Tea Party Nation Says Obama Campaign Logo Is ‘New American Swastika’ by Niki2

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Tea Party Nation Says Obama Campaign Logo Is ‘New American Swastika’

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Monday, November 4, 2013 13:30
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1853
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, November 1, 2013 3:39 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Seriously. A horribly confused Tea Party Nation writer is convinced that President Obama’s popular campaign logo is actually the “new American Swastika.”

Quote:
According to the “design team” under the guidance of David Axelrod, the current regime’s iteration of Joseph Goebbels, “The Sun Rising over the horizon evoked a new sense of hope”. Really?

Let’s take a closer look at this new American Swastika....

But somehow, looking at this symbol of oppression I cannot see either a rising sun nor do I see a horizon.

We in the western world read from left to right, top to bottom, so this is what I read...

When I see an arch of almost any color on a background I think of a rainbow. Reading from left to right, that would put the right side of the arch at “the end of the rainbow”.

Hold that thought.

As the eye moves downward we realize the shape is too arched and does not resemble a rainbow as much as it resembles the muzzle of a large caliber firearm.

Hold that thought.

As the eye moves downward we see what looks like plowed rows in a Nebraska corn field or perhaps the lanes in a well travelled road. I see the red and white furrows as a testament to the blood, sweat and tears sacrificed in the American journey to defend freedom around the world. And that road disappears into the distance; headed toward the end of the rainbow and the pot of gold that legend avows lies there - that pot of gold that is The American Dream.

The current regime is National Socialist in everything they do.

And as the National Socialists in Germany perverted what was historically a symbol meaning “this is good” into a symbol that will forever connote evil so the meaning of what the supporters of this regime would have us believe as their symbol of “..a sense of new hope” is in all actuality the symbol for heralding the extermination of the American Dream for all the world to see; the American Swastika. http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blogs/understanding-the-america
n-swastika?xg_source=activity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 1, 2013 4:01 PM

STORYMARK

I think we can pretty much assume anything coming from anyone still aligning with the baggers is the work of an idiot.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 1, 2013 5:25 PM

WHOZIT

You're the same dimwits who claim to know for a fact that Tea Party members are racists, please stop breathing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 1, 2013 8:36 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Can we please just give up one state and let these people have it?

Just one couldn't contain all the stupid - but I am okay with Florida and TexASS, hell... at this point I am not only accepting of secession, I am thinkin EVICTION.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 1, 2013 10:35 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Nah, I think Florida's salvageable...there are signs of hope down there, and if we wait long enough, you never know.

Texass may be hopeless, but if they keep being so far out there, we'll turn 'em blue, you wait and see.

I worry about all those poor, decent human beings stuck in states which aren't actually "red", just got crazies in power. What we need to do is get all the tea partiers to move to any one state, move everyone else out, THEN evict 'em. I think a lot of 'em would be happy to have their own country, don't you?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 2, 2013 1:02 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Deport em to Afghanistan then, seems to me they'd get on real well with the Taliban, and besides, they're all about INS being efficient, right ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 2, 2013 1:00 PM

ELVISCHRIST

American swastika:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 2, 2013 6:37 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Not sure I agree there EC - I mean yah the ignorant pissants seem to use it in such a fashion and lack completely any concept or understanding of what the Confederacy was even about, and yes most folk who fly one of those are such ignoramuses...

But here's the rub, the Confederacy would have hated those assholes EVEN MORE than the Federalists, in truth, cause contrary to the distorted-into-all-but-fiction accounts taught as useful propaganda by public schools, the Civil War was fought over many of the same causes as the original Revolution, with slavery as a tacked-on afterthought for political points by a meglomaniacal(1) hypocrite who seemed to think forcing people to fight their own countrymen at gunpoint was somehow nobler than forcing people to pick cotton at gunpoint, and it was ironic that one of the causes FOR a major incident revolving around that (NY Draft Riots) was *because* the folks he was conscripting were prettymuch pro-slavery themselves, as was Lincoln himself - ole "honest" Abe only shilled emancipation in hopes of adding some kind of moral weight to his efforts to create a nation where the States were subordinate to the Federal government, instead of vice versa, which is more what all that was about.

