Burning American Flag....

[Correll]

An American citizen who burns the American flag is an Anti-American asshole.


FUCK THEM ALL.

An American citizen who burns the flag is an anti-American asshole.

Or perhaps they're simply not a fetishist idolatry graven-image type.

What's most illustrative about knuckledragger comments like this is not the fetishism itself. It's the ideological fascism that thinks "since I'm a fetishist, everybody else has to be too".

Whelp ----- hate to break the bad news but no we don't. That's your hangup. You're welcome to it but you're not welcome to force it on others.

Just as I keep saying about the standing-for-the-anthem thing.... you don't force me to stand and I don't force you to sit. Works both ways, like it or lump it.

Nope.

Just because they don't share the respect for the symbols of this Nation that Americans do,does not mean that they do not know what they are doing when they burn the Flag.They are actively insulting their fellow citizens, and stating the they are not loyal to their group.THey remain MEMBERS of the group of course. Because renouncing their citizens ship [sic] would be a hardship for them.They want the BENEFITS of being a member of the group, but have no respect for or loyalty to the group.They are assholes.And in a healthy society they would be ostracized and despised.

Still-yet-another demonstration that mob mentality jingoists can only argue from emotion.

Yet, all you did there was the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Emotion, specifically by Argument by Ridicule.



My point stands.




Just because they don't share the respect for the symbols of this Nation that Americans do,does not mean that they do not know what they are doing when they burn the Flag.They are actively insulting their fellow citizens, and stating the they are not loyal to their group.THey remain MEMBERS of the group of course. Because renouncing their citizens ship [sic] would be a hardship for them.They want the BENEFITS of being a member of the group, but have no respect for or loyalty to the group.They are assholes.And in a healthy society they would be ostracized and despised

 

[Pogo]

I'm curious just which forms of speech you feel should not be protected, and why. Unpopular speech being protected is the only way the first amendment means anything, but there can clearly be exceptions.

I think that speech that incites violence, provokes violence or would predictably cause violence is not covered under the First Amendment similar to how shouting 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater is not allowed under that amendment as well.

I don't think burning a flag falls under that sort of qualification. It would be closer to "fighting words." I'm not a big fan of that concept, either; it implies a lack of responsibility for a person's own actions.

As long as the person doing the burning owns the flag, and does it in a safe and otherwise legal manner, I say it is legally acceptable speech. From a legal/social standpoint: burning the flag is not (on its own) sedition or treason. It's important for politically divisive speech to be allowed. From a personal standpoint: in the end it's a piece of colored cloth. I understand it has symbolic meaning, but no one else's rights are being damaged if someone burns a flag. One of the most important reasons to have freedom of speech is to be able to say "I don't like something about the country." That's what burning the flag is doing IMO, if in an extreme fashion. In the end it should be legal for someone to say "F the United States."

Everything depends on context. If you do it respectfully, even burning a flag is permitted to 'bury it'.

But try walking up to a black man in public and calling him a n1gger and see how many people would fault YOU for instigating the violence to ensue, bubba.

That is my point, some provocations are justifiably beaten down.

Burn my nations flag and that is what you would get if you try to use physical force to stop me from rescuing that flag.

Here's ^^ a guy who justifies his being a fascist thug by advising if you don't do as he coerces, he'll fuck you up like a fascist thug.

Hardly anything need be added to that.

So, if someone called a black man a "n****r to his face, would you blame the black man for fighting him? Or blame the guy calling him out with "fighting words"?

A person is not an inanimate fetish object ---- is he.


Ooooooooopsie.

 

[Pogo]

An American citizen who burns the flag is an anti-American asshole.

Or perhaps they're simply not a fetishist idolatry graven-image type.

What's most illustrative about knuckledragger comments like this is not the fetishism itself. It's the ideological fascism that thinks "since I'm a fetishist, everybody else has to be too".

Whelp ----- hate to break the bad news but no we don't. That's your hangup. You're welcome to it but you're not welcome to force it on others.

Just as I keep saying about the standing-for-the-anthem thing.... you don't force me to stand and I don't force you to sit. Works both ways, like it or lump it.

Nope.

Just because they don't share the respect for the symbols of this Nation that Americans do,does not mean that they do not know what they are doing when they burn the Flag.They are actively insulting their fellow citizens, and stating the they are not loyal to their group.THey remain MEMBERS of the group of course. Because renouncing their citizens ship [sic] would be a hardship for them.They want the BENEFITS of being a member of the group, but have no respect for or loyalty to the group.They are assholes.And in a healthy society they would be ostracized and despised.

