Tawnos
Regular Member
I just love reading when Tawnos gets his panties or thong up in a bunch over squares and rectangles
G String.
The real issue, for me, is that people claim to support "heritage, not hate." However, if pressed, they can't tell you (naval) jack shiat about what they're meaning to stand up for. Generally, there's some vague handwaving about state's rights, but that doesn't stand under even basic scrutiny. Add to it that they fly a flag which, if it's going to be anything, is related to warring with ourselves, and it's just sad. If they're going to play the heritage card, fly the blood-stained banner. More than that, understand that the south didn't really care about states rights - they cared about preserving an economic status quo in the face of changing world market conditions. That point is reflected most prominently in their constitution, and it's only in the revisionist view of the south's history that you can even begin to claim that it was about state's rights.
So no, I'm not really getting my g string (enjoy that mental image) in a knot over the shape of the flag, but over the fact that the chosen flag is discordant with the expressed reason for flying it.