I understand how the burden of history weighs upon my German colleagues’ view. However, banning symbols cannot ban evil and risks playing into the hands of those who would seek to subvert the very liberties we most champion.

British Liberal Democrat Chris Davies (from the debate on this issue)

I should have been clearer. I didn’t mean you you. I meant “you” the confederates. It was a reply to a hypothetical.

“And, Actus, I lost nothing, and I assume that “Time to be an American” means to support everything that our out-of-control D.C. government waves in front of us.”

I think it means using patriotic flag waver ill thought “with us or against us” rhetoric against the confederates in a not so subtle attempt to ridcule everything in the process.

And, Actus, I lost nothing, and I assume that “Time to be an American” means to support everything that our out-of-control D.C. government waves in front of us. Not for me, thanks!

The Scottish Tartan, the Confederate battle flag, etc. are symbols of distinct peoples and their heritage. The swastike is a symbol of a murderous Pagan regime and ought to be considered in that light.

Nevertheless, I do not support the German state banning that symbol simply because such a thing would be antithetical to the principles of a free state.

Centuries ago, the government of England banned the display of all things Scottish, including the display of tartans. The Scots came up with a way to show tartans without getting arrested.

During Sunday church services, the Scots would flash pieces of tartan material so that the material was seen by everyone attending church.

This act of rebellion by the Scots is the origin of a Scottish tradition called “The Kirking of the Tartans” (”kirk” is the Scottish word for “church”).

England no longer bans all things Scottish.

Today, the Kirking of the Tartans is a regular feature of the Scottish Highland Games that take place throughout the USA.

That’s how your perspective is so whack that you are almost always in attack mode against conservatives. I’m in CA buddy. I’m not celebrating people who killed more americans than Bin Laden. I’m simply amazed at what lengths you go to in order to try to make people mad and drive voters towards conservatives.

Oh. I think I got it. You probably equate me as having lost because I’m a conservative…. I see now.

Grow up!

I think that’s already been forgiven.

“Yeah both sides opened fire at each other. It was a civil war.”

But one side opened fire on fort sumpter.

“You can either get over it and move on ”

Exactly. Face. You lost. Get over it and move on. Time to be an american, not celebrate the people who killed more americans than bin laden.

Keep it up Actus. I’m in CA and I see how stupid the conversation is. Yeah both sides opened fire at each other. It was a civil war.

You can either get over it and move on or try to really put your foot down on the necks of the people of the states who were involved in the losing side of the civil war. And what would that gain you? Submission? To what? Your ideology?

And what is that ideology? Preferential treatment and choosing to side with the present enemy of the war we are in now?

Instead of those liberals siding with the enemy being explained away or other liberals rallying around those liberals and attacking Ann Coulter, what liberals should do is agree that siding with the enemy during a time of war is really not what liberals is about and DISTANCING themselves from those liberals. Those liberals should not feel welcome in the Democrat party.

It’s a serious matter to be undermining (behavior not a symbol) this country by siding with the enemy during a time of war. Hopefully liberals will purge that element from their party soon but I don’t see it happening since Kerry and Dean EMBRACED much of the rhetoric.

The rhetoric from Dean questioning whether Bush knew about 9/11 before 9/11 and the rhetoric from both Kerry and Dean about Bush “misleading” this country when Bush was saying the same thing as Kerry and Clinton and Albright and the 5 major intelligence agencies from Countries on this world were saying was Terrible.

That kind of talk really solidified for a lot of conservatives and common sense centrists like myself that the Democrats can’t be trusted with power nationally for awhile.

They didn’t just go away, but also opened fire.

So you’re “opinion” that they should just join the Republican party seems to be an opinion born of misinformation and a lack of a realization that we don’t want him or them.

To an extent politics and alignment of individuals to one party or another or one label (like liberal or conservative) or another is about PERCEPTION.

My beef with you Mike is that I believe your perception (fueled by the misinformation that you read and listen to on a daily basis for your entire life) about what a conservative believes is untrue.

If you truly opened your mind to what La Shawn and I say, I believe you would come to a new understanding as opposed to your preconcieved notion of what we (including Bush who is to the left of us) really think.

We try to objectively define the problem. We try to banter about solutions that we think would solve the problem. And we really would like a debate in the playing field of ideas.

Unfortunately with liberals this always denegrates into a conversation about what liberals THINK we think or intend and conservatives defending our intentions and thoughts……. instead of seeing what the results really could be given market based solutions that have empirical evidence out there.

On social issues there is evidence and statistics also but really that boils down to your core beliefs, ethics and morals more than anything.

Mostly I don’t deal with social issues except on an equity basis. I preach Ward Connerly’s message concerning preferential treatment/discrimination. I preach pro border enforcement for national security and equity issues with respect to legal immigrants having a fair shake and not having to compete with law breakers.

Hope this communication was more to your liking.