Yes, that was sarcasm. Todd Starnes, where are you?
Cochran City Manager Richard Newbern said the city council voted to wave the Christian Flag over city hall.
Councilman Gary Ates said he made the motion for the flag to stay up. He said the council voted to keep it up 5 to 1. "The city manager took the flag down because an attorney said we could have a problem," said Ates.
Ates said, "The people of Cochran came to a city council meeting and said 'let's put the flag back up'," said Ates.
Ates said about 75 to 100 people requested it to be put up again.
"It was the right thing to do," said Ates.
We reached out to other Cochran city officials; none of them could be reached for comment.Link
This flag has no more place above a government building than a rainbow flag or a Confederate battle flag. But it will be defending by those seeking victim status or claiming that we're a "Christian nation".
It takes two groups of fools to fight a 'culture war'.
Only a fool would allow this to continue, and though the best way to stop it is by popular ridicule, if a judge tells them to knock it off, they'd better knock it off, because this how fascist states are made, ya' know.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
I might say there's a touch of hyperbole from Jersey. but well, I have used the same sort of hyperbole against those who want to abolish our Second Amendment rights.
ReplyDeleteSo... well said, CI in the parent post AND Jersey M.
dmarks, the sorts of people who propose gun control in America today are not in any way a fascist threat to this country. It would be strikingly stupid to think otherwise. The sorts of people who plant "Christian MF'n Flags" above courthouses? Get your friggin' head out of your @## man. Be serious. You can do it.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
Don't sell your side short Jersey. The use of arbitrary and capricious measure to restrict the liberties and enumerated rights of American citizens, comes form both the right and the left.
DeleteJersey: I'm not defending the thought that flies such flags (religion control) nor the gun control side. Neither is much more fascist than the other, and both trample on the people's rights and strengthen undue state control.
DeleteJersey: dmarks... Get your friggin' head out of your @## man. Be serious. You can do it.
DeleteHe can't do it. CI's post was about a flag, not his gun nuttery. Here he argues that reasonable regulations on firearms favored by strong majorities is "fascism".
Aside from the fact that you continue to rely on a framing that you cannot define [which by default is an appeal to emotion]....you may want to check your reliance on "strong majorities". Last weeks Pew Report does you no favors.
DeleteI have yet to show any "gun nuttery", anyway. Nor has Dervish Sanders supported or proposed any "reasonable" regulations; all we see so far are plans to persecute and harass people who have done nothing wrong.
DeleteTherefore, the sentence in which I am accused ot arguing that reasonable regulations are fascism is entirely incorrect. I have yet to oppose any reasonable ones.
The use of the term is an admission of no factual basis, but the presence of mind to grunt out an insult is still there.
Regardless, it shows the person is not ready for any sort of serious discussion.
As for what is fascism and what is not... the ruling elites forcing a religion on people is no more fascist than the government require people to register (or join a confiscation database) in order to exercise a basic right they already have.
DeleteHistory is rife with examples of fascist regimes making people register as this or that for no good reason.
CI: Last weeks Pew Report does you no favors...
DeleteI was going to point out that I was speaking of specific reasonable gun regulations and not support for gun control in general (which is what the Pew poll addressed).
So... I did a Google search looking for the poll just to be sure what the question asked was, and I found this...
Pew Admits Flaw In Poll Being Used To Attack Stronger Gun Laws
(excerpt) ...academics from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research criticized the poll question... saying that the query forces respondents to choose between two options that are not mutually exclusive and pointing out that polls consistently show broad public backing for specific gun regulations, such as expanding the background check system to make it more difficult for felons and the mentally ill to obtain weapons...
Yeah, I was thinking this poll was odd, given the FACT that support for reasonable gun control legislation has been consistently showing the public favors it for literally decades. So... "reasonable regulations on firearms favored by strong majorities" would have been a statement I stood by regardless. But now the truth comes out that the Pew poll is flawed (which does not surprise me) I must say that last weeks FLAWED Pew Report does YOU no favors.
dmarks: I have yet to show any "gun nuttery"
dmarks' opinions in regard to gun control (which a strong majority of US citizens support) shows he is in a small minority (in that he wishes to completely eliminate background checks). This extreme opinion - a position that would allow violent criminals to walk into a gun store and buy a gun and continue buying guns as long as they are "running free" (as he puts it) - shows dmarks most certainly qualifies for the "gun nut" descriptor.
