The Maelstrom of Violence

[Eric the Green]

(08-16-2017, 08:56 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 01:42 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 02:23 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-15-2017, 05:09 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-15-2017, 02:07 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: I'm far more worried about Antifa, as they have a direct connection to a group of elites ready to take power.  When I see you spending as much time criticizing Antifa as you do white nationalist demonstrators, I'll know we can start worrying about the white nationalists.  Until then, I'll concentrate on the greater threat.

As far as I can tell, Antifa is a consortium of privileged children doing penance,  SJW types from college campuses and simple joiners looking for a rush.  I fail to see any evidence of "a direct connection to a group of elites ready to take power". Enlighten us ... please.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/03/look-w...ley-event/

Sorry, but that's pretty small potatoes in comparison to the funding the right gets from the likes of Sheldon Adelson and the Kochs.  And let's be honest, Cornell West and George Soros are players, but they aren't power players.  On the other hand, Rupert Murdock funds an entire phalange of RW media: papers, TV outlets and networks.. So does the Sinclair Group.  And even more to the point, the right has been doing this for a very long time.   Rush Limbaugh started in talk-politics in 1984, not surprisingly, just after Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine.

So don't pitch manure when you're standing in a cesspool.

There is substantially bigger money around - on both sides - but it is not going to the neoconfederates (white nationalists, whatever you want to call them) in this protest.  Between the two sides at Charlottesville, the Antifa has direct connections to elites, the neoconfederates do not.

I'd have to see some figures and names on that contention. And the "elite" are not college professors, they are the owners and bosses.

[Eric the Green]

(08-16-2017, 03:02 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 02:02 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 09:22 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

pbower Wrote:When someone from Antifa drives his car into a crowd of right-wingers in a peaceful demonstration, then let me know.

How about when they kill several policement trying to assassinate a congressman?

How about Timothy McVeigh?  Come on, these are both lone-wolf cases, just like Dylan Roof.  What made Charlottesville different was the context.  The violence at Berkley in opposition to Milo Yiannopoulos is more similar.

The guy who killed someone with his car was at that point acting on his own, away from the protest location.  His connection was political motivation, but the Congressional baseball assassin was clearly politically motivated too.  The parallels are accurate.

Timothy McVeigh was way back in the middle of the third turning, and his target was not an opposing political faction.

Both were politically-motivated killings. But I don't know what you mean by "away from the protest location;" he drove right into it.

McVeigh's motivation was political as well. He was motivated by some of the same sorts of right-wing sentiments as those right-wingers who demonstrated and hurt people at Charlottesville.

"McVeigh’s sub cultural values were also heavily influenced by right wing militia ideologies. McVeigh was found to have a copy of The Turner Diaries in his car. The book written by William Pierce, founder of the Neo-Nazi National Alliance is often cited as the manual for the bombing."
https://blindtohear.wordpress.com/university-essays/timothy-mcveighs-terrorist-motivations-drifting-towards-and-neutralising-mass-murder/

His opponent was the federal government of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-17-2017, 05:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Both were politically-motivated killings. But I don't know what you mean by "away from the protest location;" he drove right into it.

McVeigh's motivation was political as well. He was motivated by some of the same sorts of right-wing sentiments as those right-wingers who demonstrated and hurt people at Charlottesville.

"McVeigh’s sub cultural values were also heavily influenced by right wing militia ideologies. McVeigh was found to have a copy of The Turner Diaries in his car. The book written by William Pierce, founder of the Neo-Nazi National Alliance is often cited as the manual for the bombing."
https://blindtohear.wordpress.com/university-essays/timothy-mcveighs-terrorist-motivations-drifting-towards-and-neutralising-mass-murder/

His opponent was the federal government of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno.

I would say 'the federal government of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno' was McVeigh's perceived opponent, more than actual. Prior to Clinton, the federal police doctrine was fairly firm and violent against political protestors. Thus, you had problematic incidents such as Ruby Ridge and Waco. The Clinton 42 administration implemented a much less violent and hurried approach that helped end that particular spiral of violence. However, McVeigh didn't get a copy of the memo and went violent after said change was already underway.

The pendulum seems to be swinging back towards a more interventionist and violent police presence, though the trend may be more local than federal.

