This Is So Moving: Elite School Tells Sixth Graders The Swastika Is A Symbol Of Peace

[westwall]

If they count towards Congressional representation then yes, they did have certain rights. They couldn't be killed on a whim for instance.

Where'd you get that from? Oh right, your ass...

"You should notice of course that ALL of the Amendments have been recognizing MORE rights for people. Not taking them away."

And there's that total failure of logic again...

Show us an Amendment that takes rights away silly boy.

18th, the 22nd, southerns would say the 13th, the 27th has nothing to do with rights, the 16th gave us Income taxes, the 25th doesn't involve rights, same with the 17th and the 12th. Besides that, great work by you, as usual.

I already mentioned the 18th silly boy, 13th freed the slaves. I would say that that was recognizing more rights. The 22nd limits the times a person can be POTUS so allows more people to run for the office. 16th doesn't take rights away. Nice try but that's a fail. And I still don't see a single Amendment (other than the already mentioned 18th, which was also repealed) that REMOVES rights from people. The 22nd doesn't remove a right. There is no right to run for POTUS. So, no. It's you that failed monkey boy.

The 18th was booze, so your statement was wrong, as usual, and the 22nd limits my right to vote for the person of my choice, a third time or beyond. That and the amendments that have nothing to do with individual rights means you fucked up. Choose your words more careful and think though what you say before you say it.

"You should notice of course that ALL of the Amendments have been recognizing MORE rights for people. Not taking them away."

This is untrue, as usual.

Prohibition WAS booze you moron. The 22nd merely codified what had not been codified. That's all. It neither grants nor retracts a Right. You have no RIGHT to run for POTUS.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Where'd you get that from? Oh right, your ass...

"You should notice of course that ALL of the Amendments have been recognizing MORE rights for people. Not taking them away."

And there's that total failure of logic again...

Show us an Amendment that takes rights away silly boy.

18th, the 22nd, southerns would say the 13th, the 27th has nothing to do with rights, the 16th gave us Income taxes, the 25th doesn't involve rights, same with the 17th and the 12th. Besides that, great work by you, as usual.

I already mentioned the 18th silly boy, 13th freed the slaves. I would say that that was recognizing more rights. The 22nd limits the times a person can be POTUS so allows more people to run for the office. 16th doesn't take rights away. Nice try but that's a fail. And I still don't see a single Amendment (other than the already mentioned 18th, which was also repealed) that REMOVES rights from people. The 22nd doesn't remove a right. There is no right to run for POTUS. So, no. It's you that failed monkey boy.

The 18th was booze, so your statement was wrong, as usual, and the 22nd limits my right to vote for the person of my choice, a third time or beyond. That and the amendments that have nothing to do with individual rights means you fucked up. Choose your words more careful and think though what you say before you say it.

"You should notice of course that ALL of the Amendments have been recognizing MORE rights for people. Not taking them away."

This is untrue, as usual.

Prohibition WAS booze you moron. The 22nd merely codified what had not been codified. That's all. It neither grants nor retracts a Right. You have no RIGHT to run for POTUS.

Dummy, I know what Prohibition is, and the 22nd takes away my right to vote for _____ a third time (or more) because ____ can't run for a third time (or more). That is a limitation on my right to vote for who I wish to assuming they are running.

As usual, you were dead wrong. Next time be far more careful in what you fucking say.

 

[idb]

Hitler and I would not have gotten along. He hated liberals.

LOL! Hitler was a Liberal. But like every other Liberal, he was only comfortable with himself in charge. What Histler hated, was any liberal that wasn't kissing his ass; vis a vis his hatred of jews. They're not strong prostrators of laughable fools. So... naturally, Histler took offense.

"Liberalism is a disease of the mind that weakens and corrupts human beings." Adolf Hitler, 1939

 

[idb]

Hitler and I would not have gotten along. He hated liberals.

LOL! Hitler was a Liberal. But like every other Liberal, he was only comfortable with himself in charge. What Histler hated, was any liberal that wasn't kissing his ass; vis a vis his hatred of jews. They're not strong prostrators of laughable fools. So... naturally, Histler took offense.

