JoeB131
Diamond Member
They didn't in the city of Seattle, Lenin's statue still stands proudly in the public park there.
Was Seattle occupied by Soviet Troops? (Then again, why would they want it?)
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They didn't in the city of Seattle, Lenin's statue still stands proudly in the public park there.
They didn't in the city of Seattle, Lenin's statue still stands proudly in the public park there.
Was Seattle occupied by Soviet Troops? (Then again, why would they want it?)
Actually, the people of Seattle thought it was a great idea due to their support of Lenin's Liberal ideals
Names and dates, please, or this is a wild speculation.The liberals are busy destroying this country and everyone lets them.
A bullet in Memphis ended that debate ! He may have been a womanizer, But womanizing was an accepted part of Black Culture in the 60's. He probably banged some white girls too ! A statue for another dead guy big deal!
Its occupied by Boeing! bwhaaaa! They have a statue of Stalin!They didn't in the city of Seattle, Lenin's statue still stands proudly in the public park there.
Was Seattle occupied by Soviet Troops? (Then again, why would they want it?)
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." MLK
If he was a womanizer, then clearly he had some character issues. He himself dreamed of, and asked to be judged by the content of his character.
again, the problem with the "womanizer" thing is that all the women he slept with knew he was married and slept with him anyway, because it was the 1960's and that's what people did.
If everyone involved is a consenting adult, I might not approve, but it's really not my business....
He made some promises to his wife when he got married...he broke them. You don't think breaking solem promises is a character issue?
[
SSD, the libbies have zero standards. They cannot possibly bring themselves to terms with the real world. They like their little false narrative lives and think everyone else should, too. Oh, and JoeB131 is one of the most extreme of them all and is proud of it. Trying to reason with him is like stepping on a snare that leaves its victim upside down, hanging from a tree with a bearclaw clamp on one foot that leaves you dangling from the high tree you didn't notice before, and by one foot, too. You'll learn. Which reminds me, it's time to put JoeB back on my ignore list. <giggle>
Nope. And funny you guys don't hold Trump to the same standard.
I see why you might reject the notion of being judged on the content of one's character...You wouldn't fare well under such a system would you? Were you born with the obvious character flaws, or were they instilled within you by your upbringing...always an interesting question.
Of course it is rhetorical at best, since you couldn't have an honest discussion on the topic...I would wager that to you, honesty is as quaint, and outdated as fidelity, or any other behavior based on a moral code..
And by the way....Trump is a dirt ball..but then, he never presented himself as anything else. He offered himself up as a dirt ball who knew how to create jobs, reduce the tax burden on those in this nation who produce, and one who would put the interests of his own nation ahead of the interests of any other nation...that is what he got hired for...not his morals.
King on the other hand actually tacked the title of reverend to his name...identifying yourself as such carries with it certain moral obligations which may, or may not have ever registered in your mind depending on whether you were born leaning towards sociopathy or whether it is the product of your upbringing.
And if you knew history, you would know that democrats lied their way into their fair share of wars as well...selective condemnation...typical anti social trait.
I see why you might reject the notion of being judged on the content of one's character...You wouldn't fare well under such a system would you? Were you born with the obvious character flaws, or were they instilled within you by your upbringing...always an interesting question.
Ummmm...okay, is this going to be one of those discussions were you twist logic on it's head and claim that 95% of Climate scientists are all lying?
Funny thing, I was brought up by religious fanatics... which is why I reject such false moralizing. I don't know what kind of relationship Dr. King and his wife had. Most of these stories of womanizing came out long after he was dead. I also realize, at the end of the day, I don't really care.
Of course it is rhetorical at best, since you couldn't have an honest discussion on the topic...I would wager that to you, honesty is as quaint, and outdated as fidelity, or any other behavior based on a moral code..
My moral code is based on logic, reason and a lack religious nonsense. The problem is, at some point, we conflated morality with religion.
And by the way....Trump is a dirt ball..but then, he never presented himself as anything else. He offered himself up as a dirt ball who knew how to create jobs, reduce the tax burden on those in this nation who produce, and one who would put the interests of his own nation ahead of the interests of any other nation...that is what he got hired for...not his morals.
Well, no, he didn't get hired.. because the PEOPLE SAID NO! Loudly. By three million votes. But the amusing thing is that as long as he promises to oppress women and minorities and gays, the right has no problem with him, which is why I take their claims of "morality" with a grain of salt.
King on the other hand actually tacked the title of reverend to his name...identifying yourself as such carries with it certain moral obligations which may, or may not have ever registered in your mind depending on whether you were born leaning towards sociopathy or whether it is the product of your upbringing.