[Eric the Green]

(08-17-2017, 05:51 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-17-2017, 05:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Both were politically-motivated killings. But I don't know what you mean by "away from the protest location;" he drove right into it.

McVeigh's motivation was political as well. He was motivated by some of the same sorts of right-wing sentiments as those right-wingers who demonstrated and hurt people at Charlottesville.

"McVeigh’s sub cultural values were also heavily influenced by right wing militia ideologies. McVeigh was found to have a copy of The Turner Diaries in his car. The book written by William Pierce, founder of the Neo-Nazi National Alliance is often cited as the manual for the bombing."
https://blindtohear.wordpress.com/university-essays/timothy-mcveighs-terrorist-motivations-drifting-towards-and-neutralising-mass-murder/

His opponent was the federal government of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno.

I would say 'the federal government of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno' was McVeigh's perceived opponent, more than actual.  Prior to Clinton, the federal police doctrine was fairly firm and violent against political protestors.  Thus, you had problematic incidents such as Ruby Ridge and Waco.  The Clinton 42 administration implemented a much less violent and hurried approach that helped end that particular spiral of violence.  However, McVeigh didn't get a copy of the memo and went violent after said change was already underway.

The pendulum seems to be swinging back towards a more interventionist and violent police presence, though the trend may be more local than federal.

Although Waco and Ruby Ridge happened under Clinton and Reno in 1993. Thus, they were McVeigh's targets.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-16-2017, 08:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: And what does the Iraq War have to do with McVeigh?  He was dead before the Iraq War started.  Senior moment?

Yep. Wrong war. McVeigh's experience in US Middle East policy came in Desert Storm under Bush 41.

[David Horn]

(08-16-2017, 08:56 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: There is substantially bigger money around - on both sides - but it is not going to the neoconfederates (white nationalists, whatever you want to call them) in this protest.  Between the two sides at Charlottesville, the Antifa has direct connections to elites, the neoconfederates do not.

That's similar to the argument made for the RW in the 1950s: fringe and unimportant.  Well, a lot of those same groups, or their direct offshoots, are still out there today.  That's not possible without backing in a big way, and old money tends to be far right.  Just look at the political funding by the Mellon-Scaife family, as a prime example.  These are low profile, very wealthy people with distorted views of their rights and yours.  I would call them American aristocrats, but they lack even the basic noblese oblige that goes with the title.

[David Horn]

(08-16-2017, 09:02 PM)gabrielle Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 01:53 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 08:14 AM)gabrielle Wrote: Black Lives Matter Is Not a Hate Group

This is about a year old, but I don't believe there's been any major change in the direction of BLM since then.

Even if I agree in full, which I do with some reservations, they are still a net negative on the left.  Is it any wonder that the Democrats can't win anything anywhere when their allies spend 99% of the time, and nearly that much of the political oxygen, advocating for narrow interests that are, by definition, exclusionary.  At least Bernie Sanders understands that if none of the other politicos on the left do.  
When a group calls itself Black Lives Matter, the majority of Americans hear it as Only Black Lives Matter.  That's not fair, but it is reality.  The same applies to any of the other narrow interest groups with a limited agenda that focuses on a minority rather than the whole.  You can't win with 100% support of 25% of the people.  If you don't win, you can't do anything.

Bernie Sanders supports Black Lives Matter.  You know, it is possible to care about "narrow interests," like whether black people are being unfairly and violently targeted by law enforcement, and many other things as well.

If the majority of white Americans think that the goals of racial justice and equality are exclusionary, that only goes to show how badly they are needed.

You can preach or govern: Your choice.  There is a large contingent of very disgruntled people out there, and it's easy to make them hate those advocating for the better treatment of everyone but them.  The GOP Dog Whistle Brigade is based on keeping that anger stoked, and it's served them well.  If you wish to break that stranglehold, you can't do it by doing the same failed things over and over.

It's down to this: break the narrative. I argued with Playwrite about this when he was still active here and on the old forum.  The liberals of the 1970s let the old narrative die, and this is the result.  I don't see the GOP doing the same.  Even Trump seems to be too little to turn the tide, so the task will not be easy.  And no, I don't have a magic bullet plan either.