Hell, even the mess that kicked it off, over the Tariff of abomination (Morrill) was near identical to the revolt against the Stamp Act.

Factually, in philsophy and policy, them Tea Party gits are closer to the Republicans under Lincoln and his spiritual predecessor Hamilton, wanting a new Feudal Aristocracy with themselves at the head of it, Corporate in nature - which is exactly what the Confederates despised so viciously even they were willing to end slavery to get free of it(2).

So you can IMAGINE what they woulda thought of modern day Tea Partiers.

(1) - His reported behavior supports this conclusion, and those "little blue pills" had a lot to do with it, mind you given the man was a habitual liar I do not believe his own claim that he had stopped taking them any more than I would of street addict or alcoholic, you know ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_mass#Blue_Mass_and_Abraham_Lincoln

(2) - Hampton Roads Conference.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/01/john-v-denson/why-did-lincoln-invad
e-the-south/

Quote:
President Lincoln returned to the question of slavery stating that he thought the North would be willing to be taxed to compensate the Southern people for the loss of their slaves. He said that he had many conversations to the effect that if there was a voluntary abolition of slavery the American government would pay a fair indemnity and specified that four hundred million dollars ($400,000,000) would probably be appropriated for this purpose. Mr. Seward said that the Northern people were weary of the war and they would be willing to pay this amount of indemnity rather than continuing to pay for the war.

Worth also mentioning is that the offenses which provoked the Civil War were pointed out and discussed at length in the Antifederalist papers and during the Constitutional convention, only to be ignored or blithely dismissed by Hamilton, Jay and others who were leaving those loopholes and flaws in BECAUSE they planned to *do exactly those things* as speedily as possible - foremost among them how the Supreme Court can subvert all other checks and balances, primarily cause Jay knew he'd be on it and able to use that to his and Hamiltons advantage.

Anyways, the actual Confederates would have seen modern day Tea Partiers as just more blue belly corporate scum seeking a tyrannical hold over them and would have gleefully slaughtered them en masse... which makes any TP moron flying that flag an idiot of epic proportion.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 3, 2013 12:24 AM

ELVISCHRIST

11 of the states which seceded listed the institution of slavery as among the reasons for their secession.

Trying to whitewash the reality of the war is disingenuous at the very least.

** Correction: 4 of the 11 states which seceded listed slavery as one of the main reasons for doing so.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 3, 2013 5:23 AM

FREMDFIRMA

"as among" - as in, in addition to.
Ain't whitewashing nothing, just peeling back some of the whitewashing that HAS been done, as the matter was a *lot* more complex than the bullshit black and white damn-near-fictional account kids get spoon-fed in public schools.

Never said slavery weren't evil - and worth pointing out a second time is that part of what sparked the NY Draft Riots was that the folks they were conscripting to fight at gunpoint were a lot of THEM (northerners, mind you!) pro-slavery as well, so it was far from a universal sentiment.
Good riddance to it either way, there's nothin about it that ain't vile.

I just wanted to make it very clear that the Confederates would have despised these Tea Party pricks, and that flying that flag over such actions is at best completely hypocritical, although since when did facts ever seem to matter to them loony bastards, neh ?

There's also the moral issue of how gunpoint conscription is essentially slavery, and a worse form of it - how is THAT notion ever acceptable ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 4, 2013 12:31 AM

ELVISCHRIST

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/03/absolute-proof-civil-war-slave
ry/

Quote from the VP of the Confederate States of America:

Quote:
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution [...] The general opinion of the men of that day [Revolutionary Period] was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution [slavery] would be evanescent and pass away [...] Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

"This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution..."

You can argue that it wasn't the ONLY reason, but you can't argue that it wasn't a, or THE, primary reason.

