A Modest Proposal for a Culture of Civility

[Picaro]

Can't bring yourself to admit you're a racist POS, can you? Most of your ilk can't, at least not in public, just in your little clubhouses.

^wants Muslims banned. Calls me racist [/QUOTE]

Now the programming in his head has him thinking Muslims are a race. Hilarious.

 

[NightFox]

Here's the bottom line: It's become cultural. It has metastasized And once it gets to that point, removing the cancer from the patient is damn difficult.

I hope you're right, I just don't see it happening.
.

Probably not going to happen, internal division and irreconcilable differences are one of the hallmarks of nation states in decline, lots of reasons but the most obvious are (as you pointed out) it's to the benefit of the political class to keep the citizenry divided against itself (makes it more difficult for 'em to figure out that the politicians are screwing them), inequity of power leads to a feeling of powerlessness among the working class and race/sex/cultural/etc differences become sharper and thus more exploitable as a tool of division.

The nation state has never proven to be a very scalable model and it breaks under the strain of cultural diversity, centralization of power and geographic dispersion.

"The most worthless of mankind are not afraid to condemn in others the same disorders which they allow in themselves; and can readily discover some nice difference in age, character, or station, to justify the partial distinction." -- Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

"Revenge is profitable, gratitude is expensive."-- Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

 

[P@triot]

I'm a conservative and I yearn for the time when people treated each other with respect, even when they had major disagreements over policy.

As a fellow conservative, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but those times never existed. Literally. Not even when we founded this nation. You wouldn't believe the vicious lies that Thomas Jefferson had to endure during his campaign to be only third president in U.S. history and his subsequent administration after winning. His detractors even accused him of having a child out of wedlock with a black woman (proven to be 100% false - this vicious lie was revived by desperate Dumbocrats during the Bill Clinton scandal in an attempt to justify his actions).

Then, in 1856, in the United States Congress, Representative Preston Brooks (D-SC) attacked Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA), an abolitionist, with a cane. He literally nearly beat him to death. Right on the House floor during session.

Since the beginning of time the left has been made up of nothing but violent thugs and liars. Study history - you'll be amazed by the truth.

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm a conservative and I yearn for the time when people treated each other with respect, even when they had major disagreements over policy.

The way I think of it, we all are creating the culture of the US every day, in every interaction, in every post, in every discussion. It isn't someone "other" than us, it is us. How we relate to each other creates a patchwork or mosaic of our total culture. Its starts on this micro, one on one level, and it is repeated everywhere in the country until we create an overall culture of dialogue. Right now it isn't terribly pretty.

So I ask myself before I engage in conversation, "What kind of a country do I want to live in?" Do I want to live in a country in which it's okay to question my opponents sanity and/or "Real American" status? Do I want to live in a country where some of the vitriol that people spout at each other creates the culture?

No, I choose civility. If we all make the same choice in how we talk to each other, we can disagree, as Ronald Reagan said, without being disagreeable.

It starts with every small discussion, every post, every interaction. It's up to us, not anyone else. And it isn't "their" fault, whoever "they" might be to you. "They" are Americans too.

There will be no civility as long as alternative facts dominate the conversation.

Yes, what passes for a 'press' in the Democratic Party's MSM is a guarantee for more racism, violent racist hate crimes, hired street mobs, and organized international crime syndicates making big payoffs to Hillary and others, and hoping to carry on this Obama Legacy will just have to be dealt with appropriately.

Yes we need to ban all Muslims eh comrade.

Can't bring yourself to admit you're a racist POS, can you? Most of your ilk can't, at least not in public, just in your little clubhouses.

^wants Muslims banned. Calls me racist

Muslims aren't a race...

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm a conservative and I yearn for the time when people treated each other with respect, even when they had major disagreements over policy.

The way I think of it, we all are creating the culture of the US every day, in every interaction, in every post, in every discussion. It isn't someone "other" than us, it is us. How we relate to each other creates a patchwork or mosaic of our total culture. Its starts on this micro, one on one level, and it is repeated everywhere in the country until we create an overall culture of dialogue. Right now it isn't terribly pretty.

So I ask myself before I engage in conversation, "What kind of a country do I want to live in?" Do I want to live in a country in which it's okay to question my opponents sanity and/or "Real American" status? Do I want to live in a country where some of the vitriol that people spout at each other creates the culture?

No, I choose civility. If we all make the same choice in how we talk to each other, we can disagree, as Ronald Reagan said, without being disagreeable.

