NationStates Jolt Archive

You're not only a troll, you're also a consecrated idiot.:rolleyes:


Easy, Nanatsu, let's stop feeding the troll. There's no sense in getting into trouble over one so boring, at the very least.

I am both, without any problem. Americans are the same. They're Republican and American or Democrat and American. They're Michigander and American, without any qualms. That's how it is.

Just like I'm a Brit, an Englishman, AND a Sussexer. :p

What you people don't understand is that "nation" is a personal, individual construct just as much as it is a collective one, and just because Obama won the US election, doesn't suddenly make him an all-pervasive leader who represents every person living in the US. He hasn't invaded people's personalities and emotions and leads those things now.

What you don't seem to understand is...nobody is saying that. Nobody has made that argument. Nobody has claimed anything even like that.

In fact, the fact that you insist that they did shows that the only confused person in this discussion is....you.

Not surprising though, really.

You're not only a troll, you're also a consecrated idiot.:rolleyes:

Asturias hasn't three different nations. People in my province consider themselves Asturians first, and as Spanish second. As simple as that.

There is a movement called Dixebrá, who would like to see the region seceed from Spain, but the sentiment is not as wide-spread as in places like Cataluya and Galicia.

And ETA, my pet bufoon, is from the Basque Country, and entirely different French/Spanish province. A lesson in Spanish geography would serve you well.

*trumpets sound*

Ex-fricken-actly. You just said it yourself; you're Asturian first. People in the Basque region consider themselves Basque first. Just because people in Madrid say "We represent you all" doesn't mean the Catalans, Basques and Asturians subscribe to that view.

Rusty, you fail to recognize that ethnonationalism does not exist in America. McCain voters do not have a shared collective identity to supplant that of America as a whole. Therefore they will remain loyal to America, which as of January 20th will be led by Barack Obama.

Easy, Nanatsu, let's stop feeding the troll. There's no sense in getting into trouble over one so boring, at the very least.

Gah, I know I shouldn't feed this troll, but he's so unnerving!

Gah, I know I shouldn't feed this troll, but he's so unnerving!

Breathe deeply, Yuki-Chan, he pissed me off to, but we can't let him get to us. ;)

Woah, this was a mammoth thread. Anyway, I've read it now.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14172663&postcount=328
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14175054&postcount=667
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14175150&postcount=692

Beautiful posts, all three of these. TAI, you have my respect, even if I dislike most of your views.

Nanatsu, I'm afraid Ferrous Oxide is at least technically correct. There is a difference between the concepts of 'nation' and 'state', and Spain is a state, but is not a nation.

Whether America per se is a nation or not is something up for debate. I think it isn't, but plenty of others think it is. Maybe a thread should be started on it.

I'm also more than happy to be able to go to all those conservatives who told me "Well, if you don't like it, then leave!" and say "This is why I stayed."

Do you mind if I sig this, please?

I've never accused any poster on this thread of anything. My attacks are limited to public officials and politicians. That's the difference between my posts, and people accusing me of being a member of the KKK.

Maybe not hatred, but utter disgust. I am surprised his crack-smoking, lazy, unemployed supporters actually got out of bed to vote for him. But, I guess they wanted to get all of the free stuff they're going to leach off of the rest of us.

Your own words disprove you, as this "crack-smoking, lazy, unemployed supporter" would know. And I haven't even bothered quoting all the times you've referred to us as imbeciles or idiots. You flamed us, right up front and from the first post, and now you deny it as well. You sicken me. You are a disgrace to America and all that it stands for. You are intolerant, bigoted, and abusive. You are worthy of no serious responses, and my condolences to all those who wasted their breath on you.

*trumpets sound*

Ex-fricken-actly. You just said it yourself; you're Asturian first. People in the Basque region consider themselves Basque first. Just because people in Madrid say "We represent you all" doesn't mean the Catalans, Basques and Asturians subscribe to that view.