" the masses love a commander more than a petitioner and feel inwardly more satisfied by a doctrine, tolerating no other beside itself, than by the granting of liberalistic freedom" MEIN KAMPF by Adolf Hitler: Volume 1, Chapter 2

 

[September]

But it does strongly suggest that those who do approve of the Nazi doctrine find something about the Confederate States of America appealing.

I greatly admire and respect Adolf Hitler, but I am completely disgusted by the confederate flag and the mentally weak people who proudly display it.
​

Why respect him? He was a failure in every sense of the world.

From your point of view, but certainly not from mine.

Hitler went from being a nobody to being the Fuhrer of his country. He became one of the most recognizable faces in human history. He was extremely charismatic, and was a master at inspiring and manipulating others. I highly commend his constant pursuit of power, and he accomplished far more in his life than most ever will.

And I have massive respect for his creative side as well as his destructive side. I wouldn't expect you to understand.

​

If destruction is your goal then yes, he was very accomplished. Genghis Khan on the other hand TRULY is the greatest leader the world has ever seen. If you wish to admire someone. Admire him. He ACCOMPLISHED things and he will be known for long, long after Hitler is forgotten.

Why one over the other, and not both? Hitler had a thing for Destruction as well as Creation, and I respect both of those sides not just in him but within individual and collective human Nature... it seems to be that which we inherit most from our Maker(s).

Still, I admire many people for many reasons. Adolf Hitler, Julius Caesar, Grigori Rasputin, George Washington, Genghis Khan, Mao Zedong, Ramesses II, Muhatma Gandhi, Aleister Crowley, Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, and many, many others

​

 

[westwall]

But it does strongly suggest that those who do approve of the Nazi doctrine find something about the Confederate States of America appealing.

I greatly admire and respect Adolf Hitler, but I am completely disgusted by the confederate flag and the mentally weak people who proudly display it.
​

Why respect him? He was a failure in every sense of the world.

From your point of view, but certainly not from mine.

Hitler went from being a nobody to being the Fuhrer of his country. He became one of the most recognizable faces in human history. He was extremely charismatic, and was a master at inspiring and manipulating others. I highly commend his constant pursuit of power, and he accomplished far more in his life than most ever will.

And I have massive respect for his creative side as well as his destructive side. I wouldn't expect you to understand.

​

If destruction is your goal then yes, he was very accomplished. Genghis Khan on the other hand TRULY is the greatest leader the world has ever seen. If you wish to admire someone. Admire him. He ACCOMPLISHED things and he will be known for long, long after Hitler is forgotten.

Why one over the other, and not both? Hitler had a thing for Destruction as well as Creation, and I respect both of those sides not just in him but within individual and collective human Nature... it seems to be that which we inherit most from our Maker(s).

Still, I admire many people for many reasons. Adolf Hitler, Julius Caesar, Grigori Rasputin, George Washington, Genghis Khan, Mao Zedong, Ramesses II, Muhatma Gandhi, Aleister Crowley, Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, and many, many others

​

Because Genghis was successful. Hitler was weak, and he was only good at getting people killed in vast numbers. He was a lousy military planner. He inherited the most advanced, professional army the world had ever seen and he pissed it away in fruitless marches because he was so stupid he couldn't figure out the scale on the maps he was peering at.

 

[Kondor3]

Ancient symbol, boys

( honest question )

You're pullin' our leg, right?

I came to the understanding, many years ago, that the swastika had been used in the Indian lexicon for long ages, but... Coca Cola, in the modern age?

Really?

 

[September]

I greatly admire and respect Adolf Hitler, but I am completely disgusted by the confederate flag and the mentally weak people who proudly display it.
​

Why respect him? He was a failure in every sense of the world.

From your point of view, but certainly not from mine.

Hitler went from being a nobody to being the Fuhrer of his country. He became one of the most recognizable faces in human history. He was extremely charismatic, and was a master at inspiring and manipulating others. I highly commend his constant pursuit of power, and he accomplished far more in his life than most ever will.

And I have massive respect for his creative side as well as his destructive side. I wouldn't expect you to understand.
​

If destruction is your goal then yes, he was very accomplished. Genghis Khan on the other hand TRULY is the greatest leader the world has ever seen. If you wish to admire someone. Admire him. He ACCOMPLISHED things and he will be known for long, long after Hitler is forgotten.