It starts with every small discussion, every post, every interaction. It's up to us, not anyone else. And it isn't "their" fault, whoever "they" might be to you. "They" are Americans too.

Bravo.

Looking at this problem from a cultural perspective, my guess is that it won't happen unless and until (1) "leaders" in our society - from all walks of life, from politics to religion to sports to pop culture - bravely lead the way, and throw down the gauntlet and challenge their supporters to behave more civilly, and (2) the more hateful and divisive voices on both ends of the spectrum are culturally marginalized as a result.

I may be naive here, but I think that could happen. It would just take a few brave souls to start the momentum. And the reason I think it will take "leaders", specifically, is because our culture is so quick to idolize and follow. We make "celebrities" out of nearly anyone, and their "endorsement" has tangible value.
.

I disagree. I think we wont have leaders who do this until we step up and do it ourselves.

We need to stop waiting for someone else to do it and just do it ourself.

I would like to see that happening, but I don't know how.

Those in the media and politics who have a professional interest in keeping us divided and angry know better, but have too much to lose by loosening their grip.

The general public - the part of it that is consumed by partisanship - is so obedient to its ideology that no one is willing to give an inch. The behaviors you see right here on USMB can no longer be considered unusual. This is the way people are behaving on the street now.

Here's the bottom line: It's become cultural. It has metastasized And once it gets to that point, removing the cancer from the patient is damn difficult.

I hope you're right, I just don't see it happening.
.

The way to change culture is to change our actions.

 

[Votto]

I'm a conservative and I yearn for the time when people treated each other with respect, even when they had major disagreements over policy.

The way I think of it, we all are creating the culture of the US every day, in every interaction, in every post, in every discussion. It isn't someone "other" than us, it is us. How we relate to each other creates a patchwork or mosaic of our total culture. Its starts on this micro, one on one level, and it is repeated everywhere in the country until we create an overall culture of dialogue. Right now it isn't terribly pretty.

So I ask myself before I engage in conversation, "What kind of a country do I want to live in?" Do I want to live in a country in which it's okay to question my opponents sanity and/or "Real American" status? Do I want to live in a country where some of the vitriol that people spout at each other creates the culture?

No, I choose civility. If we all make the same choice in how we talk to each other, we can disagree, as Ronald Reagan said, without being disagreeable.

It starts with every small discussion, every post, every interaction. It's up to us, not anyone else. And it isn't "their" fault, whoever "they" might be to you. "They" are Americans too.

Racist.

 

[Eloy]

Come now, quit trying to score points with irrelevant and erroneous information.
I wrote that the Soviet Union was transformed from being communist from within and without bloodshed. You would have us believe it was due to Ronald Reagan saying, "Mt Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Ha Ha Ha
Absolutely none of the uprisings you mention brought reforms to East Germany, Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia. Peaceful revolutions happened in those countries as I wrote, only after reforms came to Russia. You would have us believe that the Stasi stood down because of the 1953 trouble. LOL

this is one reason why I can't be civil with you guys, you are liars.

I would 'have you believe' it was Reagan? I never mentioned the man, its right here in black and white letters, I never mentioned anything about him you liar. I said the shitty socialist economy failed and Americans footed the bill for 50 years in defense of you to wait it out, that is why Gorby wanted reforms. He wanted prosperity and better relations.

I am actually sorry that I paid my tax dollars to make your place better, I wish we would have stayed home and let you deal with hitler and Stalin yourself. I wish that because of people like you

Are you calling me a liar?

I first posted this: 'the fall of the Soviet Union was all about a failure of its socialist economy and the American military determination to defend Europe'

To which you responded: "You would have us believe it was due to Ronald Reagan saying, "Mt Gorbachev, tear down this wall!""

Tell you what, I'll let you pick. If you deliberately distorted what I said then you are a liar, if you did it because you can't understand then you are an incompetent. Logically it is one of those two, your choice

I claimed that the Soviet Union system of government changed in a bloodless revolution. Why? Because the economy was failing. You were incorrect to describe the economy of the Soviet Union as "socialist". It was a command economy.

However, I have read enough American editorials and heard enough Americans to know that they believe they won the Cold War. Your argument was the same by your claim that somehow the Americans won because of their determination. This is the claim that I find funny. I have heard so many American politicians seriously claim this almost always due to Ronald Reagan. They actually and I suppose seriously believe that there was no agency of the German people themselves to reject the system they lived under and it was they themselves who tore down the wall which was symbolic of tearing down their authoritarian government which was underpinned by the Soviets.

