The GOP should change their party symbol from the elephant to Yosemite Sam

Pro claims that the Yosemite Sam symbol "would better help [republicans] convey the very traditional values they wish to uphold." My response: Yeah, Pro's right...changing a symbol that represents your beliefs and values is very traditional. Just the other day, I was walking by a church, and at the top there was a Mickey Mouse face instead of a cross. I thought to myself..."How traditional!" Christians love it when you change the symbol that represents their core beliefs. The republican party wouldn't have too many traditional Christians in it, would it? Pro equivocates: "Changing the party symbol...doesn't somehow indicate that the GOP is not steadfast anymore." My response: Silly me. All this time, I thought the republican party was steadfast because they seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity. But thanks to Pro's claim, changing a 135 year old traditional symbol is a steadfast move...unwavering preservation. Pro speaks to my claim that changing their symbol isn't steadfast: "That would be like saying a country that declares war on another country for the first time in over a hundred years makes them a 'warmongering' nation" My response: If the country were predicated on the values of unwavering neutrality, declaring war would be antithetical to their core beliefs. The republicans are predicated on not changing, so changing their values representation isn't a steadfast move. Pro points out: "Elephants are scared of mice. Like they actually are scared of mice." My response: Ronald Reagan was scared of the number 666. Like he actually was scared of 666. http://www.phobiasource.com... If an irrational fear is ok for Ronald Reagan, you know it's ok for republicans. Furthermore, our country's security is under no threat by mice, so an elephant would still be unmovable in the face of our adversaries. I must stress that Yosemite Sam's size is of a Grand Old Problem. If the symbol is to represent a massive immovable global power, and the idea of unwavering stability on issues, Yosemite just doesn't fit the bill physically or behaviorally...Yosemtie is very tiny and an unstable spaz when he gets angry. His presence was designed to be comical, and it shows. Pro claims that Yosemite Sam's pistols are better than the dildos elephants are sporting these days for tusks. How many things has Yosemite successfully shot with those baby pistols? Name one. Check out this video of an elephant retaliating against a human adversary. Yosemite Sam's pistols and stature are no match for an elephant, given that we don't even know if Yosemite's pistols have actually ever worked per their purpose. I mentioned that Sam's pistols just don't display a true military presence, and Pro replied: "And tusks are somehow an improvement?" My response: Tusks don't need to be an improvement, the silly pistols do, because tusks are not being proposed as a change. But I further would argue that more damage can be done by an elephant than by Sam's toy-like pistols. Notice on the elephant that Pro provided, there are stars and stripes, indicating that the elephant himself is a patriot. Where is Sam's patriotism? Obama wasn't considered american because he wasn't wearing a US flag pin. The elephant though, is decked out in old glory. Are republicans generally patriotic? Yosemite Sam is therefore not a symbol that the republicans should rally behind; to change their long standing symbol would be to change; conservatives find change to be suspect. Elephants are actually very powerful and represent stability and an immovable presence. Yeah, I know elephants are afraid of mice, but Ronald Reagan had a fear of 666...Reagan is always right with the repubs. Yosemite's ineffective pistols and comical stature would not be welcome by the party of huge military defense. Traditional values? Tradition itself