Aquatania coast, a lone wolf was passing gas and some silly human thought the wolf was looking at a child with hunger in his eyes. Ever since, humans have believed that wolves are man-eaters and they’ve been slaughtered off at every opportunity.
Yet another foolish reason humans come up with to hate.
That argument might wash if it weren’t for all the freaking monuments glorifying the very people who made that damn flag. That’s now.
Yep, because the 6 predominantly black churches which burned in the past little while has nothing to do with race, they burned in North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Ohio, and Tennessee because of “rebellious” symbolism.
It may not be overt but “Southern Pride” is just another term for conservative bigotry. Some may not consciously make the connection but it is there.
Well they should switch to the Gadsden flag then (aka “Don’t tread on me”), like many of their conservative peers. That at least has the advantage of actually irritating liberals like myself (it isn’t a bad flag after all) as opposed to inspiring reactions ranging from amusement to a roll of the eyes.
America needs quality trolls if we are to keep up with the foreign competition.
They have an issue with the “Gadsden flag”, The same faction that makes up the the body of “Conservatives” were also typically British Loyalists.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/Parrington/vol1/contents.html
I know that is why it irritates me when conservatives do, and I think that was the gist behind your post.
but I am sure conservatives get annoyed when that is pointed out.
Robert E. Lee is considered one of the finest military leaders in American history. So deeply respected by his peers that General Grant refused Lee’s surrender until he went back and strapped on his sword. By that logic, then we should strike Hannibal’s name from all the history books and never teach his strategies at West Point.
Should we tear down all the monument to American Indian Nations who fought us, rip apart their customs and beliefs, give their reservation lands to ADM, prohibit them speaking their languages … c’mon, they killed American soldiers …
Maybe that’s the reasons other community’s neighbors flag the Confederate Battle Flag, my neighbors wouldn’t burn down a church … that’s a felony … they’d have to surrender their guns … and their guns are more important to them than some stupid flag, Confederate or United States.
I find it hard to believe anyone could not that connection … but then again the limits on the intelligence of the typical conservative bigot defies belief.
Free speech protections aren’t in place to protect inoffensive speech … just saying …
Yes, but the reality is that a lot of that took place in the context of us breaking many deals and treaties made before with the Indians.
As it is clear to me the south did broke the law, and in the time of civil right legislation the bigots pushed to get more symbols of the confederacy in government buildings and places.
That is nice, but what is going on is that governments should not be funding the maintenance or the display of those symbols of hate.
Which is why I fully support an individuals right to display that rag as much as they want. But there should be zero governmental support of it at any level. Let it be a sign to everyone that the displayer is an asshole and to be outcast from Civilization.
Thousands of people visit that park every day. Many people climb the mountain for their daily exercise, taking advantage of free access from Stone Mountain village, and I’d say that at least 50% of those climbers are black. Shifting the mountain to private ownership is not a good idea, unless you are happy with the idea of pricing a lot of people out of access to a beautiful park.
Leave the monument alone. We don’t need to go all Taliban on historical monuments. This park was, after all, created as a military memorial. Where else would you expect to find statues of these guys? The black people who actually live in the area use the park freely. They don’t seem cowed or intimidated by the ghosts of the Confederacy, so why would anyone else get worked up about it?
Anyhow, Atlanta has its reminders of Union generals, as well. 
Now one change that should be made is this: at the foot of the mountain, where the climb begins, there is a set of flagpoles dedicated to flags of the Confederacy. Hikers must pass those flags to ascend the mountain.
Those flags are inappropriate in such a display, even at this monument. Retire them to the museum on-site, and provide some context.
Serious question: how much state money goes into the park? As I understand it, I thought the state created a non-profit to look after the park which was intended to be self-sustaining. I’m happy to be corrected, but it sounds to me like if the non-profit were privatized, I don’t think anything would change in terms of the park’s finances.
From the park’s website: The Stone Mountain Memorial Association (SMMA), a State of Georgia authority, is charged by Georgia law with self-sufficiently managing the State owned Stone Mountain Park.
But if you fully privatize it, the private owners are going to look to maximize profits. Translation: admission fees at all points.
Well, I suppose they would have to judge whether they wanted to be a NON-PROFIT organization as they are today, or whether they want to “maximize profits” as you suggest. It isn’t like having a privately owned park is something that is a bizarre libertarian experiment without precedent.
I do support some acts of vandalism, even when the item is private property. E.G. I work right next to a privately owned statue of Lenin which was bought by a private individual after the collapse of the soviet union.
I silently cheer every time someone paints his hands read again. It would be different if there was a prominent feature explaining his evil actions, and I would not support ISIS style destruction. But the painting of his hands red is mostly non-destructive and gets the message across very clearly.
Ouch …
Government herself doesn’t have free speech? Then who regulates it? I say it’s the voters, and the voters of Georgia and South Carolina are entitled to fly whatever flag they want to on their public property. Now I’m not going so far as to say these several States are proud to be full of assholes and to be outcasts from Civilization, I see then more as “impoverished third-world nations”. They don’t spend very much on their education systems, and the last 50 years they’ve had to divide it up between whities and darkies … it’s just not working very well.
“California Republic” … there’s a State Flag that openly threatens to secede !!!
Government display is equivalent to official state sanctioning of the ideals. The state should be restricted from publicly endorsing racism.
Funnily enough, there was another Supreme Court decision on this issue last week.
Exactly, why should we restrict a State’s official sanctioning of any ideal. We have written laws that prohibit the practice of racism, if South Carolina is being prudent in the enforcement of these anti-racist laws … they’re free to say the laws should be changed.
Federale rights vs. States rights … a truly Great Debate.
I’m waiting to see if South Carolina can even try this wacko
I suggest you go read Federalist No. 10.
Protecting minoritys from the majority is a core concept of the foundation of this country. Despite the fact we have been imperfect in doing so.