STORM2K

Answer and also tell me why if you could.

Oh, gawd....I didn't have my glasses on.....
I thought it said BRA burning...!!! :o

Bra burning YES! Cross burning NO!

Freedom of speech doesn't apply when it impinges on the rights of others!

hmmm interesting votes so far. makes me wonder why the people against it explain their answers while those for it don't. as i used to say. hmmmmmmmm

I voted "NO", and here's why...

This idiocy is and was not a specifically anti-black matter; FI, my mother was an IRISH CATHOLIC in Texas in the 1920's-to-WW II. When she was little, she went to the window of a spring evening and saw one of these things blazing in her yard...her father put it out, called all the Catholic men in town, and went out armed...hunting the KKK who did this.

Similar episodes from that quarter have been used against blacks, Jewish people, civil libertarians, foreigners/foreign-born people and/or anyone who, in the Klan's view, should be subject for such "attention"....which means anyone who didn't wear a white sheet, I guess.

I voted no. But there are also other hate groups that use this method as a racist symbol. Some hate groups will spray paint the Swastika on foreigner/foreign born and Jewish residences. This is a step forward in the cross burning, but still a long way to go to get rid of hate symbols. Which I do not believe the Confederate Battle Flag is one of them however. People against that flag should go after hate symbols such as the cross burnings and such.

I agree with you, Sunny...the Confederate Flag was "hijacked" by the second incarnation of the KKK in the 1920's-30's.

It is, and should be seen as, a symbol of the heritage of a people who, believing in their rights under the Constitution, broke away from an increasingly centralized Government which was no longer responsive to them, formed their own country (as did their Continental forebears), and defended it against "foreign invaders" (i.e., United States troops).

That it has been used by a VERY small minority as a hate symbol, and perceived as such today by many (incorrectly), is a disgrace, and a disservice to those who fought and died for their independence under those colors.

streetsoldier wrote:I agree with you, Sunny...the Confederate Flag was "hijacked" by the second incarnation of the KKK in the 1920's-30's.

It is, and should be seen as, a symbol of the heritage of a people who, believing in their rights under the Constitution, broke away from a Goverment who was no longer responsive to them, formed their own country (as did their Continental forebears), and defended it against "foreign invaders" (i.e., United States troops).

That it has been used by a VERY small minority as a hate symbol, and perceived as such today by many (incorrectly), is a disservice to those who fought and died for their independence under those colors.

Very Very well put streetsoldier. You are 100% correct!!

Colonel Amos Camden Riley Camp # 791, Sons of Confederate Veterans, and Military Order of Stars and Bars member...by virtue of the service of my great-great-grandfather, Captain Joseph Benjamin, Benjamin's Company, 1st Louisiana Cavalry Regiment, Provisional Army of the Confederate States, "sunny shine"!

Ah DO know whereof Ah speak, deah lady!

streetsoldier wrote:Colonel Amos Camden Riley Camp # 791, Sons of Confederate Veterans, and Military Order of Stars and Bars member...by virtue of the service of my great-great-grandfather, Captain Joseph Benjamin, Benjamin's Company, 1st Louisiana Cavalry Regiment, Provisional Army of the Confederate States, "sunny shine"!

Ah DO know whereof Ah speak, deah lady!

Salute!

Cross burning is not speech!! It is and always has been meant as a threat to people of races other than Caucasian. It has nothing to do with free speech whether my statement about it's meaning is correct or not.

I wanted to vote "Hell no!", but it wasn't an option so I voted no.

mf_dolphin wrote:Bra burning YES! Cross burning NO!

Freedom of speech doesn't apply when it impinges on the rights of others!

i personally will never burn a cross, but if i do it on my property i see nothing wrong with it

on another topic, there should be no such thing as a "hate crime". the govt has no business making our thoughts crimes. if you kill a white guy because you hate white people, then prosecute that person for murder, not for hating white people. "hate crimes", are a threat to free speech.

if you commit a crime because you hate a specific group of people the you should be prosecuted for the CRIME, not your thoughts. everyone should be wary of the govt making peoples thoughts a crime.

rainstorm wrote:i personally will never burn a cross, but if i do it on my property i see nothing wrong with it

I would not do it either, but I agree with the idea that burning a cross on your own property should not be considered a violation of free speech, or a punishable crime. You aren't likely to win "Neighbor of the Month" for doing this, but it should not get you arrested.

Of course, burning a cross on someone else's property is definitely a crime!

I think you make a good point JCT, but how many people burn crosses in their own yard?

wx247 wrote:I think you make a good point JCT, but how many people burn crosses in their own yard?

Hmmm, good question. Probably not too many!

streetsoldier wrote:I agree with you, Sunny...the Confederate Flag was "hijacked" by the second incarnation of the KKK in the 1920's-30's.

It is, and should be seen as, a symbol of the heritage of a people who, believing in their rights under the Constitution, broke away from an increasingly centralized Government which was no longer responsive to them, formed their own country (as did their Continental forebears), and defended it against "foreign invaders" (i.e., United States troops).

That it has been used by a VERY small minority as a hate symbol, and perceived as such today by many (incorrectly), is a disgrace, and a disservice to those who fought and died for their independence under those colors.

First of all,I voted Yes.Why?As much as I find it offensive and disgusting,it is the Law of the Land...Bill of Rights and the Constitution guarantees these rights.
Secondly,Streetsoldier,I agree with the Hijacking of the Star and Bars.I also agree with the premise under which the civil uprising occurred and issues of a breaking of the Union if representation is denied States.
Therefore,it has been for years,an option for some Western States to revisit the past.This has been bantered about for 30+years and is now again gaining momentum.Very little representation to States issues and in particular,The Border dispute,Bureau of Land Management(Grey Wolves and Forestry Reclaimation,Water Rights,Taxation,Pacific Rim trade,Voting Issues per time zone differences,etc)and a lack of general understanding of the resources we possess and wish not to exploit have brought things to a head.The NRA has a massive footprint here as well as a growing Anti-Union/Reformist Independant Voting movement.The 2000 Pres Election was a prime example of the discounting of this Region,when NM,Calif and AZ had it up for grabs as it turned out later.
Culturally and Politically,we embrace the Mexican Guest Worker programs,as eastern Union Syndicates oppose such as they did NAFTA. and Brit Columbia,Canada has also been working with the Pac NW States to form a Super Economy with the Pacific Rim.We are much less interested in Europe as we are with the Pacific Rim for trade..a Polar opposite to the East Coast.
By your logic and summation,we have just as much,if not more justification to consider such than did the 1860s South.
Hawaii and Alaska are also warming up to the idea.The Electoral College sham has made sure of that.Remember,Calif has 10mill ppl more than the entire Nation of Canada and is 6th in GDP Globally,with Brazil in the same category.This is serious money,with serious clout.
My remarks are not meant to incite or to be inflammatory,rather to inform.
I am confident that the obligatory California Bashing flippant remarks are on way.Rest assured though,that much of California is conservative and the media likes to portray Cali as a bastion on kooks.Not true.Nor is this exclusively a California issue.Fact be known,it has been proposed on several occasions to split California into 3 or 4 States,given it's size,massive population and complex voting patterns.It is a Western issue,and quite real.

Good points all, Arizwx; but of course you noticed that, after the "late unpleasantness' and particularly after the New Deal came to pass, the "sovereign states" have become little better than administrative arms of Washington? :o

"United States of America" used to be a PLURAL....THEM, not "IT".