Why one over the other, and not both? Hitler had a thing for Destruction as well as Creation, and I respect both of those sides not just in him but within individual and collective human Nature... it seems to be that which we inherit most from our Maker(s).

Still, I admire many people for many reasons. Adolf Hitler, Julius Caesar, Grigori Rasputin, George Washington, Genghis Khan, Mao Zedong, Ramesses II, Muhatma Gandhi, Aleister Crowley, Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, and many, many others

​

Because Genghis was successful. Hitler was weak, and he was only good at getting people killed in vast numbers. He was a lousy military planner. He inherited the most advanced, professional army the world had ever seen and he pissed it away in fruitless marches because he was so stupid he couldn't figure out the scale on the maps he was peering at.

I gave my reasons, and like I said... I wouldn't expect someone like you to understand.
​

 

[westwall]

Why respect him? He was a failure in every sense of the world.

From your point of view, but certainly not from mine.

Hitler went from being a nobody to being the Fuhrer of his country. He became one of the most recognizable faces in human history. He was extremely charismatic, and was a master at inspiring and manipulating others. I highly commend his constant pursuit of power, and he accomplished far more in his life than most ever will.

And I have massive respect for his creative side as well as his destructive side. I wouldn't expect you to understand.
​

If destruction is your goal then yes, he was very accomplished. Genghis Khan on the other hand TRULY is the greatest leader the world has ever seen. If you wish to admire someone. Admire him. He ACCOMPLISHED things and he will be known for long, long after Hitler is forgotten.

Why one over the other, and not both? Hitler had a thing for Destruction as well as Creation, and I respect both of those sides not just in him but within individual and collective human Nature... it seems to be that which we inherit most from our Maker(s).

Still, I admire many people for many reasons. Adolf Hitler, Julius Caesar, Grigori Rasputin, George Washington, Genghis Khan, Mao Zedong, Ramesses II, Muhatma Gandhi, Aleister Crowley, Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, and many, many others

​

Because Genghis was successful. Hitler was weak, and he was only good at getting people killed in vast numbers. He was a lousy military planner. He inherited the most advanced, professional army the world had ever seen and he pissed it away in fruitless marches because he was so stupid he couldn't figure out the scale on the maps he was peering at.

I gave my reasons, and like I said... I wouldn't expect someone like you to understand.
​

Yes, like PMH and his simpleton opinion, you merely look at the death and destruction and think that that is what matters. Most silly people do. So do most 5 year old boys. Some day you'll grow up.

 

[September]

From your point of view, but certainly not from mine.

Hitler went from being a nobody to being the Fuhrer of his country. He became one of the most recognizable faces in human history. He was extremely charismatic, and was a master at inspiring and manipulating others. I highly commend his constant pursuit of power, and he accomplished far more in his life than most ever will.

And I have massive respect for his creative side as well as his destructive side. I wouldn't expect you to understand.
​

If destruction is your goal then yes, he was very accomplished. Genghis Khan on the other hand TRULY is the greatest leader the world has ever seen. If you wish to admire someone. Admire him. He ACCOMPLISHED things and he will be known for long, long after Hitler is forgotten.

Why one over the other, and not both? Hitler had a thing for Destruction as well as Creation, and I respect both of those sides not just in him but within individual and collective human Nature... it seems to be that which we inherit most from our Maker(s).

Still, I admire many people for many reasons. Adolf Hitler, Julius Caesar, Grigori Rasputin, George Washington, Genghis Khan, Mao Zedong, Ramesses II, Muhatma Gandhi, Aleister Crowley, Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, and many, many others

​

Because Genghis was successful. Hitler was weak, and he was only good at getting people killed in vast numbers. He was a lousy military planner. He inherited the most advanced, professional army the world had ever seen and he pissed it away in fruitless marches because he was so stupid he couldn't figure out the scale on the maps he was peering at.

I gave my reasons, and like I said... I wouldn't expect someone like you to understand.
​

Yes, like PMH and his simpleton opinion, you merely look at the death and destruction and think that that is what matters. Most silly people do. So do most 5 year old boys. Some day you'll grow up.

I gave my reasons and no, not all of them have to do with "death and destruction". I personally admire someone who can work the system... influence the masses... execute a vision. Even though in the End Hitler was met with defeat... there are many, many, aspects about his journey and life and Will that I just find awesome.