The Americans played no part in East Germany's reunification of the German people. So, I caricatured your thinking that somehow American military might had any part in East Germans' rejection of the GDR by mentioning Ronald Reagan as a symbol of American military strength as if the German and Russian people had no agency. No, it was not due to the Americans but to the Russian people and the East German people as well as the people of other east European countries to revolt peacefully against their governments. This was a massive destruction of a system from within as I had originally said.

By the way, you will hear only Americans write and say things as you did. It is a distortion of history. The Russian people as well as those in eastern Europe did have agency. Without their choice of democracy and freedom, there would have been no bloodless revolts (with the notable exception of Romania). You missed that I mentioned Ronald Reagan as an image of American thinking, such as yours. I never claimed that you mentioned Ronald Reagan. Note my words which were carefully chosen ... You would have us believe. Not you actually believe.

So, I did not lie and I understand very well what you were claiming about the American agency. I am neither a liar nor incompetent but I confess to being somewhat wry.

First, there is no one definition of socialist but most of them state that socialism involves state control of the means of production (which refutes your definition), which the soviets had. Second the soviets themselves called their government socialist. Third, the communists believe that socialism is only a small degree shy of communism.

Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production
What is the difference between socialism and communism?
Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Socialism grows directly out of capitalism; it is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or "higher stage" of socialism

Nowadays, socialism as it is understood in Europe is altogether different from what you are saying. When you write "First, there is no one definition of socialist but most of them state that socialism involves state control of the means of production (which refutes your definition), which the soviets had. Second the soviets themselves called their government socialist. Third, the communists believe that socialism is only a small degree shy of communism." You are right that there is no one definition of socialism, I suppose that is true. Contrary to your statement that most definitions of socialism "involves state control of the means of production", this is not European socialism which has evolved into social democracy where the state is involved in the conditions and remuneration for workers in all industry, private and public. Socialism in Europe will support government ownership of strategic industries and this application will vary from one state to another. For example, transport is often identified as a strategic industry for obvious reasons. Some socialist governments will create the conditions where private companies operate, say, the railways, but they are regulated so that companies which want to operate only lucrative profit-earning routes from e.g. Leipzig to Zwickau in Saxony but will not be interested in serving the public who want to travel from Zwickau to Johanngeorgenstadt. In this instance, under a socialist government, the company might be expected to also provide a service to customers who live in the towns along the line to Johanngeorgenstadt such as Lauter, and Swartzenberg and carry the loss. On the other hand, a local service might operate a provincial service run by the government with a subsidy from taxes on the main route from Leipzig to Zwickau. You can see here how socialists are different from a command economy by having regulated private enterprise companies and state companies co-existing. Another socialist leadership might nationalize the whole railways and operate it itself. Modern European socialism is very different from communism which permits no private enterprise with all industry owned by the state. So, you see, your definition of socialism does not fit reality.

Secondly, most European governments, being democratic, have many political parties and the system of proportional representation means that governments are formed from coalitions where socialists might be partners which complicates politics but forces compromises.

so you see, as is typical of the pretentious left, you are actually the one in need of an education. European 'third way socialism' is the realization that true socialism sucks at production so it is better to let the producers produce and then tax the shit out of them for distribution to your political lefty supporters.

Don't you think you are being nasty with this comment as well as misunderstanding modern European social democracy?

Second, we did win the cold war. Our economy could bear the cost and theirs could not, Gorby chose to change, not us, so we won. Khruschev said they would bury us economically because of the belief that socialism was superior when it turned out we had the better economy. I would say we definitively won the cold war.

We, in Europe, see it differently.

The Soviets simply could not afford their empire anymore, that is all, not some self proclaimed victory of eastern Europe democrats.

East Europeans would contest your analysis. They are very proud of how they shrugged off the Russians and are all now in the European Union.

To diminish the effect of the American presence is repugnant Euro centric garbage.

I never write garbage.

Stalin or Hitler would have owned all of Europe with America and history would have been very different.

At one time or another, both Hitler and Stalin ruled all or half of Europe.

To not understand that, to dismiss the huge cost we americans paid with our presence in europe for your sorry asses, and to discredit Reagan as playing no role, well that is all leftist revisionist crap. If I could have had a say, I would have stayed out of Europe and let Hitler of Stalin have their way with you. That way I would not have to sit here and listen to some ungrateful euro punks talk about how americans were of little consequence and it was their 'peaceful' revolution after all the American treasure spent providing protection for your cozy little welfare states. You could not even handle Kosovo alone, yet are still unable to grasp the significance of American military help.