[David Horn]

(08-17-2017, 05:13 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Democrats don't spend 99% of the time on those issues.

Actually, they do.  Its race or gender, abortion access or open borders.  There are only two issues that must be addressed: pay and equality, and climate change.  The others will follow if those two are addressed successfully, but no one will get the chance if they don't focus.

Which brings us to the 'how', which is hard ... very hard.

[David Horn]

(08-17-2017, 06:13 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 08:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: And what does the Iraq War have to do with McVeigh?  He was dead before the Iraq War started.  Senior moment?

Yep.  Wrong war.  McVeigh's experience in US Middle East policy came in Desert Storm under Bush 41.

I would ask what the Iraq War has to do with the fringe-right, whatever you want to call them.  That fringe was around in the 1950s too.  It's predecessor was around in the '20s and '30s.  You can't just draw a line on the calendar and say, 'It starts here'.

[Warren Dew]

(08-17-2017, 06:00 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-17-2017, 05:51 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-17-2017, 05:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Both were politically-motivated killings. But I don't know what you mean by "away from the protest location;" he drove right into it.

McVeigh's motivation was political as well. He was motivated by some of the same sorts of right-wing sentiments as those right-wingers who demonstrated and hurt people at Charlottesville.

"McVeigh’s sub cultural values were also heavily influenced by right wing militia ideologies. McVeigh was found to have a copy of The Turner Diaries in his car. The book written by William Pierce, founder of the Neo-Nazi National Alliance is often cited as the manual for the bombing."
https://blindtohear.wordpress.com/university-essays/timothy-mcveighs-terrorist-motivations-drifting-towards-and-neutralising-mass-murder/

His opponent was the federal government of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno.

I would say 'the federal government of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno' was McVeigh's perceived opponent, more than actual.  Prior to Clinton, the federal police doctrine was fairly firm and violent against political protestors.  Thus, you had problematic incidents such as Ruby Ridge and Waco.  The Clinton 42 administration implemented a much less violent and hurried approach that helped end that particular spiral of violence.  However, McVeigh didn't get a copy of the memo and went violent after said change was already underway.

The pendulum seems to be swinging back towards a more interventionist and violent police presence, though the trend may be more local than federal.

Although Waco and Ruby Ridge happened under Clinton and Reno in 1993. Thus, they were McVeigh's targets.

Ruby Ridge happened in 1992 under Bush.  Waco happened in 1993 under Clinton.  McVeigh was a nonpartisan terrorist; his target was the federal government irrespective of party.

[Bob Butler 54]

McVeigh cared about arrogant violent policies of the US Government.  Both the Middle East and domestic incidents helped form him.  The incidents he railed against for the most part occurred before Clinton’s less violent doctrine against domestic potentially violent protestors.  These doctrine changes occurred mostly as a result of Waco, an incident which caused much reconsideration early on in 42’s watch.  Today, Waco and Ruby Ridge are often used in federal training, as illustrations of how not to do it.

The issue of excessive use of force leading to deaths remains pertinent.  It is usually the protesters, state and local forces that are questioned.  While federal forces have a yet lingering reputation, they are not generally escalators these days, in part due to doctrine changes that fell out of Ruby Ridge and Waco.  For the most part, these changes did not trickle down to the state and local level.  Instead we have surplus military equipment being sold cheap to the state and locals, half hearted training in how to use it, a resulting pseudo military attitude shift, plus a legal system that will release any cop who felt threatened by those he confronts.  “I was scared” becomes a legal license to kill.

McVeigh was unique.  Perhaps all the violent lone nuts are unique.  He was more alone than most.  While he associated with the right wing militia movement, he is not a great illustration of big partisan money sponsoring terror, and his tendency toward secrecy doesn’t make him a great example of a joiner sharing guilt with a large movement.

But he’s an illustration of domestic terror and violent dislike of excessive government force.  I would prefer that people not try to cherry pick around him.  Folks shouldn’t say he is a little different so you can throw lessons learned away.  We paid a lot for the lessons learned.