I mean, look at Jesus. His life was awesome, and in the end? He was beaten and tortured and humiliated and crucified. Julius Caesar? Epic life, then betrayed and stabbed to death and died in a puddle of his own blood. Grigori Rasputin? Rose from nothing into somebody and found himself influencing the royal family... but look how his journey ended. None of this means any of them were "weak" or "failures".

​

 

[jillian]

That is untrue, Mr. Troll. The notions are not mutually exclusive but you have to be able to keep more than one thought in your head at one time, and you can't manage half that.

Actually yes they are. Liberalism was a rejection of the King and big government. Progressivism is the exact opposite. It is the embrace of big, overpowering, intrusive government. As you say rights are granted by the government. Liberals KNOW they are not. Liberals KNOW that rights are innate.

there is no such thing as a right that exists unless it is enforced.

That is true. However, rights are not granted by the COTUS as is pointed out. What is codified are Rights that the government can't intrude upon. Rights must constantly be fought for to prevent progressives like PMH from stripping them away.

Read the Burka thread, I defend rights, except for guns.

The right to keep guns in the hands of civilians ensures that all other rights are maintained. Unlike you our Founders weren't stupid and realized that the people need teeth to defend themselves from people like you.

that was never the intent of the 2nd amendment. the second amendment was for a well-ordered militia to have guns to DEFEND the government. that's why the only crime outlined in the constitution is treason....

i can't help it if ignorant gun nuts made up something that every justice until scalia would have laughed out loud about.

but i guess that what happens when people are led around by the nose by the gun manufacturer's lobby known as the NRA.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Hitler was a socialist. Liberals decided that was "right"

Hitler was no socialist. He was a Fascist. There are elements of all kinds of things in that but they are primarily right-wing things, nationalism, militarism, expansionism, racism, state-sponsored capitalism, family, competition, indoctrination, etc. Socialism is economics, not politics and governing.

You think that Stalin wasn't into nationalism, militarism, expansionism, racism? Give me a break. The one poster was right; you're just trying to muddy the waters.

Stalin wasn't a fascist, he was a communist. We have nationalism here, and propaganda, in times of war. Does that mean Hitler and FDR were the same? No, but they sure as hell had things in common.

They were both collectivists; and they both trounced upon human rights for the alleged good of their states.

Should FDR not have defend the US?

You went of the rails, dude.

 

[westwall]

Actually yes they are. Liberalism was a rejection of the King and big government. Progressivism is the exact opposite. It is the embrace of big, overpowering, intrusive government. As you say rights are granted by the government. Liberals KNOW they are not. Liberals KNOW that rights are innate.

there is no such thing as a right that exists unless it is enforced.

That is true. However, rights are not granted by the COTUS as is pointed out. What is codified are Rights that the government can't intrude upon. Rights must constantly be fought for to prevent progressives like PMH from stripping them away.

Read the Burka thread, I defend rights, except for guns.

The right to keep guns in the hands of civilians ensures that all other rights are maintained. Unlike you our Founders weren't stupid and realized that the people need teeth to defend themselves from people like you.

that was never the intent of the 2nd amendment. the second amendment was for a well-ordered militia to have guns to DEFEND the government. that's why the only crime outlined in the constitution is treason....

i can't help it if ignorant gun nuts made up something that every justice until scalia would have laughed out loud about.

but i guess that what happens when people are led around by the nose by the gun manufacturer's lobby known as the NRA.

"All enemies, foreign, AND DOMESTIC......" It is most certainly the case that the Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do and one final option. The Founders knew beyond doubt that corruption and criminal behavior would slowly take over the government and lead to tyranny. They ensured that the people would have the means to fight that.


Jefferson was a little more intolerant than I but this philosophy was at the heart of the reason why the 2nd Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights...



"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The Swastika was ripped off and inverted from an ancient Indian symbol of peace. But... if memory serves, I think the symbolism took a bit of a beating when it stood as a Leftist standard over the death of 10s of millions of innocent people.

Never heard of that, but there was a guy named Hitler that used it. His thugs turned it to point to the right though.