Still-yet-another demonstration that mob mentality jingoists can only argue from emotion.

Yet, all you did there was the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Emotion, specifically by Argument by Ridicule.



My point stands.




Just because they don't share the respect for the symbols of this Nation that Americans do,does not mean that they do not know what they are doing when they burn the Flag.They are actively insulting their fellow citizens, and stating the they are not loyal to their group.THey remain MEMBERS of the group of course. Because renouncing their citizens ship [sic] would be a hardship for them.They want the BENEFITS of being a member of the group, but have no respect for or loyalty to the group.They are assholes.And in a healthy society they would be ostracized and despised

Actually all YOU did was Appeal to Emotion. And I just pointed out that's what you were in fact doing. Again.

"Fuck them all" also certainly qualifies. And when you render it in ALL CAPS it doubly qualifies.

And yes, absolutely your inability to make any argument other than an emotional one, stands. That is in fact what I just pointed out.

 

[Correll]

I think that speech that incites violence, provokes violence or would predictably cause violence is not covered under the First Amendment similar to how shouting 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater is not allowed under that amendment as well.

I don't think burning a flag falls under that sort of qualification. It would be closer to "fighting words." I'm not a big fan of that concept, either; it implies a lack of responsibility for a person's own actions.

As long as the person doing the burning owns the flag, and does it in a safe and otherwise legal manner, I say it is legally acceptable speech. From a legal/social standpoint: burning the flag is not (on its own) sedition or treason. It's important for politically divisive speech to be allowed. From a personal standpoint: in the end it's a piece of colored cloth. I understand it has symbolic meaning, but no one else's rights are being damaged if someone burns a flag. One of the most important reasons to have freedom of speech is to be able to say "I don't like something about the country." That's what burning the flag is doing IMO, if in an extreme fashion. In the end it should be legal for someone to say "F the United States."

Everything depends on context. If you do it respectfully, even burning a flag is permitted to 'bury it'.

But try walking up to a black man in public and calling him a n1gger and see how many people would fault YOU for instigating the violence to ensue, bubba.

That is my point, some provocations are justifiably beaten down.

Burn my nations flag and that is what you would get if you try to use physical force to stop me from rescuing that flag.

Here's ^^ a guy who justifies his being a fascist thug by advising if you don't do as he coerces, he'll fuck you up like a fascist thug.

Hardly anything need be added to that.

So, if someone called a black man a "n****r to his face, would you blame the black man for fighting him? Or blame the guy calling him out with "fighting words"?

A person is not an inanimate fetish object ---- is he.

It is not the man that is the symbol there, it is the word.


A word, or burning of a Flag, both are forms of normally protected speech.


If the word can be seen as a "fighting word", than so can the act of burning a flag.

 

[Correll]

An American citizen who burns the flag is an anti-American asshole.

Or perhaps they're simply not a fetishist idolatry graven-image type.

What's most illustrative about knuckledragger comments like this is not the fetishism itself. It's the ideological fascism that thinks "since I'm a fetishist, everybody else has to be too".

Whelp ----- hate to break the bad news but no we don't. That's your hangup. You're welcome to it but you're not welcome to force it on others.

Just as I keep saying about the standing-for-the-anthem thing.... you don't force me to stand and I don't force you to sit. Works both ways, like it or lump it.

Nope.

Just because they don't share the respect for the symbols of this Nation that Americans do,does not mean that they do not know what they are doing when they burn the Flag.They are actively insulting their fellow citizens, and stating the they are not loyal to their group.THey remain MEMBERS of the group of course. Because renouncing their citizens ship [sic] would be a hardship for them.They want the BENEFITS of being a member of the group, but have no respect for or loyalty to the group.They are assholes.And in a healthy society they would be ostracized and despised.

Still-yet-another demonstration that mob mentality jingoists can only argue from emotion.

Yet, all you did there was the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Emotion, specifically by Argument by Ridicule.



My point stands.




Just because they don't share the respect for the symbols of this Nation that Americans do,does not mean that they do not know what they are doing when they burn the Flag.They are actively insulting their fellow citizens, and stating the they are not loyal to their group.THey remain MEMBERS of the group of course. Because renouncing their citizens ship [sic] would be a hardship for them.They want the BENEFITS of being a member of the group, but have no respect for or loyalty to the group.They are assholes.And in a healthy society they would be ostracized and despised

Actually all YOU did was Appeal to Emotion. And I just pointed out that's what you were in fact doing. Again.
...t.

