This Guy Seems Confused

October 22nd, 2008 by William

Tagged as: WTF

But at least he seems to be moving in the right direction.

10 Comments, add yours

What's Hot at PopCrunch?

10 Responses to “This Guy Seems Confused”

On October 22nd 2008, Derek wrote:

Why does he seem “confused”?

Oh, you mean because YOU view the confederate flag in the background as some kind of racist symbol when there’s tons of people who don’t?
On October 22nd 2008, TexanByBirth wrote:

Why can people not understand that the Battle Flag of the Confederacy is NOT a racist banner any more than the Stars and Stripes is?

The Civil War was a War of States Rights against an oppressive central government. It really had very little to do with slavery. The slavery issue was brought up when Lincoln couldn’t get enough people in the North to join up to fight. It was a piece of propaganda to demonize the enemy (hmm…where have we seen that lately?).

I am in NO WAY justifying the evil of slavery, just trying to get people to understand that there are two sides to every story and most Americans have only heard the winner’s side. Dig a little and teach yourself.
On October 22nd 2008, James wrote:

Sorry, but it’s not that simple. Symbols like flags accrue meaning through repeated public use; individuals don’t get to say what a flag does or does not stand for–except in respect to themselves.

The confederate flag means different things to different people, but because it was the accepted symbol of segregationists for decades it’s entirely fair for the majority of people to associate it with racism.

There was a story last year about an Indian man who painted a symbol that resembled a swastika on his roof—in his culture it was a positive symbol. If you display a symbol publicly you have to be aware of what it means to the larger culture, not just yourself.

I’m happy you guys don’t see the flag as a racist symbol, but it’s naive to maintain that others are wrong to perceive it differently.
On October 22nd 2008, Billy wrote:

I think you forget that this is some goon of a redneck. He doesn’t think about things like, my flag is a generally accepted symbol of racism. He just sees his southern heritage flapping majestically in the wind. Regardless, I think he should be commended for supporting Obama, not ridiculed as being confused. I wouldn’t mind seeing the south painted blue.
On October 22nd 2008, Richard wrote:

Guess I’m confused too. Lived my whole life in Southern States. Went to all segregated schools. Had ancestors in the Confederate Army. Had ancestors who were slave owners. My best friend is black and I voted early today for Obama.
On October 22nd 2008, Jeremy wrote:

If you support Obama you ought to be flying the old Soviet Union flag. That would more accurately depict his policies. Spread the wealth…..right, you socialist jack asses?
On October 23rd 2008, TexanByBirth wrote:

@Jeremy:
Couldn’t agree more with you. However, you do realize that McCain is of the same ilk, right?

Both of the major party candidates spat on our Constitution when they enacted that monstrosity of Pork known as the Failout.

Article I Section 7 states:
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

The House REJECTED that particular Bill of Revenue. So, the Senate showed them utter disrespect by taking a previously passed Bill (only about 4 pages long) and “amended” it by striking everything after the enacting paragraph and putting in over 450 pages of pork. It was a totally new Bill in all but name (actually, they changed the name too).

I refuse to vote for EITHER of those socialists or any other Congressman that voted for the Failout.

I would recommend that the Conservatives among you vote for Chuck Baldwin (write-in here in Texas) and the more liberally-minded vote for Bob Barr.

Oh, and in case it matters, I’m actually an elected Republican official as well in case that matters to anyone.
On October 23rd 2008, Bryan wrote:

@ Jeremy and TexanByBirth

I hope you are both aware that “spreading the wealth around” and “disrespecting the constitution” are not aspects of socialist ideology. If either candidate wanted to begin nationalizing all private organizations and businesses, THEN they would be socialist.
Wealth redistribution is a progressive and liberal cause, rooted heavily in social ideology, not in socialist economics
On October 24th 2008, TexanByBirth wrote:

@Bryan
Since both of the candidates voted to nationalize sectors of our economy recently, then I suppose by your definition they are indeed socialists.

Now, the did this by disrespecting the Constitution which does not give the government the power to do such things.

Why is it so hard to get people to understand that I do not want the government to “help” me. I don’t want them to tell me how to raise my kids. I don’t want them to touch my guns. I don’t want them to take my money and use it in ways I don’t agree with. I don’t want them to give me anything either.

Can’t we just collectively tell the government to “LEAVE US ALONE”?
On November 12th 2008, BellaDD wrote:

I’ll touch your guns….