Being so close to Mexico we celebrate the 16th of September (actual Mexican Independence day) and the 5th of May (celebrating the Battle of Puebla) in addition to the 4th of July. It’s by way of being neighborly y’see.
Cinco de Mayo is fairly general throughout the state (Texas) I think. The 16th of September not quite as much I guess.
One of my rules of life is that any reason to celebrate is a good one. 
1 Like
When do we reach the tipping point where Israel realizes they took the wrong side?
Seriously. What were they thinking?
Many folks mistakenly think 5th of May is the Mexican independence date. But I don’t press the point. A celebration is a good thing most of the time.
1 Like
“No one should burn the flag, but hey, we’re cool with wiping our asses with the Constitution.”
And it’s a nice continuation of Star Wars Day, which is also more of an excuse than an event.
I know they do. It’s also my husband’s birthday. One year a friend of ours who was originally from Illinois asked my husband the inevitable question: Is your birthday always on Cinco de Mayo. 
I can’t help it - it still cracks me up
2 Likes
Some folks are intellectual ya know. I suppose that in these times when Quantum Physics has run amuck it would be logical to ask if one’s birthday date had changed.
I need a beer.
2 Likes
Whenever Trump starts a new and offbeat twitter topic, it’s almost always to detract from another emerging story that would embarrass him.
This time, it was a WSJ story about Jared Kushner’s conflict of interest dilemma.
Maybe he wanted to lay the groundwork for making it legal to burn hippies.
I’m surprised president-elect thin-skin didn’t tweet about what an overrated movie The Princess Bride was.
1 Like
I guess I shouldn’t tell you that after the first time I went to Italy she asked me if I could drink the water there.
A 5-time draft dodger - Dick Cheney. By this time, we all know he was the hawk pushing for multiple wars while Bush baby just mouthed the words.
1 Like
Why burn the flag? I’d rather burn Trump in effigy…
1 Like
Sorry about the awkward reminder but Trump was merely echoing the spirit of a bill cosponsored by Hillary Clinton in 2004. So check your self-righteousness at the door, Clintonistas!
Good Lord! Is she from Flint?
No. A small town in Illinois.
She knows better now - she’s been there herself since she asked me that. I could keep going in same vein but it’s just that Cinco de Mayo is funny and it gets progressively less so when I begin to have to translate what I’m saying to people because they don’t understand what I’m saying because they don’t know things I think are common knowledge.
I find it depressing.
1 Like
Okay, yeah, now I agree, there’s a major distraction going on. GOPers being reasonable…we all know the pattern. We’re about to be sh** on. They’re going to repeal and privatize everything before the State of the Union address.
close.
Anybody who thinks the Constitution is going to protect our rights is kidding themselves. It was always a gentlemen’s agreement based on the best practices for a civil society. But Trump, his minions, and his GOP allies never much cared about that, and Supreme Court justices can concoct any sort of bogus reasoning to get the result they want.
The will of the people and the rights of the people have already been subverted in this process. The Constitution was designed to prevent someone like Donald Trump, an unstable authoritarian in waiting, from playing on the passions and prejudices of a slight plurality in a few swing states to conjure up a Devil’s potion of electoral votes. And gerrymandering and deception was not in the plans to allow one political party (parties aren’t even mentioned in the Constitution) to gain fewer votes but control the Congress anyway.
If one insists on practical reality and accept this outcome, then we might as well accept the practical reality that our Constitution republic has been manipulated and destroyed in favor of a political party bent on enforcing their ideology whether the citizens want it or not. How else do you explain the Senate refusing to consider a sitting president’s nominee for the Supreme Court? How else do you explain their ruthless investigation of their opponent, while ignoring the obvious criminal activities of their standard-bearer? How else to you explain refusal to allow the sitting president, elected with a majority TWICE, to advance any of his policies?
This country is toast and short of a full-scale revolt of the people who object, I don’t see much of a future here.
1 Like