The group dynamics of a having a hostile member, who retains his membership in that group, and takes benefits and resources from that group, while having no loyalty to that group or his fellow members,

the cost from that, is not a matter of emotion.


It is a problem for the group. A real issue of self interest to the group and to ever member.



A healthy society would have some mechanism for casting them out, or at least marginalizing them.


It is incredible that you needed that explained to you.

 

[MaryL]

Don't care, burn calories, that might work better. I burn bridges, and that doesn't work, either.

 

[Pogo]

I don't think burning a flag falls under that sort of qualification. It would be closer to "fighting words." I'm not a big fan of that concept, either; it implies a lack of responsibility for a person's own actions.

As long as the person doing the burning owns the flag, and does it in a safe and otherwise legal manner, I say it is legally acceptable speech. From a legal/social standpoint: burning the flag is not (on its own) sedition or treason. It's important for politically divisive speech to be allowed. From a personal standpoint: in the end it's a piece of colored cloth. I understand it has symbolic meaning, but no one else's rights are being damaged if someone burns a flag. One of the most important reasons to have freedom of speech is to be able to say "I don't like something about the country." That's what burning the flag is doing IMO, if in an extreme fashion. In the end it should be legal for someone to say "F the United States."

Everything depends on context. If you do it respectfully, even burning a flag is permitted to 'bury it'.

But try walking up to a black man in public and calling him a n1gger and see how many people would fault YOU for instigating the violence to ensue, bubba.

That is my point, some provocations are justifiably beaten down.

Burn my nations flag and that is what you would get if you try to use physical force to stop me from rescuing that flag.

Here's ^^ a guy who justifies his being a fascist thug by advising if you don't do as he coerces, he'll fuck you up like a fascist thug.

Hardly anything need be added to that.

So, if someone called a black man a "n****r to his face, would you blame the black man for fighting him? Or blame the guy calling him out with "fighting words"?

A person is not an inanimate fetish object ---- is he.

It is not the man that is the symbol there, it is the word.
A word, or burning of a Flag, both are forms of normally protected speech.
If the word can be seen as a "fighting word", than so can the act of burning a flag.

Once AGAIN ---- and we'll just keep repeating until this sinks in ---- a flag (any flag) is an INANIMATE OBJECT. It is a piece of cloth with a design colored on. It has no 'feelings'; it cannot possibly be "offended". Only those with an infantile infatuation with it (fetish) can be. But that's on them.

 

[Pogo]

Or perhaps they're simply not a fetishist idolatry graven-image type.

What's most illustrative about knuckledragger comments like this is not the fetishism itself. It's the ideological fascism that thinks "since I'm a fetishist, everybody else has to be too".

Whelp ----- hate to break the bad news but no we don't. That's your hangup. You're welcome to it but you're not welcome to force it on others.

Just as I keep saying about the standing-for-the-anthem thing.... you don't force me to stand and I don't force you to sit. Works both ways, like it or lump it.

Nope.

Just because they don't share the respect for the symbols of this Nation that Americans do,does not mean that they do not know what they are doing when they burn the Flag.They are actively insulting their fellow citizens, and stating the they are not loyal to their group.THey remain MEMBERS of the group of course. Because renouncing their citizens ship [sic] would be a hardship for them.They want the BENEFITS of being a member of the group, but have no respect for or loyalty to the group.They are assholes.And in a healthy society they would be ostracized and despised.

Still-yet-another demonstration that mob mentality jingoists can only argue from emotion.

Yet, all you did there was the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Emotion, specifically by Argument by Ridicule.



My point stands.




Just because they don't share the respect for the symbols of this Nation that Americans do,does not mean that they do not know what they are doing when they burn the Flag.They are actively insulting their fellow citizens, and stating the they are not loyal to their group.THey remain MEMBERS of the group of course. Because renouncing their citizens ship [sic] would be a hardship for them.They want the BENEFITS of being a member of the group, but have no respect for or loyalty to the group.They are assholes.And in a healthy society they would be ostracized and despised

Actually all YOU did was Appeal to Emotion. And I just pointed out that's what you were in fact doing. Again.
...t.

The group dynamics of a having a hostile member, who retains his membership in that group, and takes benefits and resources from that group, while having no loyalty to that group or his fellow members,

the cost from that, is not a matter of emotion.
It is a problem for the group. A real issue of self interest to the group and to ever member.


A healthy society would have some mechanism for casting them out, or at least marginalizing them.

