Hitchens sets Huck, MSM Enablers on Blast

Hitchens is like the quintessential hockey goon. When he's on your side, you love him, but when he's against you, you absolutely loathe him.

 

yes, it is -- what Lee did with respect to the United States is no different than what Washington and company did with respect to Britian -- unless the Revolutionary War was just another one of Darwin's flights of fantasy........

 

There you go -- that's far different than calling a man a racist.

And that kind of pandering to the lowest common denominator and pitting them against some alleged boogey man is done by every candidate at every stop along the way.

 

Cynicism is not criticism. Just because all politicians might pander in some way does not absolve one of the responsibility to judge who is pandering about minor things (like Rudy rooting for the Red Sox) and who is pandering on big things (like excusing the Confederate flag.)

 

Or democrats pandering to people who are religious bigots.

Again, it is amazing to me how easy it is to excuse things when it is your side doing it but the bottom line is democrats have no problem pitting rich against poor, black against white, women against men when it suits their needs.

 

The battle flag is a cultural symbol that has a particular meaning today. As Fenian pointed out, it was revived in the 50s and 60s as an anti-civil rights movement symbol.

The Christian fish started out as a symbol for early Christians to recognize each other in secret when their religion was illegal, but now it's a cultural symbol for conservative Christians. The peace sign started out as the logo for the British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, but now it's a cultural symbol for liberals and/or vaguely countercultural types. Symbols don't exist in a vacuum, they evolve.

 

When did this become about Democrats and Republicans? Have you not seen me get flayed around here for suggesting that some Democratic politicians might race-bait as well as anyone on the other side?

If you're really trying to have a discussion, then have one.

Can you accept that all pandering is not created equal, and that pandering with regard to the Confederate flag is somewhere near the bottom of the spectrum when it comes to American politics?

 

But the battle flag was also a combination of several different confederate flags and was also a symbol of that confederate heritage.

Yes, it was flown for racist reasons, but symbols evolve just like words do and I don't believe that every single person who wants that flag to fly is a racist. In fact, I'd argue that for many people the confederate flag is a source of pride in their southern heritage and nothing more.

Are there racist dickheads that fly the flag -- yeah -- but go on any white supremicists web site and look at pictures of rallies and your more likely to find the American flag in the pictures than the Confederate flag.

 

Appealing to people's self-interest, real or perceived, is inevitable in politics. Of course, it can be either sincere or an attempt to manipulate, sadly, the latter's probably more common.

Appealing to working people's desire for economic justice is different from appealing to racists' desire for racial injustice. They may both be appeals to self-interest, but one is ethical, one is not, at least in my book.

 

Yes, I can agree with that to a point and I know you have actually been one of the least partisan of the partisans around here on many issues.

But again, I repeat -- to many southerners, the confederate flag is nothing more than just a symbol of their heritage as southerners, something that seperates them from the "yankees" and thus Huckabee was appealing to the "good ole boys", who chew, spit and carry shotguns but don't have white sheets in their linen closets. And a lot, I'd say the majority that I've met, are not racists, bigots, they are just not bound by political correctness

 

So telling the poor they are that way because of the rich and greedy is OK?