[xerxes]

Once again this dead horse needs to be flogged: the Democratic Party of the 19th century bears little resemblance to its current incarnation except for the name. This is equally true of the Republican Party.

[N_Fiddledog]

xerxes xerxes:

Once again this dead horse needs to be flogged: the Democratic Party of the 19th century bears little resemblance to its current incarnation except for the name. This is equally true of the Republican Party.

Incorrect, but doesn't matter.

We were talking proposed historical equivalency.

Hadn't you guys moved on to the Swastika, because apparently that's the same thing, as the confederate flag or something. That's OK, but any other sort of offering of equivalency is not. Is that what you're saying?

I was watching how quickly you guys salivated as soon as somebody mentioned Swastika, it got me thinking...I bet that's coming from somewhere.

So I Googled it. Unbelievable - page after google page of lefty links giving marching orders to the initiates. "The Confederate flag is the same thing as the Swastika. 1,2,3, say it again..."

I don't even want to argue it, right now (although isn't it interesting how Godwin's law doesn't seem to apply to Progressives "). It's more interesting as a phenomena.

Fascinating. I had to ask myself; how is the right reacting to this 'find an equivalency' strategy? Wanna see?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregoryfere ... ka-stands/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... rchandise/

http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/wal-mar ... no-problem

http://rightwingnews.com/top-news/you-n ... ee-speech/

[Freakinoldguy]

xerxes xerxes:

It's still the battle flag of the confederacy. A group of states that fought against the USA. In other words, a traitors flag.

That accusation is extremely debatable.

$1:

Waging war “against them (the States)” is an act of treason, and as per the Constitution, a State can only be “protected” by the central government on the application of the legislature or the executive in the case of invasion. Lincoln violated both constitutional safeguards against coercion by the central government in 1861, of course only if the states remained in the Union, as he insisted they did. If not, war required a declaration from Congress, something Lincoln did not have, and by declaring war, Congress would have recognized the Confederate States as a legitimate government. Either way, Lincoln violated the Constitution, thus rendering the “bloody nose” argument against secession void.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... ion-legal/

[Thanos]

xerxes xerxes:

Once again this dead horse needs to be flogged: the Democratic Party of the 19th century bears little resemblance to its current incarnation except for the name. This is equally true of the Republican Party.

His OCD is completely overwhelming so it's best to ignore him when he goes into full-blown Sheldon Cooper mode. Nothing you're saying is getting through the massive wall of obstinacy so you're better off not even trying.

[N_Fiddledog]

Thanos Thanos:

xerxes xerxes:

Once again this dead horse needs to be flogged: the Democratic Party of the 19th century bears little resemblance to its current incarnation except for the name. This is equally true of the Republican Party.

His OCD is completely overwhelming so it's best to ignore him when he goes into full-blown Sheldon Cooper mode. Nothing you're saying is getting through the massive wall of obstinacy so you're better off not even trying.

Really?

You think I'm like super-genius, Sheldon Cooper? C'mon...you're gonna make me blush.

But you may be right. I do seem to know stuff you 2 don't. I'd like you to stick around for the Nazi talk cause that seems inevitable and it's always amusing, but maybe you're right. Maybe you might be more comfortable moving along.

[N_Fiddledog]

See, what I don't get though, is why is up to me to change my mind when I have the better argument.

Seriously? When was the last time you were flexible.

See how I opened that up for you for a sex joke. You're welcome.

[N_Fiddledog]

Back on subject though...

This attempted cultural revision of what the Confederate flag means seems relatively recent. Or at least it is with the kind of hysteria and force that's being applied.

The way I remember the essence of the Rebel flag from before was it was about regional heritage, being special, and rebel pride.

This 'it's only about the racism' thing is recent. Why is it wrong to ask why? Why is it necessary now to attack any who dare question the suddenly divine meme of Confederate flag as Swastika?

[BRAH]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

She came coached and prepared.