Actually a healthy society -- or person or people -- does not worship inanimate objects, concoct prayers to them and invent entire protocols for how it gets put to bed and what may be uttered about it under pain of blasphemy.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Everything depends on context. If you do it respectfully, even burning a flag is permitted to 'bury it'.

But try walking up to a black man in public and calling him a n1gger and see how many people would fault YOU for instigating the violence to ensue, bubba.

That is my point, some provocations are justifiably beaten down.

Burn my nations flag and that is what you would get if you try to use physical force to stop me from rescuing that flag.

Here's ^^ a guy who justifies his being a fascist thug by advising if you don't do as he coerces, he'll fuck you up like a fascist thug.

Hardly anything need be added to that.

So, if someone called a black man a "n****r to his face, would you blame the black man for fighting him? Or blame the guy calling him out with "fighting words"?

A person is not an inanimate fetish object ---- is he.

It is not the man that is the symbol there, it is the word.
A word, or burning of a Flag, both are forms of normally protected speech.
If the word can be seen as a "fighting word", than so can the act of burning a flag.

Once AGAIN ---- and we'll just keep repeating until this sinks in ---- a flag (any flag) is an INANIMATE OBJECT. It is a piece of cloth with a design colored on. It has no 'feelings'; it cannot possibly be "offended". Only those with an infantile infatuation with it (fetish) can be. But that's on them.

The problem these derps have is their personal self worth is tied up in all these symbols. So if the symbol is 'disrespected' they are, in their minds, disrespected. However, if their cult leader disrespects any of these symbols by say saluting an enemy general, or putting children in cages, or previously by torturing people, they feel perfectly fine about it because it is their cult leader doing it.

And your point about them appealing to emotion is of course true. Odd though that they DEMAND other people not only recognize THEIR emotion while they themselves ignore and belittle the emotion of a person that is angry enough to burn a flag.

They are children that never learned how to navigate the adult world and it's complexities.

 

[Correll]

Everything depends on context. If you do it respectfully, even burning a flag is permitted to 'bury it'.

But try walking up to a black man in public and calling him a n1gger and see how many people would fault YOU for instigating the violence to ensue, bubba.

That is my point, some provocations are justifiably beaten down.

Burn my nations flag and that is what you would get if you try to use physical force to stop me from rescuing that flag.

Here's ^^ a guy who justifies his being a fascist thug by advising if you don't do as he coerces, he'll fuck you up like a fascist thug.

Hardly anything need be added to that.

So, if someone called a black man a "n****r to his face, would you blame the black man for fighting him? Or blame the guy calling him out with "fighting words"?

A person is not an inanimate fetish object ---- is he.

It is not the man that is the symbol there, it is the word.
A word, or burning of a Flag, both are forms of normally protected speech.
If the word can be seen as a "fighting word", than so can the act of burning a flag.

Once AGAIN ---- and we'll just keep repeating until this sinks in ---- a flag (any flag) is an INANIMATE OBJECT. It is a piece of cloth with a design colored on. It has no 'feelings'; it cannot possibly be "offended". Only those with an infantile infatuation with it (fetish) can be. But that's on them.

Your calling respect for certain symbols "fetishes" is merely an appeal to emotion, ie ridicule.


You are trying to marginalize my argument by ridiculing it.


That is not a valid point. It is a dishonest rhetorical device.


My point stands.


If you want "burning the flag" to be considered speech, so that it can be "protected speech",


then it is completely reasonable to discuss whether it can be considered "fighting words".

 

[Correll]

Nope.

Just because they don't share the respect for the symbols of this Nation that Americans do,does not mean that they do not know what they are doing when they burn the Flag.They are actively insulting their fellow citizens, and stating the they are not loyal to their group.THey remain MEMBERS of the group of course. Because renouncing their citizens ship [sic] would be a hardship for them.They want the BENEFITS of being a member of the group, but have no respect for or loyalty to the group.They are assholes.And in a healthy society they would be ostracized and despised.

Still-yet-another demonstration that mob mentality jingoists can only argue from emotion.

Yet, all you did there was the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Emotion, specifically by Argument by Ridicule.



My point stands.




Just because they don't share the respect for the symbols of this Nation that Americans do,does not mean that they do not know what they are doing when they burn the Flag.They are actively insulting their fellow citizens, and stating the they are not loyal to their group.THey remain MEMBERS of the group of course. Because renouncing their citizens ship [sic] would be a hardship for them.They want the BENEFITS of being a member of the group, but have no respect for or loyalty to the group.They are assholes.And in a healthy society they would be ostracized and despised

Actually all YOU did was Appeal to Emotion. And I just pointed out that's what you were in fact doing. Again.
...t.