Funny, I rarely heard him referred to as "Reverend" King. I've usually heard him referred to as "Doctor" King. Of course, he had these titles because he was an ordained minister and a Doctor of Theology. .
None of which has anything to do with whether or not he had relationships outside of his marriage.
And if you knew history, you would know that democrats lied their way into their fair share of wars as well...selective condemnation...typical anti social trait.
No, not really. Let's look at this.
World War I- Um, no, the Germans really were sinking our ships.
World War II- Um, no, the Japanese really did bomb Pearl Harbor.
Korea- Um, no, the North Koreans really did cross the DMZ.
So none of these involved a "lie" by Democrats.
You MIGHT be able to stretch the Gulf of Tonkin incident into a "lie", I guess, but we were already knee deep in Vietnam long before LBJ got there...
My main problem with WWII is that it was caused not by FDR's lies, but by his incompetence.
If America had built up its army and navy capabilities in the 1930's, instead of wasting billions on the Roosevelt Raw Deal programs, Hitler would have never tried to pull the shit he did. The German Fuhrer would have said "fuck the Holocaust, America will not tolerate this for a second." Hitler may have easily switched gears and decided to Make Germany Great Again, instead of making it the living hell hole he did.
People think that a good military costs money, and in a sense it does. But in another sense, it is like Preventive Maintenance. If America would have had a top flight Army and Navy, we could have avoided 400,000 + deaths and countless billions in expenses, expenses that keep coming as WWII widows are still being paid to this date.
Um. No. NOthing the US could have done would have prevented WWII.
Think, Joe, for just a second.
If Hitler saw from his Fuhrer Bunker in Berlin that America was not a country to be trifled with, he would have never even started the Holocaust. Hitler was not stupid, he had to know America wasn't going to put up with that shit.
Ummmm...okay, is this going to be one of those discussions were you twist logic on it's head and claim that 95% of Climate scientists are all lying?
My moral code is based on logic, reason and a lack religious nonsense. The problem is, at some point, we conflated morality with religion.
Well, no, he didn't get hired.. because the PEOPLE SAID NO! Loudly. By three million votes. But the amusing thing is that as long as he promises to oppress women and minorities and gays, the right has no problem with him, which is why I take their claims of "morality" with a grain of salt.
Funny, I rarely heard him referred to as "Reverend" King. I've usually heard him referred to as "Doctor" King. Of course, he had these titles because he was an ordained minister and a Doctor of Theology. .
I MIGHT be able to stretch the Gulf of Tonkin incident into a "lie", I guess, but we were already knee deep in Vietnam long before LBJ got there...
Actually, I just asked for observed, measured evidence to support the claims...that is what critical thinkers do...
in either case, you reject any set of ethical standards simply because you know instinctively that you could never measure up to them...and rather than admit that, you fall in with a political party which also rejects any sort of ethical standard, and claims that all points of view are equally valid, and whatever a person chooses to do is his on good and no one should question or judge it...
And yet more emotional thinking...A logical, critical thinker would accept the way the electoral votes fell...and not go into a pissing and whining fit because the vote didn't go his way...
Who proceeded LBJ? Wasn't he a democrat as well? Yet another failure to think critically.
yeah, we've heard it before, boring... 95% of scientists who are experts in this stuff are wrong and you are right. Got it. Moving along.
Blah, blah, blah.... when your side lives up to your ethical standards, then you can come back and talk to me about mine. when you support a president who cheated on all three of his wives, and paid off porn stars for their silence, and then throws children into concentration camps, you kind of don't have any business talking to anyone else about ethical standards.
The vote totally went my way... then this archaic institution that has been largely ignored for most of our history said, 'Nope, we're giving it to the game show host, even though there's evidence he colluded with the Russians." The people got this right. They saw Trump was unfit for office and voted accordingly. The people were ignored, and now your side keeps trying to claim "this is normal' or "this is okay".
Actually, the guy who got us into Vietnam was Eisenhower... (whom I usually have a lot of respect for). After Truman had the good sense NOT to bail out the French, Ike went full bore into supporting the Quisling Regime in Saigon.
Actually, I just asked for observed, measured evidence to support the claims...
Blah, blah, blah.... when your side lives up to your ethical standards, then you can come back and talk to me about mine.
And still more logical fallacy.....do you see a pattern developing here? You are an emotional, political thinker who is driven by motivations that you can't even identify..
WW1 - Woodrow Wilson - Democrat. WWII, Franklin D. Roosevelt, D. Korea - Harry Truman-D.
And you obviously never really spent much time actually looking at the Vietnam war...Eisenhower refused to commit troops to the Franco Vietnamese war.. He went so far as to authorize money to aid the french, but never sent any Americans...And when the french surrendered, He lent support to Ngo Dinh Diem to consolidate power in Saigon...