Other than the 72% of the fare that they give to the driver, right?

Do you really believe that, or is that just what you tell yourself? I would say he campaigns to increase privacy. Do you really think his end goal is a state that is less secure, or a citizen that is more private?

Sweet Jesus, I'm arguing with a political troll. It's Friday, I need to go home.

I was trying to get a ride home from a bar one night (both from and to well-traveled areas) and every time I called the taxi company and gave my pickup location she just hung up on me. I called 3 or 4 times, luckily an empty cab drove by that I flagged down.

One of the good things about Uber is that I presume that they first offer the job to the closest drivers, because my driver is always pretty close. I don't know how taxis delegate their fares, but I've been called by my assigned taxi driver to tell me that he's on the other side of the city and will be there in a half hour. It's ridiculous.

The fare is fixed for everyone at a particular time and in a particular place, but the fare can change based on demand/availability or place.

From what I've heard from Uber drivers who are also taxi drivers, Uber pays a little better. One driver said he got 72% of the fare. In the best case, an Uber driver could make a lot of money (if they constantly have passengers for several hours).

A "more urban city"?

So a city more like a city? What's an example of a less urban city?

I think you're probably referring to Mississippi, not Missouri. Missouri's flag does not contain the battle flag, it is designed after the French flag as a nod to that historical period when Missouri was part of the Louisiana territory.

But, I generally agree with Dave's answer. If there was an empty flag pole for MS with an explanation why then it would certainly send a message. The battle flag is without question a symbol of racism today, it wasn't always but it is today thanks to the KKK and the anti-civil-rights protesters using it as a symbol. Sure, the MS flag pre-dates that era, but the reason why MS is talking about changing their flag is because of the modern meaning, not the historical meaning. There's no reason to have a state flag that includes symbols identified with racism. MS isn't going to move at the same speed as some of the other states though, I don't think their legislature meets for another 6 months or something. Anything that's happening now is just talk, which is probably a good thing. By the time they actually meet to pass any laws hopefully there will be less emotion and more rationality and they can decide how they want to portray their state to visitors without a national media spotlight.

Changing flags is going to do very little to get rid of racism, in fact it might even make the racist members of society stick to their guns that much harder, but it's still an important symbolic gesture that we as a society don't approve of racism. It's most definitely a necessary step in the overall goal of reducing or eliminating racism. For what it's worth, I don't believe that it's even possible to eliminate racism, but removing implicit state sponsorship is an important step regardless.

I ask you to cite some sources for your claims and you tell me to do research? OK, thanks but no thanks. They're your claims, surely you can back them up. One thing I haven't seen is a single justification for secession by any Southern state that does not mention slavery. For your reference, the specific claim I'm looking for evidence for is the first two sentences in your post.

Who said the Union was all about ending slavery? Did I make that argument somewhere without knowing it? I'm pretty sure the North went to war to preserve the Union, not to end slavery. Slavery was headed out the door anyway, due to the fact that no new states could be slaveholding states. The percentage of slaveholders in the legislature was decreasing and it was only a matter of time. No reason to start a war over that, from the North's point of view anyway (the South had a different point of view). In fact, the North didn't start the war at all.

No, that's where they belong actually. We should move them there, in fact.

No, that's a stupid idea and you're stupid for asking.

Obviously not, and thankfully people aren't stupid enough that anyone feels the need to clarify this. Until now.

That depends, actually. If you're removing the flags from government-owned buildings, so that it no longer appears that the government is sanctioning or sponsoring racism, then it might actually make an impact. Just like the names of streets, schools, parks, etc. If black people didn't have to attend a school that was named after someone who fought specifically to stop them from being able to attend school, or if they didn't have to drive down a street named after someone who fought specifically to stop them from being allowed to drive down that street, then that might also have an effect. Similarly, if white people weren't going to Stonewall Jackson High School, and instead attended Booker T. Washington High School, then maybe they wouldn't feel like they have some innate superiority over black people. If white kids weren't playing in Nathan Bedford Forrest National Park then maybe they wouldn't think so highly of the KKK.

I agree. A fantastic first step is to remove symbols of racism from government-owned places, and to stop glorifying people who fought to keep slavery in place.

Part of the reality of racism in the US is the fact that racist symbols and people are openly glorified and praised. It's time we move on from that period in our history, let's get those things out of the general public and into a museum where they belong.

I don't think the retailers really give a shit what you have, they just don't want you to buy this particular thing from them. If you were an entrepreneur you might see an opportunity here.

You wipe your ass with parchment? Doesn't that get expensive, or do you skin the animals and treat the skin yourself?

For me personally, if I see a truck drive by with a Confederate flag flying from the back of it I don't think "wow, that guy must really be into states' rights", or "wow, that guy must be a huge Dukes of Hazzard fan". I think "wow, that guy is really proud to be racist". It might not be fair but, yeah, that's the first thing that pops into my head.

Also, please stop talking about "succession" or "succeeding" or whatever. That's not the word.

What freedom of expression are you referring to? The freedom of a state to celebrate a racist history? Does the bill of rights even apply to a state in general? I'm pretty sure they only apply to people. Government speech is regulated differently. I'm not seeing any laws being passed that limit an individual's right of expression here.

Uh, well, I guess you're technically correct. The South seceded because of slavery, and the war was fought to preserve the Union (because the South was leaving, because of slavery).

How do you figure? Britain had already outlawed slavery decades before, their people were not about to join a war on the side of a nation fighting to keep slavery as an institution. The US Navy already whipped the British Navy (twice), you think the British Navy was going to try to bust through American lines to help the South (and risk losing Canada)? No. If Britain was going to join the war they would have joined it on the side of the US. They didn't want to do that either, though.

Prove it. Show your work.

Stop it, you're making my eyelid twitch. A state has never "succeeded" from the US. The South definitely did not succeed in the war.