You seem to be reading what you want, don't you. Yes, I have a huge love for my region, I am an Asturian. But I am also a Spaniard. And if you ask anyone in Catalunya, they will also respond you like I did. There's provincial and national pride, both co-existing without a problem.

Now, the Basuqe Country, that's an entirely different thing. And I understand why they want independence from Spain. The Basque do not resemble the rest of Spain in any way, not even their langauge resembles the rest on the peninsula.

Gah, I know I shouldn't feed this troll, but he's so unnerving!

He's just uninspiring, really.

What you don't seem to understand is...nobody is saying that. Nobody has made that argument. Nobody has claimed anything even like that.

In fact, the fact that you insist that they did shows that the only confused person in this discussion is....you.

Not surprising though, really.

Nope, he's incorrect in the count that Barrack Obama is the newly elected president and, for that, he does owe him his alligence regardless of political views. It is about country.

What was that, exactly?

You seem to be reading what you want, don't you. Yes, I have a huge love for my region, I am an Asturian. But I am also a Spaniard. And if you ask anyone in Catalunya, they will also respond you like I did. There's provincial and national pride, both co-existing without a problem.

Alright, what if (entirely theoretically) a civil war broke out in the Asturias between Spainish loyalists and Asturians separatists? What are you then?

My god, will you stop stirring the pot, trying to annoy everyone?

To all u facsist republicans'i have 2 words.....thank god.......no more bush now our nation can be proud once again ....go obama go!

My god, will you stop stirring the pot, trying to annoy everyone?

I'm TRYING to make an arguement. You're the one stirring my damn pot.

Alright, what if (entirely theoretically) a civil war broke out in the Asturias between Spainish loyalists and Asturians separatists? What are you then?

Once again, I am both: Asturian and Spanish. Regardless. But I won't expect you to understand this. You have failed to understand everything else so far.

Once again, I am both: Asturian and Spanish. Regardless. But I won't expect you to understand this. You have failed to understand everything else so far.

Why not answer my theoretical?

I'm TRYING to make an argue. You're the one stirring my damn pot.

Correction, you're derailing the thread, as per usual.

Why not answer my theoretical?

Because theoretically or realistically, I wouldn't choose a side. I love both my country and my province equally.

What was that, exactly?

That this:

Nope, he's incorrect in the count that Barrack Obama is the newly elected president and, for that, he does owe him his alligence regardless of political views. It is about country.

Does in no way resemble this:

just because Obama won the US election, doesn't suddenly make him an all-pervasive leader who represents every person living in the US. He hasn't invaded people's personalities and emotions and leads those things now.

Fail, try again.

I'm TRYING to make an arguement. You're the one stirring my damn pot.

Good lord, that post is so full of hypocrisy...

That this:



Does in no way resemble this:



Fail, try again.

Well, the Asturian stated that because Obama's been elected, US citizens owe him their allegiance no matter what. Clearly, not.

Why, exactly, are you all telling Potomac what to think? He said he has no allegiance to Obama or his govt., so you are you all insisting that he IS loyal to the Obama govt.? He doesn't have to go and blow up the White House to be disallegiant to Obama.

What. The. Hell. Is. Going. On? Because it looks like someone is arguing that nations don't exist and that Obama isn't necessarily our President. Is this guy always this deranged?

Why, exactly, are you all telling Potomac what to think? He said he has no allegiance to Obama or his govt., so you are you all insisting that he IS loyal to the Obama govt.? He doesn't have to go and blow up the White House to be disallegiant to Obama.

The only way to be disloyal would be to break the law. America doesn't have "loyalty" tests, it doesn't require you to speak only well of a president. He can say what he pleases, think what he pleases, do what he pleases, within the realm of the law.

Nobody is saying that he, or anyone else, can not, or should not, disagree with the coming administration, that's absolutely their right. But, like it or not, Obama will be the next president, and they're just going to have to accept that.