She's lucky she didn't fall and break her neck, of course the Left doesn't think the Law applies to them.

[andyt]

How about a 'it's not only about racism, but has been appropriated by racists' thing. The Swastika also has meaning well before the Nazis. We had a town in Canada called Swastika that was changed during WWII. I can just see an Asian delegation driving around Israel flying the Swastika insisting it is a very auspicious symbol. It's become besmirched in the West. So has the Confederate flag, not least by haircut boy.

[BRAH]

andyt andyt:

How about a 'it's not only about racism, but has been appropriated by racists' thing. The Swastika also has meaning well before the Nazis. We had a town in Canada called Swastika that was changed during WWII. I can just see an Asian delegation driving around Israel flying the Swastika insisting it is a very auspicious symbol. It's become besmirched in the West. So has the Confederate flag, not least by haircut boy.

It's about the Left's hypocrisy because they didn't have a problem using the flag for their political agenda. It's about the Left trying to look like they're making a difference because they know they don't have the political clout to go after gun laws so they focus on something that appeals to the base, let's ban the Confederate Flag because it cries racism. Where was this outrage before the tragic shooting? Once again the Left uses a bandaid rather than trying to fix the deeper issue.

[andyt]

BRAH BRAH:

andyt andyt:

How about a 'it's not only about racism, but has been appropriated by racists' thing. The Swastika also has meaning well before the Nazis. We had a town in Canada called Swastika that was changed during WWII. I can just see an Asian delegation driving around Israel flying the Swastika insisting it is a very auspicious symbol. It's become besmirched in the West. So has the Confederate flag, not least by haircut boy.

It's about the Left's hypocrisy because they didn't have a problem using the flag for their political agenda. It's about the Left trying to look like they're making a difference because they know they don't have the political clout to go after gun laws so they focus on something that appeals to the base, let's ban the Confederate Flag because it cries racism. Where was this outrage before the tragic shooting? Once again the Left uses a bandaid rather than fixing the deeper issue or even trying to.

Oh, is that what it's about? I thought it was about a symbol that had become associated with racism and so no longer has a place at of government buildings. Which it really never did.

[BRAH]

andyt andyt:

BRAH BRAH:

andyt andyt:

How about a 'it's not only about racism, but has been appropriated by racists' thing. The Swastika also has meaning well before the Nazis. We had a town in Canada called Swastika that was changed during WWII. I can just see an Asian delegation driving around Israel flying the Swastika insisting it is a very auspicious symbol. It's become besmirched in the West. So has the Confederate flag, not least by haircut boy.

It's about the Left's hypocrisy because they didn't have a problem using the flag for their political agenda. It's about the Left trying to look like they're making a difference because they know they don't have the political clout to go after gun laws so they focus on something that appeals to the base, let's ban the Confederate Flag because it cries racism. Where was this outrage before the tragic shooting? Once again the Left uses a bandaid rather than fixing the deeper issue or even trying to.

Oh, is that what it's about? I thought it was about a symbol that had become associated with racism and so no longer has a place at of government buildings. Which it really never did.

In your World removing the flag will end racism, are you that obtuse?

[N_Fiddledog]

BRAH BRAH:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

She came coached and prepared.

She's lucky she didn't fall and break her neck, of course the Left doesn't think the Law applies to them.

Not even the law of gravity.

Thanks for that. That was wide open on purpose, right?

[andyt]

BRAH BRAH:

In your World removing the flag will end racism, are you that obtuse?

Good strawman. And nice demonstration of typical rightie tightie black and white thinking. "If it doesn't end racism, why do it?"

It's one small step for mankind, removing a symbol that appears to legitimize racism. Many such steps and you wind up getting somewhere.

[Jabberwalker]

There are lots out there (certainly not me) who object to the Union Jack in the corner of several of our provincial flags. It's a remembrance of our heritage and if all that you see is a symbol of colonialism, perhaps you came to the wrong country.