Dave Grossman in his book On Killing explores the notion of human instincts that make folk ready to kill the enemy while still respecting lives within one’s own community.  It’s the violent aspect of tribal thinking.  Those outside the tribe might be worthy of death, while those inside the tribe are to be respected and protected.  Grossman reviews how the US military deliberately indoctrinates people to kill, attempts to neutralize established patterns which hold lives as precious.  Trends include a feeling of guilt leading to post traumatic stress if society does not endorse a soldier’s actions, and how a spiral of rhetoric can enable a spiral of violence.  If a subculture presents violence as necessary and appropriate, an opposition culture as vile and evil, individuals will feel enabled towards violence.

We heard proposed that rich donators might be held responsible for violence that falls out of the causes they sponsor.  In a similar way, we could hold anyone participating in the spiral of rhetoric collectively responsible for the less stable individuals who engage in the spiral of violence.  Ultimately it is the lone nut / patriot / terrorist / freedom fighter who is responsible for his own actions.  This does not imply that those participating in rhetoric or using money as a political tool should be free to throw words and money around without thought and care.

[Warren Dew]

(08-17-2017, 05:22 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: McVeigh cared about arrogant violent policies of the US Government.  Both the Middle East and domestic incidents helped form him.  The incidents he railed against for the most part occurred before Clinton’s less violent doctrine against domestic potentially violent protestors.  These doctrine changes occurred mostly as a result of Waco, an incident which caused much reconsideration early on in 42’s watch.  Today, Waco and Ruby Ridge are often used in federal training, as illustrations of how not to do it.

The issue of excessive use of force leading to deaths remains pertinent.  It is usually the protesters, state and local forces that are questioned.  While federal forces have a yet lingering reputation, they are not generally escalators these days, in part due to doctrine changes that fell out of Ruby Ridge and Waco.  For the most part, these changes did not trickle down to the state and local level.  Instead we have surplus military equipment being sold cheap to the state and locals, half hearted training in how to use it, a resulting pseudo military attitude shift, plus a legal system that will release any cop who felt threatened by those he confronts.  “I was scared” becomes a legal license to kill.

McVeigh was unique.  Perhaps all the violent lone nuts are unique.  He was more alone than most.  While he associated with the right wing militia movement, he is not a great illustration of big partisan money sponsoring terror, and his tendency toward secrecy doesn’t make him a great example of a joiner sharing guilt with a large movement.

But he’s an illustration of domestic terror and violent dislike of excessive government force.  I would prefer that people not try to cherry pick around him.  Folks shouldn’t say he is a little different so you can throw lessons learned away.  We paid a lot for the lessons learned.

Wow, we agree on something.  Ironically, it can be argued that McVeigh is an example of terrorism working - and working to improve society.  I think it's a difficult question whether the lessons learned were worth the lives lost, and whether the lessons might have been learned with less bloodshed.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-17-2017, 05:51 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Wow, we agree on something.

Oh dear.  I'll have to reconsider.  

[Kinser79]

(08-16-2017, 02:26 PM)noway2 Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 02:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: If your argument rests on these "historical monuments" then you're already on shaky ground.  These were, for the most part, the products of unreconstructed Confederates and their kin, and intended to make the point that the Southern white man was still king in the South.  Most were erected in the early 20th century, not immediately after the ACW.  Their historical import is dubious, unless it's intended to remind everyone of segregation and, oh yeah, lynchings.

I'm not entirely certain what you mean by on shaky ground.  If you're trying to claim that these blacks and their white snowflake lackeys that are committing vandalism have some sort of moral high ground for their actions, you would be grossly mistaken.  They are, however, running the risk of getting put down, hard, as other people are taking great offense to the desecration. The biggest thing preventing it is that the unlike this crowd, some people have jobs and obligations.

I can't speak for my entire race, but this black man agrees with you.  I oppose the destruction of monuments to the Confederacy, not because I support it, or slavery or even the racist institutions of the past.  Rather, I oppose their destruction out of the fear that it will not stop with them.  Already these imbeciles have moved from Lee and Stonewall Jackson to Lincoln, and they will move on to Jefferson and Washington too.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...ghborhood/

These people think that they can have a revolution, one in which the destruction of everything from before that revolution is required.  However, they have no economic theory to replace it with, no social theory to back up that revolution and as such the end result must be tyranny--and that is assuming that tyranny would arise as a natural consequence.