Claiming that "easy access to unlimited guns for violent criminals" isn't gun nuttery is laughable. Also, there is no "confiscation database".
Yet, you would ignore the same methodological problems posed by the magical and fleeting poll that said 90% of respondents favored universal background checks.
DeleteLikewise, while proffering conspiracy theories about the NRA and the gun lobby, you would ignore primary funding for the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research....Bloomberg and the Joyce Foundation. Now why would you think that this is an impartial authority?
The JH Center presumes that an infringement of gun ownership isn't an infringement, as the centerpiece of their critique. That, along with Media Matters artistic titling of their piece...makes for interesting reading to be sure.
Now if only you could define reasonable for us....
It's likewise notable that after years of whining about the CDC not being able to conduct a study on gun violence.....once such a study was ordered by the Obama Administration, and completed.....the gun control camp acts as if it never existed.
DeleteFor those of us who have read the study, we don't have to wonder why.
Now define reasonable. In a measurable term if you would...because that is how laws should be based [as opposed to emotion], don't you agree?
CI: How is this for something "reasonable", using the use of the word as actually found in the Bill of Rights?
DeleteTreat background check type information as private, covered by search and seizure protections. If there's a reasonable suspicion, get a warrant the proper way. What do you think of this, CI?
This would stop the entirely unwarranted, unreasonable harassment of law-abiding citizens.
Dervish, I'm truly amused by how you pick the Google results that favor your assertion, and ignore that ones that don't. It's sad, but amusing.
DeleteIt's also interesting that you define reasonable as something that a majority agrees with...except when you don't agree with the majority.
dmarks, I'd be willing to hear out a proposal, but am not exactly impressed by the manner in which the government has treated both personal information and the very concept of privacy.
DeleteHeh....the entire CDC study must somehow be ignored because one person "infiltrated" the cadre. One guy....out of approximately 14 Committee members, tanked the whole, Obama directed, government funded study. I love it!
DeleteCI: It' bad enough that Americans have been forced to use Obamacare against their will and interests.
DeleteCI said: "dmarks, I'd be willing to hear out a proposal"
DeleteI think the biggest strength of my idea is that unlike the very un "reasonable" proposals here, it doesn't assume everyone is a criminal.
CI said of Mr. Sanders
Delete"It's also interesting that you define reasonable as something that a majority agrees with...except when you don't agree with the majority."
It's not so much that. It's what he thinks the majority agrees with. See how he cherry-picks the polls, willfully misinterprets their results, and is shamelessley uncritical about the leading questions found in many of them.
Various flags are proliferating here, too.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, if the Christian flag can be flown over a government building, so can the flag of the Islamic State.
On the surface, you're correct. This sort of event sets a legal precedence that has long range implications not contemplated by the short sighted actors.
DeleteRealistically however, ISILs designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization would very likely keep its banner from flying above a government building.
CI,
DeleteMy point is, of course, that our governments (local, state, and federal) are not theocracies.
By lawful definition, you're very correct. Which makes me wonder why Dominionists seek to change that.
DeleteCI: Dominionists are wanting to change the law and the Constitution. No need to wonder why their views are inconsistent with the law of the land!
DeleteIs there much of a Dominionism movement now? Jerry Falwell and Rousas Rushdoony are dead, and I don't see Christian Reconstructionism as much of a force now in United States. Maybe I'm unaware of it?
DeleteTo say "there is no "confiscation database"." is wishful thinking and hypocrisy. There are very real threats to steal our guns found in top leaders and many legislators. They are the real nuts. As long as this very fascistic idea is out there, gun registries are just a tool for the thieves to make their task easier.
ReplyDeleteWant to make the idea of a gun registry more palatable? Stop electing mean spirited, very ill intended people like Cuomo and the "confiscate, confiscate, confiscate" legislators... who are dangerous if they are being anything other than dogcatcher.
More about gun registration: there was one in 1967, which was set up with the promise that it would never be used for confiscation (in New York City).
ReplyDeleteGuess what? David Dinkens used this list in 1991 for banning/confiscating weapons.
There is too much of an atrocious track record with registries being used worldwide mainly as tools to steal from and harass law-abiding gun owners to consider a registry without very strong, concrete changes to ensure that the registry would never be used for nefarious purposes.
And given how awful politicians can be when they are in power, I don't know if any strong. concrete changes would be enough to prevent this egregious abuse of the list.