The group dynamics of a having a hostile member, who retains his membership in that group, and takes benefits and resources from that group, while having no loyalty to that group or his fellow members,

the cost from that, is not a matter of emotion.
It is a problem for the group. A real issue of self interest to the group and to ever member.


A healthy society would have some mechanism for casting them out, or at least marginalizing them.

Actually a healthy society -- or person or people -- does not worship inanimate objects, concoct prayers to them and invent entire protocols for how it gets put to bed and what may be uttered about it under pain of blasphemy.

What example of "healthy society" are you thinking of, that did not have widely shared, and deep respect for certain symbols representing the society or significant portions of the society?

 

[Pogo]

Here's ^^ a guy who justifies his being a fascist thug by advising if you don't do as he coerces, he'll fuck you up like a fascist thug.

Hardly anything need be added to that.

So, if someone called a black man a "n****r to his face, would you blame the black man for fighting him? Or blame the guy calling him out with "fighting words"?

A person is not an inanimate fetish object ---- is he.

It is not the man that is the symbol there, it is the word.
A word, or burning of a Flag, both are forms of normally protected speech.
If the word can be seen as a "fighting word", than so can the act of burning a flag.

Once AGAIN ---- and we'll just keep repeating until this sinks in ---- a flag (any flag) is an INANIMATE OBJECT. It is a piece of cloth with a design colored on. It has no 'feelings'; it cannot possibly be "offended". Only those with an infantile infatuation with it (fetish) can be. But that's on them.

Your calling respect for certain symbols "fetishes" is merely an appeal to emotion, ie ridicule.

Nnnnnope. It's simply the definition.

fet·ish
ˈfediSH/
noun

1. 1.
   a form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc.
   "Victorian men developed fetishes focusing on feet, shoes, and boots"
   synonyms: fixation, obsession, compulsion, mania; More
   
2. 2.
   an inanimate object worshiped for its supposed magical powers or because it is considered to be inhabited by a spirit.

See also "idol" and "graven image".

You are trying to marginalize my argument by ridiculing it.
That is not a valid point. It is a dishonest rhetorical device.

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope. What's 'dishonest' is your running away from reality. You already marginalized your own arguments by limiting yourself to emotional whines. Not that any other type of argument exists --- which is the point.

If you want "burning the flag" to be considered speech, so that it can be "protected speech", then it is completely reasonable to discuss whether it can be considered "fighting words".

Again, I didn't bring up either "protected speech" or "fighting words", both of which are vague and subjective concepts.
I brought up "fetish" --- which is not.

 

[Correll]

So, if someone called a black man a "n****r to his face, would you blame the black man for fighting him? Or blame the guy calling him out with "fighting words"?

A person is not an inanimate fetish object ---- is he.

It is not the man that is the symbol there, it is the word.
A word, or burning of a Flag, both are forms of normally protected speech.
If the word can be seen as a "fighting word", than so can the act of burning a flag.

Once AGAIN ---- and we'll just keep repeating until this sinks in ---- a flag (any flag) is an INANIMATE OBJECT. It is a piece of cloth with a design colored on. It has no 'feelings'; it cannot possibly be "offended". Only those with an infantile infatuation with it (fetish) can be. But that's on them.

Your calling respect for certain symbols "fetishes" is merely an appeal to emotion, ie ridicule.

Nnnnnope. It's simply the definition.

fet·ish
ˈfediSH/
noun

1. 1.
   a form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc.
   "Victorian men developed fetishes focusing on feet, shoes, and boots"
   synonyms: fixation, obsession, compulsion, mania; More
   
2. 2.
   an inanimate object worshiped for its supposed magical powers or because it is considered to be inhabited by a spirit.

See also "idol" and "graven image".

You are trying to marginalize my argument by ridiculing it.
That is not a valid point. It is a dishonest rhetorical device.

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope. What's 'dishonest' is your running away from reality. You already marginalized your own arguments by limiting yourself to emotional whines. Not that any other type of argument exists --- which is the point.

If you want "burning the flag" to be considered speech, so that it can be "protected speech", then it is completely reasonable to discuss whether it can be considered "fighting words".

Again, I didn't bring up either "protected speech" or "fighting words", both of which are vague and subjective concepts.
I brought up "fetish" --- which is not.

The Flag is respected, even revered by Patriotic Americans, as a symbol.


This respect is not sexual in nature, nor it is a belief that the flag is magical, or inhabited by a spirit.


