America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

I don't expect a whole lot of bright thought from you....
But the idea of the Clintons using a confederate flag in campaign paraphernalia is considered a fabrication. There is no actual evidence of anything official.

And the inability to understand the difference between "not venerating something in a flag" and "censoring from history books"... do you really think the two are the same?

.... huh?

No, the denial is because there is no evidence that it was made by the campaign. Why would you simply believe it must be true? Literally anyone could make those now and claim they were from the campaign. Anyone could have even made them then, either supporters or adversaries. The campaign denies that they made them. We have no evidence that the actually did. Your dislike of the clintons doesn't make it more likely that it's true.

As for your "censorship"... who the hell is censoring anyone? People in MS voting against having a confederate flag on their state flag isn't censorship any more than germans voting against adding a swastika back into their flag. They are electing to not venerate a symbol.

By your logic any time you choose to wear or not wear something you're censoring it. Not gonna wear a breast cancer ribbon today? CENSORSHIP!!!! Not gonna wear your Trump hat? CENSORSHIP!!!!!

Learn the difference between a flag and a history book and then come back to the conversation.

Your little senseless rant has little bearing to the discussion at hand.

You nonsensically complain of censorship, for a flag that exists (I'm not sure why you think the flag being kept is article worthy... we all knew that).
You point to some article about clinton having conservative roots.... for no reason whatsoever....
.... and make some silly statement about flowers in AK-47s. Which isn't related to anything in this entire thread.



Are you sure you're in the right thread?

Maybe she was just havin a bad day.....

Or she could have been scared by watching the Dukes of Hazard as a child.....

Man it bothers me to say this, but it's like victor eluded to earlier.

Her actions were not as "maverick" as they may seem. The dems have been pushing for years to change the flag. She's no brave soul. She knew her actions would be applauded in that environment.

Now if she did something like that in Rankin County(where I live)......that would be ballsy.

there's so, so many people out there that don't see a problem with the free stuff.... they're perfectly fine with trying to bring down the rich man....

Guess most folks on the left forget that the Dems once fought for slavery.


Not totally unlike what they do today.

just an observation about shifting rules of engagement here. I am amused, not upset...

A couple of centuries ago Christians slaughtered non-Christians but that can not be brought up as a comparison to today's religion that slaughters people.

one month in it became Obama's war and no one was ever allowed to refer to Bush's role cuz that was history. "get over it" was the cry heard round the cigar world.

how much longer until "the Dems were for slavery" will that subject be disallowed here and called irrelevant to today's politics?.....HA!

That was fun.

I think Frank is speaking the truth.

I certainly see the irony in a thread with posts which simultaneously whine about why haven't those blacks just gotten over the whole slavery thing and forgotten it already... And whine about how it would be tragic if we were to forget the tradition and history of our failed rebellion.

You forgot the whining about Hillary being guilty.

^oh yeah... Delicate investigations all around.

Or is that one of those things we're supposed to forget. .??

no problem when today's radical muslims have been compared to other religions that killed? Never noted that that was centuries ago and is not a valid comparison? seriously Burner, isn't that a big example of what you say I am doing?

I'm not denying any of the facts, just harmlessly musing on the censorship enforced by the majority here.
Nothing personal at all, but an honest evaluation of our unwritten rules.

So, come early February nothing going forward would have been caused by Obama? HA!

What's the elapsed time frame to qualify for a pardon here? Or does it depend on political and/or religious beliefs?

Trish..??

and you are better off.

Let's get one thing straight, the only Crusades were fought over pilgrimage agreements and trade. Saladin was supposed to offer protection to pilgrims headed to Jerusalem. When he failed to do so, the Church brought their own military. Additionally Saladin did not honor his trade agreements so the countries that got shafted more or less convinced the Pope to rally the Christians in a just war because they got fucked twice.


Now Spain on the other hand was getting their asses handed to them on their own turf and Spanish bloodlust runs thick in the veins. Once they took back their territory and purged the threat from their midsts, they got a taste for something that they love, conquering **** left and right. So after the crusades they started plowing into the Americas giving smallpox to the weak and enslaving the less weak. The Pope didn't tell Spain to do that ****, they just up and did it on their own.

Long story short, don't blame the Church, blame the King who wanted his coffers full.

I think he's out looking for CROS... he said he'd never give up...

ya.... poor CROS....

I did not even know that the Sip had a king - or that we fought crusades there....

Which Christians are you referring to Frank? Pre or post reformation?

I agree with most of your sentiment but I would say this is an "internet" convo. So context is largely lost. I think a lot of dudes here speak of one thing in context (i.e. current events....past history) to examine or express a thought or open one.

Muslims by association get a bad name. Problem is there's so many of them, 2 major sects (which is lost on many) and an economical/cultural hill to climb in the countries that spawn the bad apples. Add to that Governments that use them as pawns funding and arming them.

Nothing scarier than a man with nothing to lose. Look at Rambo.

Get a grip Frank, my remark that struck a nerve was collectively speaking and not directed at one individual.

Jamie, it's harder to be clear when typing than when discussing in person.

I really wasn't dredging up any specific acts of Christians killing anyone. I was trying to use it as an example of the "rules" here. Historic items (old or recent) that get dismissed here as not applicable if proven to be inconvenient...in this case if mentioned as an example of horrendous behavior by any major religions other than modern Islamic terrorism...

it's just hypocritical for one to disallow a point of debate based on an arbitrary time factor (which changes often here) if one does the same to bolster their side...not my best sentence construction, hope my point is clear.

But, now that you say internet convo, I suppose I should chill on problems with "rules" and let it flow. It's not like I haven't enjoyed the banter.

I'm here Mattie.... Just got lost in the topic change.