What. The. Hell. Is. Going. On? Because it looks like someone is arguing that nations don't exist and that Obama isn't necessarily our President. Is this guy always this deranged?

Depends who you're talking about. New Potomac is sore that Obama won and is throwing a tantrum. Ferrous Oxide is just a regular troll, pay no heed to him.

I haven't seen anyone but Ferrous and Potomac telling anyone what to think.....

And I was referring to Ferrous, ordinary trolling I guess?

"Nation" is freely exchangeable with "country", which is a geographic region bound under a single overarching governing authority.

As Rust appears incapable of basic understanding of word meaning, it appears that Rust has nothing to talk about but vacuous concepts.

Pity, but in political discussion, 'nation' and 'state' do actually mean subtly different things, and Rust is pointing this out. So he's right about that, not 'incapable of basic understanding of word meaning'.

And you're a troll and an attention-whore. I at least know when I do not understand something enough because I do not belong to the nation being discussed, and I listen. You, on the other hand, are a disrespectful twit who still doesn't understand things that are a bit farther than it's nose.

Afraid not. There's a difference between a 'nation' and a 'state', which FO is basing his argument on. Just going "Nyah, you're wrong" won't change that.

America is a State. So is Spain. Spain is not a nation, but is composed of a number of sub-nations, such as (for example) the Basques.

Whether there is also a single unified American nation is definitely something to consider. FO thinks there isn't, and I am actually inclined to agree with him.

I don't think you have the authority to tell people to go away when you're provably ignorant of every subject you attempt to "debate" on. Back to your bridge, troll.

He's right, so shut it. He is correct in pointing out that 'nation' and 'state' are different things, and those trying to deny it are wrong. Argue about the point he's making, which is interesting and debatable, but he's right about several of the fundamentals, which most here are forgetting.

Look. America is both a nation and a state. There are not multiple nations within America. It is one nation, within which there are a few disloyal jerks like the AIP and New Potomac.

Now we're talking. This is where the debate becomes interesting.

I would, offhand, define 'America' as a 'super-nation', in the sense that it is more of a broad grouping of fairly independent sub nations than a strict whole nation, but is definitely not a state simply including a number of separate nations.

It is definitely open for debate, and one's perception of it is fairly dependent on a number of things.

The only way to be disloyal would be to break the law.

I disagree. You can vote against his party in the next House elections. You can protest against his decisions. You can donate to the Republicans. Would you call doing those things being loyal to Obama?

Well, the Asturian stated that because Obama's been elected, US citizens owe him their allegiance no matter what. Clearly, not.

You know something, Aussie troll, I am proud of my heritage, but I dislike being called this way. You're despective and it infuriates me.

I haven't seen anyone but Ferrous and Potomac telling anyone what to think.....

And I was referring to Ferrous, ordinary trolling I guess? Where have I told anyone what to think?

You know something, Aussie troll, I am proud of my heritage, but I dislike being called this way. You're despective and it infuriates me.

I think that perhaps you should add him to your ignore list. He's becomming completely irrational.

He's right, so shut it. He is correct in pointing out that 'nation' and 'state' are different things, and those trying to deny it are wrong. Argue about the point he's making, which is interesting and debatable, but he's right about several of the fundamentals, which most here are forgetting.

My bad, should have taken my own advice to cool it.

I think that perhaps you should add him to your ignore list. He's becomming completely irrational.

That's funny, because UNIverseVERSE seems to understand exactly what I'm talking about.

I haven't seen anyone but Ferrous and Potomac telling anyone what to think.....

And I was referring to Ferrous, ordinary trolling I guess?
And neither one of them is serious. FO is just trolling for attention *glares at troll feeders*, and NP has contradicted himself several times, claiming that he's going to dedicate himself to "undermining" the Obama presidency while admitting that he's just going to continue to be politically active in the normal way like everybody else.