[Kinser79]

(08-16-2017, 04:03 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 09:14 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: On the old forum I had posed the question of what event might be a trigger for this 4T as Harper's Ferry was to the Civil War 4T. Could the events in Charlottesville this past weekend be the one? After all, they both occurred within the same state.

I'd suggest a trigger in a military crisis would be the event that sends a lot of young to the recruiting center.  In the Civil War, by that standard, Fort Sumter would be the trigger.  Modern Charlottesville would not be.

But there are 'catalyst' events and markers which escalate tensions and demonstrate how some people feel about issues without being the immediate cause of open conflict.  Modern Charlottesville, Harper's Ferry and the election of Lincoln could easily be given the catalyst tag.  Generally, you don't get to the trigger without a number of catalysts first.

2005:  Katrina demonstrates that the government, at least the federal one is ineffective at responding to natural disaster.
2008-2012:  Economic crisis demonstrates that Keynesian economics can't address the economy.
2010-2016:  Break down of the Boomer political order.
2016:  Election of Trump can be likened to the election of Lincoln.  Indeed being that he's over 70 he perfectly fits the gray champion expectation.  I would liken Obama to at best a Buchanan figure.  The unrest if it doesn't erupt into civil war will ensure that he's a two termed president.

You want to find a Harper's Ferry?  I would suggest to you that Pulse filled that role.  After all I can't tell you how many gay men I know who were going to go third party (they didn't like HRC anyway but voting GOP was unthinkable) until that happened.  When the I-4 corridor goes red the Dims are in trouble.

[Bob Butler 54]

Kinser came up with an interesting set of events, some of which could clearly be catalysts, but the spin he puts on them is extremely partisan.  I suppose mine might be considered so too.  Anyway...

(08-18-2017, 07:14 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: 2005:  Katrina demonstrates that the government, at least the federal one is ineffective at responding to natural disaster.

Bush 43 organized a bunch of agencies to fight terror, including many whose primary task had been handling natural disaster.  Yes, catalyst.  I'm not sure 'the government' should be blamed or one particular administration.  Bush 43 had a lot of fingers pointed his way.

(08-18-2017, 07:14 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: 2008-2012:  Economic crisis demonstrates that Keynesian economics can't address the economy.

That depends on your spin.  I blame much of the disaster on the unraveling memes rather than Keynes.  The collapse was set up during the Bush 43 administration.  Catalyst?  Sure.  It ought to have been.

(08-18-2017, 07:14 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: 2010-2016:  Break down of the Boomer political order.

Obama spent a lot of political capitol on health care, and failed to punish Wall Street executives.  He lost Congress and the ability to push any sort of real agenda.  Catalyst?  I'm not sure.  Most catalysts are shorter and sharper.  I'm not sure 'break down of the Boomer political order' is a reasonable way to describe it.  We've got two cultures on a see saw.  The see saw did what see saws do.  Even then, Obama got his second term.

(08-18-2017, 07:14 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: 2016:  Election of Trump can be likened to the election of Lincoln.  Indeed being that he's over 70 he perfectly fits the gray champion expectation.  I would liken Obama to at best a Buchanan figure.  The unrest if it doesn't erupt into civil war will ensure that he's a two termed president.

Between Trump's lack of people skills resulting in a dysfunctional White House, his popularity numbers crashing, and the coastal media making a target out of him, he seems more apt to be a one term president than a culture altering positive icon.  I anticipate he'll flip the see saw.  Catalyst?  His early term has certainly been sharp and eventful.  I'm having trouble putting my finger on a clear lesson learned, though.  No protest presidents?  Competence counts?  Too soon to judge the results.

[noway2]

(08-18-2017, 07:04 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: These people think that they can have a revolution, one in which the destruction of everything from before that revolution is required.  However, they have no economic theory to replace it with, no social theory to back up that revolution and as such the end result must be tyranny--and that is assuming that tyranny would arise as a natural consequence.

I read a quote this morning that said something to the effect of people who have no history will likewise have no future. I think that is worth pondering on.