Your position is dishonest, and is nothing but an attempt to ridicule your enemies.


Ironically, that is an Appeal to Emotion, specifically Ridicule.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The problem these derps have is their personal self worth is tied up in all these symbols. So if the symbol is 'disrespected' they are, in their minds, disrespected. However, if their cult leader disrespects any of these symbols by say saluting an enemy general, or putting children in cages, or previously by torturing people, they feel perfectly fine about it because it is their cult leader doing it.

And your point about them appealing to emotion is of course true. Odd though that they DEMAND other people not only recognize THEIR emotion while they themselves ignore and belittle the emotion of a person that is angry enough to burn a flag.

They are children that never learned how to navigate the adult world and it's complexities.

Trying to explain loyalty to our Republic and its symbols to a libtard is probably as futile an undertaking as explaining respect for the law to a criminal, and both are usually mutual endeavors.

 

[Pogo]

The problem these derps have is their personal self worth is tied up in all these symbols. So if the symbol is 'disrespected' they are, in their minds, disrespected. However, if their cult leader disrespects any of these symbols by say saluting an enemy general, or putting children in cages, or previously by torturing people, they feel perfectly fine about it because it is their cult leader doing it.

And your point about them appealing to emotion is of course true. Odd though that they DEMAND other people not only recognize THEIR emotion while they themselves ignore and belittle the emotion of a person that is angry enough to burn a flag.

They are children that never learned how to navigate the adult world and it's complexities.

Trying to explain loyalty to our Republic and its symbols to a libtard is probably as futile an undertaking as explaining respect for the law to a criminal, and both are usually mutual endeavors.

Figure out a way to "explain" your hallucination of having taken an "oath to a flag" yet, idiot?

Post 363 two days ago? No answer huh?


Exactly.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Spoken like the true fetishist thug dupe you are. The same kind of thug that demanded Earnest Starr had to kiss a flag.

I wouldn’t have forced him to kiss it. I would have had him tortured to dear in a room with the walls and failing covered in flags, then had him buried in a flag lined coffin, wrapped in a flag so his Soul would never be st rest.

When fascism comes to America...

 

[Correll]

Spoken like the true fetishist thug dupe you are. The same kind of thug that demanded Earnest Starr had to kiss a flag.

I wouldn’t have forced him to kiss it. I would have had him tortured to dear in a room with the walls and failing covered in flags, then had him buried in a flag lined coffin, wrapped in a flag so his Soul would never be st rest.

When fascism comes to America...

It be from the Left, with the full support of the libs and the dems.

Oh, wait, look.

 

[Anathema]

When fascism comes to America...

It will be far better than Progressivism.

 

[Pogo]

Spoken like the true fetishist thug dupe you are. The same kind of thug that demanded Earnest Starr had to kiss a flag.

I wouldn’t have forced him to kiss it. I would have had him tortured to dear in a room with the walls and failing covered in flags, then had him buried in a flag lined coffin, wrapped in a flag so his Soul would never be st rest.

When fascism comes to America...

".... it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross".

The only part of that trusim at variance with the real world is that it's in future tense instead of present/past. But as a prediction it was absolutely spot-on.

Of course it's also stating the obvious, as these are the fertilizers of fascism. "Kinder, Küche, Kirche".

 

[Correll]

Spoken like the true fetishist thug dupe you are. The same kind of thug that demanded Earnest Starr had to kiss a flag.

I wouldn’t have forced him to kiss it. I would have had him tortured to dear in a room with the walls and failing covered in flags, then had him buried in a flag lined coffin, wrapped in a flag so his Soul would never be st rest.

When fascism comes to America...

".... it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross".

The only part of that trusim at variance with the real world is that it's in future tense instead of present/past. But as a prediction it was absolutely spot-on.

Of course it's also stating the obvious, as these are the fertilizers of fascism. "Kinder, Küche, Kirche".

A truism is something that is obviously true.


And while it would certainly be POSSIBLE for fascism to come to American as you describe,


it is just as likely, if not more so, to come screaming that they anti-Fascists and are just shutting down speech that is hateful and hurts people.

So, what you claim to be a "truism" is not a truism at all, but just you smearing people you don't like.





YOu posted the definition of Fetish the other day, something you keep throwing at Patriotic Americans.



I pointed out that neither definition was accurate, and you never responded.


Is that your tacit admission you were wrong and you won't be falsely smearing good people like that again,


or was that just you ignoring that post, that you could not spin, and you are going to keep doing it, even though it has been demonstrated to you that you are being an ass?