Then you're uncultured. I saw the symbol everywhere in my tour in Korea. You're the kind that buries your head in the sand and consigns to rubbish everything outside your extremely limited experience. Typical Leftist.

 

[longknife]

The Swastika was ripped off and inverted from an ancient Indian symbol of peace. But... if memory serves, I think the symbolism took a bit of a beating when it stood as a Leftist standard over the death of 10s of millions of innocent people.

Never heard of that, but there was a guy named Hitler that used it. His thugs turned it to point to the right though.

American Indians refer to it as the whirling log and was a symbol of peace. In Sanskrit it means "well being", and was associated with order and stability, and is at least 2,600 years old.

Thank you. I've seen dozen examples of this figure on Native American artifacts from just about every tribe.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Hitler and I would not have gotten along. He hated liberals.

LOL! Hitler was a Liberal. But like every other Liberal, he was only comfortable with himself in charge. What Histler hated, was any liberal that wasn't kissing his ass; vis a vis his hatred of jews. They're not strong prostrators of laughable fools. So... naturally, Histler took offense.

"Liberalism is a disease of the mind that weakens and corrupts human beings." Adolf Hitler, 1939

Hitler was talking about liberalism, not leftism. You twisted statist fucks have no idea what liberalism is.

 

[westwall]

The Swastika was ripped off and inverted from an ancient Indian symbol of peace. But... if memory serves, I think the symbolism took a bit of a beating when it stood as a Leftist standard over the death of 10s of millions of innocent people.

Never heard of that, but there was a guy named Hitler that used it. His thugs turned it to point to the right though.

American Indians refer to it as the whirling log and was a symbol of peace. In Sanskrit it means "well being", and was associated with order and stability, and is at least 2,600 years old.

Thank you. I've seen dozen examples of this figure on Native American artifacts from just about every tribe.

If you really want to screw with people like Pogo, this was the shoulder patch for the US Army 45th Infantry Division prior to 1940.

45th Infantry Division (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

that was never the intent of the 2nd amendment. the second amendment was for a well-ordered militia to have guns to DEFEND the government.

​

So ... you feel that in the second enumerated amendment in The Bill of Individual Rights.... the Framers departed from setting red line forbiddances upon government power, specifically designed to prevent the government from possessing the legal means to infringe the rightful means of individual to exercise, specific, essential, pre-existing rights intrinsic to and inalienable in their beings... and instead slipped in an expressed power specifically established to prevent the individual from defending their means to exercise their Rights?

ROFLMNAO!

Sweet Mother... THAT IS SERIOUSLY DEMENTED SHIT RIGHT THERE.

I mean, we are looking at the straight up, OVERT EFFORT, TO UNDERMINE THE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF THE GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS HELD BY EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US... not to mention the documents which thousands of men sacrificed their good lives and fortunes to sustain.

That one public statement alone, SHOULD... in a viable culture... result in that individual being arrested and tossed like a salad at Gitmo... for the rest of its very short life.

Where it will produce the names of those who 'taught her that nonsense... and others who she knows to be teaching the same deluded, seditious claptrap.

Understand Reader... The Right to Speak Freely... does not include the right to speak in ways that are injurious to the innocent. And that socialist fuck is speaking in ways designed to cripple each and every one of us.

​

Her words are vastly more dangerous than any threat she could represent, if she had a thermonuclear warhead in her trunk.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Swastika was ripped off and inverted from an ancient Indian symbol of peace. But... if memory serves, I think the symbolism took a bit of a beating when it stood as a Leftist standard over the death of 10s of millions of innocent people.

Never heard of that, but there was a guy named Hitler that used it. His thugs turned it to point to the right though.

American Indians refer to it as the whirling log and was a symbol of peace. In Sanskrit it means "well being", and was associated with order and stability, and is at least 2,600 years old.

Thank you. I've seen dozen examples of this figure on Native American artifacts from just about every tribe.

If you really want to screw with people like Pogo, this was the shoulder patch for the US Army 45th Infantry Division prior to 1940.

45th Infantry Division (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LOL!

OOoops!

 

[Kondor3]

...that was never the intent of the 2nd amendment...

We do not know this.

It is not safe to merely rely upon literalism at a distance of 230-ish years.

Custom and usage - precedent - and prior SCOTUS and lower court rulings - have long-since settled the matter.