[David Horn]

(08-18-2017, 07:04 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 02:26 PM)noway2 Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 02:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: If your argument rests on these "historical monuments" then you're already on shaky ground.  These were, for the most part, the products of unreconstructed Confederates and their kin, and intended to make the point that the Southern white man was still king in the South.  Most were erected in the early 20th century, not immediately after the ACW.  Their historical import is dubious, unless it's intended to remind everyone of segregation and, oh yeah, lynchings.

I'm not entirely certain what you mean by on shaky ground.  If you're trying to claim that these blacks and their white snowflake lackeys that are committing vandalism have some sort of moral high ground for their actions, you would be grossly mistaken.  They are, however, running the risk of getting put down, hard, as other people are taking great offense to the desecration. The biggest thing preventing it is that the unlike this crowd, some people have jobs and obligations.

I can't speak for my entire race, but this black man agrees with you.  I oppose the destruction of monuments to the Confederacy, not because I support it, or slavery or even the racist institutions of the past.  Rather, I oppose their destruction out of the fear that it will not stop with them.  Already these imbeciles have moved from Lee and Stonewall Jackson to Lincoln, and they will move on to Jefferson and Washington too.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...ghborhood/

These people think that they can have a revolution, one in which the destruction of everything from before that revolution is required.  However, they have no economic theory to replace it with, no social theory to back up that revolution and as such the end result must be tyranny--and that is assuming that tyranny would arise as a natural consequence.

Nonsense.  There is little to no historical value in these monuments, and I live in Monuments Central.  If you look around the South, there are no monuments (or very few) to any other war or its veterans.  It's all about the Lost Cause.  Sorry, but I have no sympathy on this issue.  The argument that Washington and Jefferson are next (and, presumably, Madison and Monroe as well) just doesn't hold up.

[David Horn]

(08-18-2017, 07:14 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 04:03 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 09:14 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: On the old forum I had posed the question of what event might be a trigger for this 4T as Harper's Ferry was to the Civil War 4T. Could the events in Charlottesville this past weekend be the one? After all, they both occurred within the same state.

I'd suggest a trigger in a military crisis would be the event that sends a lot of young to the recruiting center.  In the Civil War, by that standard, Fort Sumter would be the trigger.  Modern Charlottesville would not be.

But there are 'catalyst' events and markers which escalate tensions and demonstrate how some people feel about issues without being the immediate cause of open conflict.  Modern Charlottesville, Harper's Ferry and the election of Lincoln could easily be given the catalyst tag.  Generally, you don't get to the trigger without a number of catalysts first.

2005:  Katrina demonstrates that the government, at least the federal one is ineffective at responding to natural disaster.
2008-2012:  Economic crisis demonstrates that Keynesian economics can't address the economy.
2010-2016:  Break down of the Boomer political order.
2016:  Election of Trump can be likened to the election of Lincoln.  Indeed being that he's over 70 he perfectly fits the gray champion expectation.  I would liken Obama to at best a Buchanan figure.  The unrest if it doesn't erupt into civil war will ensure that he's a two termed president.

You want to find a Harper's Ferry?  I would suggest to you that Pulse filled that role.  After all I can't tell you how many gay men I know who were going to go third party (they didn't like HRC anyway but voting GOP was unthinkable) until that happened.  When the I-4 corridor goes red the Dims are in trouble.

For well over 40 years, the GOP has worked tirelessly to neuter the Federal government, and they've mostly succeeded.  It's disingenuous to bitch about an ineffective government your adopted party has created by intent.

Next, you'll be telling us that the guy who killed his parents needs to be given consideration for being an orphan.

[David Horn]

(08-18-2017, 09:50 AM)noway2 Wrote:

(08-18-2017, 07:04 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: These people think that they can have a revolution, one in which the destruction of everything from before that revolution is required.  However, they have no economic theory to replace it with, no social theory to back up that revolution and as such the end result must be tyranny--and that is assuming that tyranny would arise as a natural consequence.

I read a quote this morning that said something to the effect of people who have no history will likewise have no future.  I think that is worth pondering on.

That's funny.  I'm part of the last set of cohorts who were really drilled on history in school.  I know that, because my wife, 12.5 years my junior, didn't get that drilling.  Surprise! It happened when the "Moral Majority" whined about all those liberal teachers and their indoctirination, which lead to a massive dumbing-down of the history curriculum almost everywhere.  Now you want to complain?  Really?