For those who argue that it was all about "states' rights", a question. States' rights to do what?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 4, 2013 1:30 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
The general opinion of the men of that day [Revolutionary Period] was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution [slavery] would be evanescent and pass away

And they were correct in that opinion, hell, automation (cotton gin, for example) made the whole shebang unprofitable anyways.

There's also that the rank-and-file of both sides, very few of em had that much interest cause damn near none of em were even in the financial echelons necessary to own slaves - so while it may have been partial cause for the "Elite" of either side, not so much for the folks actually doing the fighting, you see.

That and the stated causes of wars are usually only distantly related to the actual ones, like say... Remember the Maine, Gulf of Tonkin, Iraqi WMD, and so forth and so on.

As for States rights to do what, that question was initially raised in the Federalist/Antifederalist debates and at the Constitutional convention, resulting in the 9th and 10th Amendments, which were intended to concentrate decision making power as close as possible to those who would then be affected by those decisions and preclude being dictated to by clueless berks hundreds of miles away, a pretty valid concern at the time given the dearth of communication options.

This initially came to a head in 1798 over the Alien and Sedition Acts - which bear a striking resemblence to the PATRIOT act, given that such escalation and concentration of power into fewer and fewer hands to birth a NeoFeudalism was kind of the intent of the Federalists (and later, Republicans) from the very damn start before the ink on the Constitution was even dry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

Madison, who had been on the Federalist side prettymuch up till then was so horrified by this he jumped ship and sided with Jeffersons Democratic-Republicans and helped pen the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions

Which then lead to the Nullification crisis of 1828-1833, over what was percieved by many to be downright economic warfare/corporate looting by nothern industry, via levelling the "Tariff of Abominations" which devastated the southern economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1828

Now, all that said, a lot of this was the rich bigwigs on each side having at each other with little regard for us mere flunkies, but as the Hampton Roads Conference showed, the south was prettymuch okay with the federal government "buying" all the slaves and THEN abolishing slavery, thus setting them free - one can debate the morality of this a bit, but certainly a cheaper and less destructive form of ending the practice, especially as any further importation of slaves had already been outright banned in 1807/1808 as a prelude to sunsetting the practice.

So that wasn't the sticking point, the real sticking point was Federal Supremacy, that whole Unitary Executive type thing which has been the goal of the Federalists (later Republicans) since day freakin one, which is where the line ended up being drawn cause on THAT, the south would not compromise.
Which always struck me as a bit odd as they were without a doubt losing, and the only remaining hope was to drag it out (and at a grevious cost in suffering) long enough for the northern population to sicken of the war and simply let them go.
Of course, a lot of them were unaware of just how *much* of a despotism Lincoln had turned the north into by that time, and the will of the northern people mattered not one whit to him - this really showed in their tactics, which were essentially bury them in bodies, theirs, ours, who cares, not like anyone important is dying, we'll just conscript more at gunpoint...
Which IMHO makes Lincoln every bit as horrific as them slave holding plantation owners in the south, who also by the by didn't give a shit about the common folk neither.

Wars might be started by politicians with high minded ideals, but they're fought by joe sixpacks like you and me, who often have very very different reasons for doing so - but sans gunpoint conscription, without them you don't HAVE a war.

So, primary over power and economics - which in essence EVERY war is about, slavery of itself not so much as slavery as economic resource, which is kind of a horrible way to think of it you ask me, but the social values of the time were pretty bent by our standards anyways.

PS. This is actually quite an interesting debate EC, despite it going off the rails of the original topic, and an excuse to discuss some interesting, though awful, bits of history - ain't trying to flame you or even dismiss your claims so much as trying to bring it into a wider perspective overall.
Believe me, the Confederacy would have likely strung up mosta the Tea Party bastards in a heartbeat... although in all honesty I am not entirely sure their form of Government, even sans slavery, would have endured - civil war was downright inevitable the moment the Constitution was penned, Patrick Henry pointed this out in no uncertain terms, so it was never a question of if, but only when.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE