CDZ How the internet is destroying us

[Circe]

... in order to actually make a revolution work you need more than just communications and some dedicated radicals. You need a cause that resonates with ordinary people. Religion plays a factor as you noted but it was basic rights violations that brought about the Arab Spring. Many of the causes I listed in my prior post only resonate within a group of like minded people and will never rise to the level of a revolution because ordinary people just don't care enough about those issues.

You are more optimistic than I am. My reading says the revolutions in both Tunisia and Egypt sprang from reductions in government subsidy of basic food and fuel supplies. And were headed by relatively liberal persons at first, after which they reverted to Muslim fundamentalist radicals.

I read a lot about the French Revolution, and the same pattern is seen there: terrible problems with food supply for YEARS during the revolution, and moderates were quickly overwhelmed (and guillotined) by radicals with the most murderous and ludicrous ideas that were popularized in a blizzard of propaganda leaflets and literally dozens of daily and weekly "newspapers" put out by the radicals. The French Revolution has taught me a lot about Free Speech --- namely, if you broadcast urgings to the population to kill thousands of people, they always, always go do just that. As when the Hutus listened to radio urgings to kill all the Tutsis, and then they chopped them all up with machetes, women, children, their neighbors, everyone. Same with the French Revolution. People become very afraid not to be like the radicals, or they'll be killed and dispossessed, too.

So the internet is really a clearing house for ideas and opinions. As far as being able to pick winners and losers I think that you can see that more clearly if you look at the crowd funding web sites. What works is what resonates. Some radical(s) can bang their personal conviction drum 24*7 for years on end and no one will respond because it doesn't matter one iota to the vast majority who hear and see it.

I don't know -- maybe when people have to put money down, it's different. The Wall Street Journal is saying that this new crowd-sourcing thing is funding pretty much everything. Some of it doesn't work, or is bad, I bet. I'm watching it ----

I think the Mob is very powerful, and very easily led. And that's what we have going on right now with the radicals who understand and control public opinion and public shaming on the Internet.

 

[ChrisL]

... in order to actually make a revolution work you need more than just communications and some dedicated radicals. You need a cause that resonates with ordinary people. Religion plays a factor as you noted but it was basic rights violations that brought about the Arab Spring. Many of the causes I listed in my prior post only resonate within a group of like minded people and will never rise to the level of a revolution because ordinary people just don't care enough about those issues.

You are more optimistic than I am. My reading says the revolutions in both Tunisia and Egypt sprang from reductions in government subsidy of basic food and fuel supplies. And were headed by relatively liberal persons at first, after which they reverted to Muslim fundamentalist radicals.

I read a lot about the French Revolution, and the same pattern is seen there: terrible problems with food supply for YEARS during the revolution, and moderates were quickly overwhelmed (and guillotined) by radicals with the most murderous and ludicrous ideas that were popularized in a blizzard of propaganda leaflets and literally dozens of daily and weekly "newspapers" put out by the radicals. The French Revolution has taught me a lot about Free Speech --- namely, if you broadcast urgings to the population to kill thousands of people, they always, always go do just that. As when the Hutus listened to radio urgings to kill all the Tutsis, and then they chopped them all up with machetes, women, children, their neighbors, everyone. Same with the French Revolution. People become very afraid not to be like the radicals, or they'll be killed and dispossessed, too.

So the internet is really a clearing house for ideas and opinions. As far as being able to pick winners and losers I think that you can see that more clearly if you look at the crowd funding web sites. What works is what resonates. Some radical(s) can bang their personal conviction drum 24*7 for years on end and no one will respond because it doesn't matter one iota to the vast majority who hear and see it.

I don't know -- maybe when people have to put money down, it's different. The Wall Street Journal is saying that this new crowd-sourcing thing is funding pretty much everything. Some of it doesn't work, or is bad, I bet. I'm watching it ----

I think the Mob is very powerful, and very easily led. And that's what we have going on right now with the radicals who understand and control public opinion and public shaming on the Internet.

Where ever there is extreme poverty, there is going to be civil unrest. History has proven this time and time again, as well as current events . . . look at Africa. The ME dictators like to blame the United States and other countries, so that the people focus on US instead of the true culprits.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I don't see how anyone can consider the founders as radical. That is silly. They came here to escape tyranny and England decided it was going to bully them anyway. They pretty much followed the settlers to harass them with taxes and to claim America. The founders, et al, were protecting themselves against tyranny from a monarchy. They were trying to take over and force unfair taxes and laws upon the people. That is more like self defense, IMO. That is MUCH different from what is going on today in some Muslim countries. They are the ones who want to oppress people with their Sharia laws. They aren't fighting a war against tyranny . . . they are trying to make tyranny.

It is all just a matter of perspective. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. For instance during the Apartheid regime the ANC was labeled as a "terrorist organization with communist ties". Today it is the ruling party in a nation where people are no longer oppressed because of their race. Was Nelson Mandela a radical terrorist or was he someone who fought for the freedom of millions of people?

The Founding Fathers were radicals from the perspective of the English. The phrase that if they didn't hang together they would surely hang separately was based upon the reality that they were putting their own lives on the line. That is a radical position under any circumstances. And yes, deciding to abandon their English citizenship and found a new nation on a shoe string against the superpower of the day was extremely radical.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't see how anyone can consider the founders as radical. That is silly. They came here to escape tyranny and England decided it was going to bully them anyway. They pretty much followed the settlers to harass them with taxes and to claim America. The founders, et al, were protecting themselves against tyranny from a monarchy. They were trying to take over and force unfair taxes and laws upon the people. That is more like self defense, IMO. That is MUCH different from what is going on today in some Muslim countries. They are the ones who want to oppress people with their Sharia laws. They aren't fighting a war against tyranny . . . they are trying to make tyranny.

It is all just a matter of perspective. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. For instance during the Apartheid regime the ANC was labeled as a "terrorist organization with communist ties". Today it is the ruling party in a nation where people are no longer oppressed because of their race. Was Nelson Mandela a radical terrorist or was he someone who fought for the freedom of millions of people?

The Founding Fathers were radicals from the perspective of the English. The phrase that if they didn't hang together they would surely hang separately was based upon the reality that they were putting their own lives on the line. That is a radical position under any circumstances.

Sure, agreed, but that is not what the radical Muslims are fighting for. Most of them fight because they are brainwashed by their leaders and imams to believe that the cause of all their problems is the United States, and others. The dictators totally take advantage of this. If they don't blame us, then it becomes their problem. The radical Muslims are not fighting for freedom from tyranny. They are fighting for their ideology and they WANT to oppress anyone who disagrees with their ideology. I think that much is obvious anyway. We are the perfect scapegoats. That is just one reason why we should not get involved in their issues. It's hard though. I hear things that make me wish we could go there to protect people, but it's very self-destructive to the United States to get involved no matter what happens, IMO.

 

[Circe]

The Founding Fathers were radicals from the perspective of the English. The phrase that if they didn't hang together they would surely hang separately was based upon the reality that they were putting their own lives on the line. That is a radical position under any circumstances. And yes, deciding to abandon their English citizenship and found a new nation on a shoe string against the superpower of the day was extremely radical.

Huh --- I wonder if they were considered radicals at the time? I stay away from American history (I'm from Maryland, so I'd drown if I started) so I don't know. It doesn't seem especially radical to me to want independence from a smaller Mother Country. India did, too. I'm only surprised that Canada and Australia didn't get independence sooner --- they were much smaller, of course.

The French Revolution was certainly started by moderates. All in the world they wanted was a constitutional monarch like Britain!! Boy, that sure changed fast --- pretty soon others promoted a Republic, then proto-communism, outlawing Christianity (Robespierre wanted to substitute a Supreme Being, with him as Pope: that was a bridge too far for him and people started laughing at him and he was soon dead) -- new calendar, new money, no aristos, everyone "Citizen," change in dress, everything. Wild changes. That is what has happened to us with the Internet: the rise of homosexuality, the current radical rise of transsexualism. Wild, wild changes. Once radicals get hold of a new communication method, and they sure have, the sky is the limit. There is no limit.

 

[Derideo_Te]

... in order to actually make a revolution work you need more than just communications and some dedicated radicals. You need a cause that resonates with ordinary people. Religion plays a factor as you noted but it was basic rights violations that brought about the Arab Spring. Many of the causes I listed in my prior post only resonate within a group of like minded people and will never rise to the level of a revolution because ordinary people just don't care enough about those issues.

You are more optimistic than I am. My reading says the revolutions in both Tunisia and Egypt sprang from reductions in government subsidy of basic food and fuel supplies. And were headed by relatively liberal persons at first, after which they reverted to Muslim fundamentalist radicals.

I read a lot about the French Revolution, and the same pattern is seen there: terrible problems with food supply for YEARS during the revolution, and moderates were quickly overwhelmed (and guillotined) by radicals with the most murderous and ludicrous ideas that were popularized in a blizzard of propaganda leaflets and literally dozens of daily and weekly "newspapers" put out by the radicals. The French Revolution has taught me a lot about Free Speech --- namely, if you broadcast urgings to the population to kill thousands of people, they always, always go do just that. As when the Hutus listened to radio urgings to kill all the Tutsis, and then they chopped them all up with machetes, women, children, their neighbors, everyone. Same with the French Revolution. People become very afraid not to be like the radicals, or they'll be killed and dispossessed, too.

So the internet is really a clearing house for ideas and opinions. As far as being able to pick winners and losers I think that you can see that more clearly if you look at the crowd funding web sites. What works is what resonates. Some radical(s) can bang their personal conviction drum 24*7 for years on end and no one will respond because it doesn't matter one iota to the vast majority who hear and see it.

I don't know -- maybe when people have to put money down, it's different. The Wall Street Journal is saying that this new crowd-sourcing thing is funding pretty much everything. Some of it doesn't work, or is bad, I bet. I'm watching it ----

I think the Mob is very powerful, and very easily led. And that's what we have going on right now with the radicals who understand and control public opinion and public shaming on the Internet.

I think that you are confusing cause and effect. What incites a revolution is not necessarily what subsequently transpires. The Russian revolution was started by the middle class but it was usurped by the communists. When there is a lack of law and order because the existing regime has been overthrown there is a power vacuum and whichever group is best organized usually prevails. Consider the Greek civil war following the withdrawal of the Nazi occupiers. It would probably have gone communist had it not been for the intervention of the British.

Simply because the outcome is different doesn't alter the original motivations.

 

[ChrisL]

... in order to actually make a revolution work you need more than just communications and some dedicated radicals. You need a cause that resonates with ordinary people. Religion plays a factor as you noted but it was basic rights violations that brought about the Arab Spring. Many of the causes I listed in my prior post only resonate within a group of like minded people and will never rise to the level of a revolution because ordinary people just don't care enough about those issues.

You are more optimistic than I am. My reading says the revolutions in both Tunisia and Egypt sprang from reductions in government subsidy of basic food and fuel supplies. And were headed by relatively liberal persons at first, after which they reverted to Muslim fundamentalist radicals.

I read a lot about the French Revolution, and the same pattern is seen there: terrible problems with food supply for YEARS during the revolution, and moderates were quickly overwhelmed (and guillotined) by radicals with the most murderous and ludicrous ideas that were popularized in a blizzard of propaganda leaflets and literally dozens of daily and weekly "newspapers" put out by the radicals. The French Revolution has taught me a lot about Free Speech --- namely, if you broadcast urgings to the population to kill thousands of people, they always, always go do just that. As when the Hutus listened to radio urgings to kill all the Tutsis, and then they chopped them all up with machetes, women, children, their neighbors, everyone. Same with the French Revolution. People become very afraid not to be like the radicals, or they'll be killed and dispossessed, too.

So the internet is really a clearing house for ideas and opinions. As far as being able to pick winners and losers I think that you can see that more clearly if you look at the crowd funding web sites. What works is what resonates. Some radical(s) can bang their personal conviction drum 24*7 for years on end and no one will respond because it doesn't matter one iota to the vast majority who hear and see it.

I don't know -- maybe when people have to put money down, it's different. The Wall Street Journal is saying that this new crowd-sourcing thing is funding pretty much everything. Some of it doesn't work, or is bad, I bet. I'm watching it ----

I think the Mob is very powerful, and very easily led. And that's what we have going on right now with the radicals who understand and control public opinion and public shaming on the Internet.

I think that you are confusing cause and effect. What incites a revolution is not necessarily what subsequently transpires. The Russian revolution was started by the middle class but it was usurped by the communists. When there is a lack of law and order because the existing regime has been overthrown there is a power vacuum and whichever group is best organized usually prevails. Consider the Greek civil war following the withdrawal of the Nazi occupiers. It would probably have gone communist had it not been for the intervention of the British.

Simply because the outcome is different doesn't alter the original motivations.

That's a good point too. Whenever there is civil unrest, there is the possibility of an even more "evil" (for lack of a better word) faction taking over. This is why I was so against us being involved in the Syrian conflict. If we are to be honest, we really didn't know which side would be better, and considering the fact that some of these ISIS people came from Syria originally, I think that bolsters my beliefs to begin with that we shouldn't have been involved in any way. It just gives them more ammo against the United States.

 

[Derideo_Te]

That is what has happened to us with the Internet: the rise of homosexuality, the current radical rise of transsexualism. Wild, wild changes. Once radicals get hold of a new communication method, and they sure have, the sky is the limit. There is no limit.

The acceptance of homosexuality was inevitable. The internet might have accelerated that somewhat but it was going to happen anyway. Gays began "coming out of the closet" long before the internet came into being. The "moral majority" already had their panties in a twist about gays without the benefit of email or Google. In some ways their opposition to gays is what provided the fuel for gays to start being more open.

But no, the internet was not the cause of extending basic civil rights to gays. That was just the next logical step after women and minorities.

 

[SAYIT]

That's a good point too. Whenever there is civil unrest, there is the possibility of an even more "evil" (for lack of a better word) faction taking over. This is why I was so against us being involved in the Syrian conflict. If we are to be honest, we really didn't know which side would be better, and considering the fact that some of these ISIS people came from Syria originally, I think that bolsters my beliefs to begin with that we shouldn't have been involved in any way. It just gives them more ammo against the United States.

Your assessment is logical but for 2 things ...
1) for many valid reasons America, like it or not, is the world's policeman and, believe it of not, the voice of global rationality.
2) we have interests in the Mideast ... mainly maintaining the flow of relatively cheap oil.
You may quibble with those facts but they are facts.

 

[ChrisL]

That's a good point too. Whenever there is civil unrest, there is the possibility of an even more "evil" (for lack of a better word) faction taking over. This is why I was so against us being involved in the Syrian conflict. If we are to be honest, we really didn't know which side would be better, and considering the fact that some of these ISIS people came from Syria originally, I think that bolsters my beliefs to begin with that we shouldn't have been involved in any way. It just gives them more ammo against the United States.

Your assessment is logical but for 2 things ...
1) for many valid reasons America, like it or not, is the world's policeman and, believe it of not, the voice of global rationality.
2) we have interests in the Mideast ... mainly maintaining the flow of relatively cheap oil.
You may quibble with those facts but they are facts.

Yes, I totally understand that, and it really sucks. I don't know why it is always up to the United States to be the world's sugar daddy. People expect us to sacrifice our people and our money, and what do WE get out of it? Hatred and disdain. I'm more than willing to let someone else do it. And really, what good is the UN? At one point, it served a purpose but now . . . what a USELESS organization. We really have some big problems to sort out, IMO.

 

[Circe]

[

When there is a lack of law and order because the existing regime has been overthrown there is a power vacuum and whichever group is best organized usually prevails.

Yes, a prime example for me is that during the 19th century the communists overwhelmed the anarchists -------- the anarchists didn't believe in organization! Whereas the communists were excellent at it.

I think some of these groups -- the homosexual advocacy group, notably -- are real REAL well organized to use the Internet to change everything. The mainstream culture has no defense against this.

 

[Circe]

The acceptance of homosexuality was inevitable. The internet might have accelerated that somewhat but it was going to happen anyway. Gays began "coming out of the closet" long before the internet came into being. The "moral majority" already had their panties in a twist about gays without the benefit of email or Google. In some ways their opposition to gays is what provided the fuel for gays to start being more open.

But no, the internet was not the cause of extending basic civil rights to gays. That was just the next logical step after women and minorities.

Hmmmm. I think you are right -- it got started in the late 70s and early 80s. Okay.

 

[Circe]

Yes, I totally understand that, and it really sucks. I don't know why it is always up to the United States to be the world's sugar daddy. People expect us to sacrifice our people and our money, and what do WE get out of it? Hatred and disdain. I'm more than willing to let someone else do it. And really, what good is the UN? At one point, it served a purpose but now . . . what a USELESS organization. We really have some big problems to sort out, IMO.

What we get out of our foreign power projection, with all the foreign bases we maintain to enforce it, is no World War III. After WWII we realized that either we would continue to be dragged into everyone else's big wars (because they had to: we were too strong to ignore or else they needed us) OR we could stop these wars from starting. Either, or. So we became the world's policeman, purely in self-defense so they wouldn't keep starting wars we had to join. Seventy years, and it has worked great.

As for the UN, it's very useful: whenever no great power wants to bother with some nonsense somewhere not important, like in Congo, or Chad, we send "UN peacekeeping forces." They don't do anything to stop the fighting, usually, but it stops people whining about it. The UN is a way not to have to do anything.

When the Great Powers want to actually make something happen, they use their own national forces.

 

[ChrisL]

Yes, I totally understand that, and it really sucks. I don't know why it is always up to the United States to be the world's sugar daddy. People expect us to sacrifice our people and our money, and what do WE get out of it? Hatred and disdain. I'm more than willing to let someone else do it. And really, what good is the UN? At one point, it served a purpose but now . . . what a USELESS organization. We really have some big problems to sort out, IMO.

What we get out of our foreign power projection, with all the foreign bases we maintain to enforce it, is no World War III. After WWII we realized that either we would continue to be dragged into everyone else's big wars (because they had to: we were too strong to ignore or else they needed us) OR we could stop these wars from starting. Either, or. So we became the world's policeman, purely in self-defense so they wouldn't keep starting wars we had to join. Seventy years, and it has worked great.

As for the UN, it's very useful: whenever no great power wants to bother with some nonsense somewhere not important, like in Congo, or Chad, we send "UN peacekeeping forces." They don't do anything to stop the fighting, usually, but it stops people whining about it. The UN is a way not to have to do anything.

When the Great Powers want to actually make something happen, they use their own national forces.

Yes, the UN is a great pacifier. I think we need to have a UN made up of coalition forces that actually DO something with all the member countries contributing. That way, it's not always on the United States. I'm tired of playing the world's policeman role, and I know I'm not the only one. I want to let other countries get involved instead. Perhaps then they wouldn't be so quick to blame us for all the world's problems. I'm tired of my country being used as a scapegoat.

 

[Circe]

I think we need to have a UN made up of coalition forces that actually DO something with all the member countries contributing. That way, it's not always on the United States. I'm tired of playing the world's policeman role, and I know I'm not the only one. I want to let other countries get involved instead. Perhaps then they wouldn't be so quick to blame us for all the world's problems. I'm tired of my country being used as a scapegoat.

I'm all for isolationism, but what you describe is One World Government. A UN government over us, over all the Great Powers, that could tell us what to do.

I don't think any of the Great Powers will put up with that. America certainly won't. Any difference of opinion between the UN and the U.S., such as when they voted against us going to war in Iraq, we win by simply doing what suits us. The UN was designed to be powerless, to be a Talk Shop, basically to fool less sophisticated people into supposing it matters. But it doesn't.

 

[ChrisL]

I think we need to have a UN made up of coalition forces that actually DO something with all the member countries contributing. That way, it's not always on the United States. I'm tired of playing the world's policeman role, and I know I'm not the only one. I want to let other countries get involved instead. Perhaps then they wouldn't be so quick to blame us for all the world's problems. I'm tired of my country being used as a scapegoat.

I'm all for isolationism, but what you describe is One World Government. A UN government over us, over all the Great Powers, that could tell us what to do.

I don't think any of the Great Powers will put up with that. America certainly won't. Any difference of opinion between the UN and the U.S., such as when they voted against us going to war in Iraq, we win by simply doing what suits us. The UN was designed to be powerless, to be a Talk Shop, basically to fool less sophisticated people into supposing it matters. But it doesn't.

Not really. What I would like to see is, when there is a problem dictator or country or war, whatever the case may be, for ALL countries who are UN members to participate in resolution, or war if need be. It's not fair that it's always on us. We sacrifice our blood and our money while other countries criticize us. They should have to be a part of it too, when it is a situation such as in Syria or like what happened in Libya. Sure, we get some help or support from other countries sometimes, but we seem to be the main factor. I'm just tired of it.

 

[Circe]

Not really. What I would like to see is, when there is a problem dictator or country or war, whatever the case may be, for ALL countries who are UN members to participate in resolution, or war if need be. It's not fair that it's always on us. We sacrifice our blood and our money while other countries criticize us. They should have to be a part of it too, when it is a situation such as in Syria or like what happened in Libya. Sure, we get some help or support from other countries sometimes, but we seem to be the main factor. I'm just tired of it.

Most Americans feel that way, and I think the government is sensitive to it ---- we are NOT making war on Syria, note, and in fact the Obama administration quite abruptly backed down from that -- the "red line" we let them cross. Nor are we dealing further with Libya, which is in a state of total chaos right now, complete anarchy, I read.
AND we are getting a deal with Iran that lets them nuke up. To Israel's extreme upset: they want us to do the warmaking on their enemy, of course, "Let's you and him fight!" But we are refusing to treat Israel as the 51st state and leaving them to defend themselves as best they can.
We don't make war when American interests are not involved and the conflict isn't likely to develop into wider war that will drag us in.
I think everyone is upset because we had two very long losing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which were dumb and pointless in addition to losing them. So now we are isolationist again, as after the similar losing and pointless war in Vietnam. We were war-averse for 30 years that time; the world is so unsettled now I don't hope for that long this time.

 

[ChrisL]

Not really. What I would like to see is, when there is a problem dictator or country or war, whatever the case may be, for ALL countries who are UN members to participate in resolution, or war if need be. It's not fair that it's always on us. We sacrifice our blood and our money while other countries criticize us. They should have to be a part of it too, when it is a situation such as in Syria or like what happened in Libya. Sure, we get some help or support from other countries sometimes, but we seem to be the main factor. I'm just tired of it.

Most Americans feel that way, and I think the government is sensitive to it ---- we are NOT making war on Syria, note, and in fact the Obama administration quite abruptly backed down from that -- the "red line" we let them cross. Nor are we dealing further with Libya, which is in a state of total chaos right now, complete anarchy, I read.
AND we are getting a deal with Iran that lets them nuke up. To Israel's extreme upset: they want us to do the warmaking on their enemy, of course, "Let's you and him fight!" But we are refusing to treat Israel as the 51st state and leaving them to defend themselves as best they can.
We don't make war when American interests are not involved and the conflict isn't likely to develop into wider war that will drag us in.
I think everyone is upset because we had two very long losing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which were dumb and pointless in addition to losing them. So now we are isolationist again, as after the similar losing and pointless war in Vietnam. We were war-averse for 30 years that time; the world is so unsettled now I don't hope for that long this time.

I believe we gave them weapons and aid. We need to stop doing that. We cannot pick sides, when we really have no idea what will happen. That is how Al Qaeda started . . . with the United States trying to "help."

 

[beagle9]

Not really. What I would like to see is, when there is a problem dictator or country or war, whatever the case may be, for ALL countries who are UN members to participate in resolution, or war if need be. It's not fair that it's always on us. We sacrifice our blood and our money while other countries criticize us. They should have to be a part of it too, when it is a situation such as in Syria or like what happened in Libya. Sure, we get some help or support from other countries sometimes, but we seem to be the main factor. I'm just tired of it.

Most Americans feel that way, and I think the government is sensitive to it ---- we are NOT making war on Syria, note, and in fact the Obama administration quite abruptly backed down from that -- the "red line" we let them cross. Nor are we dealing further with Libya, which is in a state of total chaos right now, complete anarchy, I read.
AND we are getting a deal with Iran that lets them nuke up. To Israel's extreme upset: they want us to do the warmaking on their enemy, of course, "Let's you and him fight!" But we are refusing to treat Israel as the 51st state and leaving them to defend themselves as best they can.
We don't make war when American interests are not involved and the conflict isn't likely to develop into wider war that will drag us in.
I think everyone is upset because we had two very long losing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which were dumb and pointless in addition to losing them. So now we are isolationist again, as after the similar losing and pointless war in Vietnam. We were war-averse for 30 years that time; the world is so unsettled now I don't hope for that long this time.

Look to your leaders in which you elected, and then look to the changing of the generations, and you will see the volatile mixture that has taken place in it all. The only thing that we are not doing is learning from our mistakes anymore, and that is a very dangerous thing for this nation as we are seeing. As long as we have idiots running the show, then more Americans will die in vain, so keep ready for more shock and awe against the American interest in the world, and against the Americans sadly by other Americans right back here at home.

 

[HenryBHough]

We can never be safe from ourselves until every website is licensed after rigorous inspection by a federal agency and the content approved. Ditto participation in any discussion website. All posts subject to prior approval for accuracy and balance.

Of course there should never be any fee associated with any of that; it would discriminate against the less financially productive.