Essentially, this thread turned into a huge volume of nothing. In re the topic, we have learned that NP feels pissed off that McCain lost. Oh, and trolls are pests.

I disagree. You can vote against his party in the next House elections. You can protest against his decisions. You can donate to the Republicans. Would you call doing those things being loyal to Obama.

absolutely not. An exercise of your right can never, by definition, be an act of disloyalty to your country.

Which is the point, it's not about being disloyal to Obama, it's a discussion about disloyalty to the President, and thus, the country whom he leads. There is a fundamental difference between Obama the man, and the office of president that he holds.

You don't have to like Obama, or agree with Obama, or vote for Obama, none of those are disloyal to the office of President of the United States

That's funny, because UNIverseVERSE seems to understand exactly what I'm talking about.

That has little to do with it - you're still a troll, trying to wind everyone up. With me, it's not working.

Oh, and some advice i'm sure you've already had - Get a blog.

Afraid not. There's a difference between a 'nation' and a 'state', which FO is basing his argument on. Just going "Nyah, you're wrong" won't change that.

America is a State. So is Spain. Spain is not a nation, but is composed of a number of sub-nations, such as (for example) the Basques.

Whether there is also a single unified American nation is definitely something to consider. FO thinks there isn't, and I am actually inclined to agree with him.

I stand corrected in the nation debate.

I disagree. You can vote against his party in the next House elections. You can protest against his decisions. You can donate to the Republicans. Would you call doing those things being loyal to Obama?

Maybe we should draw a distinction between "disloyal to the office of the president" and "disloyal to the person who is the president".

On this basis, you owe no loyalty to the person who is president, no more than you owe any loyalty to anyone. However, you owe a loyalty to the office of the president, insofar as you are a citizen of the American state. Same as you owe a loyalty to, and are bound by, the laws of the American state.

(This makes sense, right?)

EDIT: Damn it, Neo Art made the same point in better terms as I was typing.

Maybe we should draw a distinction between "disloyal to the office of the president" and "disloyal to the person who is the president".

On this basis, you owe no loyalty to the person who is president, no more than you owe any loyalty to anyone. However, you owe a loyalty to the office of the president, insofar as you are a citizen of the American state. Same as you owe a loyalty to, and are bound by, the laws of the American state.

(This makes sense, right?)

EDIT: Damn it, Neo Art made the same point in better terms as I was typing.

Well, you could be apathetic. If I saw that Kevin Rudd was about to fall off a building, I wouldn't try to save him out of loyalty to the office of the Prime Minister. I would save him because I'm not going to let a person die, but not out of loyalty to his office.

Ferrous is basically saying that not everyone in America likes Obama. Fine. Okay. We know that. Now go back on your bridge.

Well, you could be apathetic. If I saw that Kevin Rudd was about to fall off a building, I wouldn't try to save him out of loyalty to the office of the Prime Minister. I would save him because I'm not going to let a person die, but not out of loyalty to his office.

Apathy =/= disloyalty. Disloyalty usually has to be a positive act.

Ferrous is basically saying that not everyone in America likes Obama. Fine. Okay. We know that. Now go back on your bridge.

Well, at the same time he seems pressed on winding everyone up over it.

The Bridge to Nowhere?

Maybe we should draw a distinction between "disloyal to the office of the president" and "disloyal to the person who is the president".

On this basis, you owe no loyalty to the person who is president, no more than you owe any loyalty to anyone. However, you owe a loyalty to the office of the president, insofar as you are a citizen of the American state. Same as you owe a loyalty to, and are bound by, the laws of the American state.

(This makes sense, right?)

EDIT: Damn it, Neo Art made the same point in better terms as I was typing.
There is no need to draw such a distinction in re the US because nobody in the US is required to show any loyalty to any person in any office. Even the military and cabinet officials serve the "presidency", not the president. And they serve the Constitution before they serve the presidency.

All this talk about loyalty to this or that and "state" versus "nation" is just bullshit in this context.

Well, you could be apathetic. If I saw that Kevin Rudd was about to fall off a building, I wouldn't try to save him out of loyalty to the office of the Prime Minister. I would save him because I'm not going to let a person die, but not out of loyalty to his office.

Why do you insist on basing what will happen in the US with Obama as president to your experience in Australia? No one knows how Obama will do in the next 4 years.

Again, when Obama wants revenge against whites, he'll attack Australia. We're easy beats.

...

Australia is an ally, you insufferable oaf. Bloody hell, do you just get off on this sort of paranoiac ranting?

Apathy =/= disloyalty. Disloyalty usually has to be a positive act.

Well, I think there's a middle ground that we're all kinda ignoring. You could just be apathetic and ignore it all.

Why do you insist on basing what will happen in the US with Obama as president to your experience in Australia? No one knows how Obama will do in the next 4 years.

I was using an analogy. By the same token, substitute "me" for "Potomac" and "Rudd" for "Obama".

...

Australia is an ally, you insufferable oaf. Bloody hell, do you just get off on this sort of paranoiac ranting?You haven't figured that out by now?

You haven't figured that out by now?

Oh yeah, it was basically rhetorical. I've known FO through about three incarnations, but I do wonder still at times.

I was using an analogy. By the same token, substitute "me" for "Potomac" and "Rudd" for "Obama".

This analogy does not proceed. Obama and Rudd are different people who live in completely different countries with different needs and realities.

I didn't support Obama, none the less I am cautiously optimistic and do want to see Obama do well in the office of President.

I didn't support Obama, none the less I am cautiously optimistic and do want to see Obama do well in the office of President.

And that is a sentiment that is shared by most Americans. That's what I've been trying to say. The angry partisans who care more about the GOP than the country are a small minority. If they don't realize that now, they're in for a fun surprise.

I didn't support Obama, none the less I am cautiously optimistic and do want to see Obama do well in the office of President.

Good for you. It's a sensible approach.

This analogy does not proceed. Obama and Rudd are different people who live in completely different countries with different needs and realities.

Well, you could be apathetic. If Potomac saw that Obama was about to fall off a building, he wouldn't try to save him out of loyalty to the office of the Presidency.

There's my point. Just because you're not going around trying to kill the President or blowing up govt. buildings, doesn't automatically make you loyal to him, does it?

Well, you could be apathetic. If Potomac saw that Obama was about to fall off a building, he wouldn't try to save him out of loyalty to the office of the Presidency.

As a human being, he may be compelled to save Obama.

There's my point. Just because you're not going around trying to kill the President or blowing up govt. buildings, doesn't automatically make you loyal to him, does it?

Read Neo-Art's explanation. Again, you fail to understand what we've all been trying to tell you.

Ferrous Oxide seems to be ignorant of posts that prove him wrong.

As a human being, he may be compelled to save Obama.

I excluded that option because I don't speak for him.

Read Neo-Art's explanation. Again, you fail to understand what we've all been trying to tell you.

I understand it, I just disagree with it. Just because the law or whatever says that you're required to be loyal to the Presidency, doesn't mean that's what you actually feel.

You know, for liberals, you're all very "you're either with us or against us" kind of people.

Um, no. We've been perfectly welcoming to McCain supporters who aren't denying the reality that Obama is the President.

Um, no. We've been perfectly welcoming to McCain supporters who aren't denying the reality that Obama is the President.

But yet when people say "I feel no loyalty or allegiance to Obama", you bring out the "required to be loyal to the Presidency" thing?

I excluded that option because I don't speak for him.

But you were using him to exemplify.

I understand it, I just disagree with it. Just because the law or whatever says that you're required to be loyal to the Presidency, doesn't mean that's what you actually feel.

The loyalty falls on the concept of being American.

You know, for liberals, you're all very "you're either with us or against us" kind of people.

If you stopped trolling, we might look at you differently.

Just because the law or whatever says that you're required to be loyal to the Presidency, doesn't mean that's what you actually feel.

You know, for liberals, you're all very "you're either with us or against us" kind of people.

No one claimed to know or control other people's feelings. And you fail to recognize that the right to your own opinion does not give you the right to your own reality.

You know, for liberals, you're all very "you're either with us or against us" kind of people.

Actually no, by very opposite, I think what's been said here is "we understand you voted for someone else, that's your right, but you lost and it's time to accept that and move on, and just because your man isn't in the office, doesn't mean loyalty to your country should change."

I think it's clear now that arguing with Ferrous Oxide is impossible.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own fact" -Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

No one claimed to know or control other people's feelings. And you fail to recognize that the right to your own opinion does not give you the right to your own reality.

I never claimed Obama wasn't the President of the United States in fact. But you may not consider him to be your leader, that's what we're talking about.

And it seems to me the whole "compulsory loyalty to the Presidency" thing contradicts the "duty to overthrow an oppressive govt." thing. Would that loyalty still be mandatory if the US Nazi party wins an election?

Actually no, by very opposite, I think what's been said here is "we understand you voted for someone else, that's your right, but you lost and it's time to accept that and move on, and just because your man isn't in the office, doesn't mean loyalty to your country should change."

And some of us disagree. There have been several cases in history of people disagreeing.

Whether there is also a single unified American nation is definitely something to consider. FO thinks there isn't, and I am actually inclined to agree with him.

Yes, you are correct but really there are very very few "nation states" (that being a state comprised of a single, unified nation). Israel would be (debatably) perhaps the only one. There are man many sub nations in almost every state out there. sometimes its a good thing, sometimes its a bad thing but its fairly inevitable. (its also one of the reasons democracy is needed and (funnily enough) works)

I think we've agree not to argue with the troll anymore.

And some of us disagree. There have been several cases in history of people disagreeing.

But unlike you, the rest of us have agreed to disagree.

As we say in Spanish: Le estás buscando las cinco patas al gato.

The Confederacy disagreed.

I proudly hang the CSA Naval Jack on my wall as a sign of my heritage.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Conf_Navy_Jack_%28light_blue%29.svg/200px-Conf_Navy_Jack_%28light_blue%29.svg.png

And I'm equally proud to have voted for the first non-white president of my country.

Begone, troll.

Yes, you are correct but really there are very very few "nation states" (that being a state comprised of a single, unified nation). Israel would be (debatably) perhaps the only one. There are man many sub nations in almost every state out there. sometimes its a good thing, sometimes its a bad thing but its fairly inevitable. (its also one of the reasons democracy is needed and (funnily enough) works)

Even Israel's sketchy, they had Neo-Nazis (you read that right) there recently.

I proudly hang the CSA Naval Jack on my wall as a sign of my heritage.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Conf_Navy_Jack_%28light_blue%29.svg/200px-Conf_Navy_Jack_%28light_blue%29.svg.png

And I'm equally proud to have voted for the first non-white president of my country.

Then you're using the flag wrong. And not just because it's a naval jack.

And some of us disagree. There have been several cases in history of people disagreeing.

we tend to call those people traitors.

we tend to call those people traitors.

If they lose.

I proudly hang the CSA Naval Jack on my wall as a sign of my heritage.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Conf_Navy_Jack_%28light_blue%29.svg/200px-Conf_Navy_Jack_%28light_blue%29.svg.png

And I'm equally proud to have voted for the first non-white president of my country.

Begone, troll.

Um...

*contains flames... just barely, partly due to agreeing that FO is a worthless troll, but still just barely*

Um...

*contains flames... just barely, partly due to agreeing that FO is a worthless troll, but still just barely*
I don't see any flames there. It is pretty clear that FO is a net troll, and simply inviting him to "begone" is hardly a flame. If calling FO a troll is a flame, then I'd argue it is a flame FO has baited time and time again, by his trolling.

Enough already with him. PLEASE, EVERYONE, can we just put him on ignore? At least for a week or two?

i forgot how to put people on ignore. and how did this thing get to 72 pages and not be locked down?

Then you're using the flag wrong. And not just because it's a naval jack.

My Grandpa Harry and the Union Miss. Talbots would disagree strongly....

Um...

*contains flames... just barely, partly due to agreeing that FO is a worthless troll, but still just barely*

The CSA Naval Jack as a historical item needs to be taken back from the forces of evil just as much as the svastika....

Yes, you are correct but really there are very very few "nation states" (that being a state comprised of a single, unified nation). Israel would be (debatably) perhaps the only one. There are man many sub nations in almost every state out there. sometimes its a good thing, sometimes its a bad thing but its fairly inevitable. (its also one of the reasons democracy is needed and (funnily enough) works)

Indeed. However, it is worth noting that most states are broadly unified as a nation. While I don't think anyone is claiming that all states (or even all nations) are entirely homogenous, there is obviously a difference between, for example, Iceland and Belgium. Iceland is basically a nation-state, while Belgium is split into two fairly opposed nations: the Flemish and the Walloons. Or Iraq, split into the Sunni, the Shia, and the Kurds.

Here's (http://www.secessie.nu/?tekst=toonhtml&artikel=900-19) an interesting article dealing with the subject. Interestingly, the author feels that states without a fairly strong bond of shared nationhood will never work as democracies, directly opposite to your view.

i forgot how to put people on ignore. and how did this thing get to 72 pages and not be locked down?
Click on your own name. Open your CP (control panel). Click "edit ignore list". Type in as many names as you like. Click "save." Freedom!

Democracy, mate. Get over it.



Republicans are Americans too, aren't they? They will unite under one nation if the time for it comes up.

You, once again, fail to understand the American-mind set (understandably so, you're not an American) and should consider going to bed and stop yapping.

I for one, burned no flags. I never said I was ashamed to be an American. Only ashamed that certain others were.

I don't see any flames there.

Heh. I took that as Callisdrun holding back from flaming me for my consideration of a part of my heritage, not as a flame against FO. YMMV

Nope. No law can make me acknowledge that person as the President. This is still a free country, and there is nothing anyone can do to make me acknowledge that squatter in the White House.

He's not a squatter... he was legally elected as per directed in the Constitution of the United States of America. He is the President-elect. He won by a landslide.

You may as well go rant about how the sky is actually orange.

The CSA Naval Jack as a historical item needs to be taken back from the forces of evil just as much as the svastika....

Yeh... I think that one's pretty much a write off. :(

Heh. I took that as Callisdrun holding back from flaming me for my consideration of a part of my heritage, not as a flame against FO. YMMV
OK, if you think so.

Heh. I took that as Callisdrun holding back from flaming me for my consideration of a part of my heritage, not as a flame against FO. YMMV

Your denunciation of FO saved me from saying things that would result in me getting banned. Your interpretation was the correct one.

Click on your own name. Open your CP (control panel). Click "edit ignore list". Type in as many names as you like. Click "save." Freedom!

Until people start quoting him verbatim, which they do, constantly.

If you stopped trolling, we might look at you differently.

I think it's clear now that arguing with Ferrous Oxide is impossible.

And yet, you both (and others) still continue.

Huh.

The CSA Naval Jack as a historical item needs to be taken back from the forces of evil just as much as the svastika....

Please, don't push me. Seriously.

I for one, burned no flags. I never said I was ashamed to be an American. Only ashamed that certain others were.

I am sorry, Calli-kun, if my retort offended you. It wasn't meant to do that.

Until people start quoting him verbatim, which they do, constantly.
I know. It's so annoying. I wish the ignore function could somehow block out the ignored person's posts even quoted in other people's posts. Like:

QUOTE quote Poster is on your ignore list /quote

Other person's comments. /QUOTE