I'm sorry to have to tell you but the Berlin Wall did not come down because Ronald Reagan gave a speech.

Until Trump, the Americans were an important ally of Europe but the message from Washington DC in the past few weeks has changed a friendship which has existed since WWII. Europe must now be ready to stand alone. We can do that and we must do that.

 

[washamericom]

I'm a conservative and I yearn for the time when people treated each other with respect, even when they had major disagreements over policy.

The way I think of it, we all are creating the culture of the US every day, in every interaction, in every post, in every discussion. It isn't someone "other" than us, it is us. How we relate to each other creates a patchwork or mosaic of our total culture. Its starts on this micro, one on one level, and it is repeated everywhere in the country until we create an overall culture of dialogue. Right now it isn't terribly pretty.

So I ask myself before I engage in conversation, "What kind of a country do I want to live in?" Do I want to live in a country in which it's okay to question my opponents sanity and/or "Real American" status? Do I want to live in a country where some of the vitriol that people spout at each other creates the culture?

No, I choose civility. If we all make the same choice in how we talk to each other, we can disagree, as Ronald Reagan said, without being disagreeable.

It starts with every small discussion, every post, every interaction. It's up to us, not anyone else. And it isn't "their" fault, whoever "they" might be to you. "They" are Americans too.

i agree, 95 percent of life is local.

Unfortunately while life is happening to us locally, there is a profound effect on that local life from the decisions made in Washington

this administration will try to get out of the way. we needed a correction shift of power back to the states, which is great cause if hillary or bernie became president we'd be trying to make cuba great again. even roe v wade overturned would send it back to the states.

 

[washamericom]

I'm a conservative and I yearn for the time when people treated each other with respect, even when they had major disagreements over policy.

The way I think of it, we all are creating the culture of the US every day, in every interaction, in every post, in every discussion. It isn't someone "other" than us, it is us. How we relate to each other creates a patchwork or mosaic of our total culture. Its starts on this micro, one on one level, and it is repeated everywhere in the country until we create an overall culture of dialogue. Right now it isn't terribly pretty.

So I ask myself before I engage in conversation, "What kind of a country do I want to live in?" Do I want to live in a country in which it's okay to question my opponents sanity and/or "Real American" status? Do I want to live in a country where some of the vitriol that people spout at each other creates the culture?

No, I choose civility. If we all make the same choice in how we talk to each other, we can disagree, as Ronald Reagan said, without being disagreeable.

It starts with every small discussion, every post, every interaction. It's up to us, not anyone else. And it isn't "their" fault, whoever "they" might be to you. "They" are Americans too.

i agree, 95 percent of life is local.

Unfortunately while life is happening to us locally, there is a profound effect on that local life from the decisions made in Washington

this administration will try to get out of the way. we needed a correction shift of power back to the states, which is great cause if hillary or bernie became president we'd be trying to make cuba great again. even roe v wade overturned would send it back to the states.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[washamericom]

I'm a conservative and I yearn for the time when people treated each other with respect, even when they had major disagreements over policy.

The way I think of it, we all are creating the culture of the US every day, in every interaction, in every post, in every discussion. It isn't someone "other" than us, it is us. How we relate to each other creates a patchwork or mosaic of our total culture. Its starts on this micro, one on one level, and it is repeated everywhere in the country until we create an overall culture of dialogue. Right now it isn't terribly pretty.

So I ask myself before I engage in conversation, "What kind of a country do I want to live in?" Do I want to live in a country in which it's okay to question my opponents sanity and/or "Real American" status? Do I want to live in a country where some of the vitriol that people spout at each other creates the culture?

No, I choose civility. If we all make the same choice in how we talk to each other, we can disagree, as Ronald Reagan said, without being disagreeable.

It starts with every small discussion, every post, every interaction. It's up to us, not anyone else. And it isn't "their" fault, whoever "they" might be to you. "They" are Americans too.

Oh...I thought you were going to suggest eating illegals.

i love any soylent green references...

 

[Unkotare]

The US DID win the Cold War, and it WAS due in large part to Reagan.

 

[Unkotare]

The EO in question is not a "Muslim ban."

 

[Picaro]

lol Reagan had little to do with 'winning' the Cold War. The Khruschev Doctrine went bankrupt under his flunky Brezhnev in 1973, and the Israeli victories in the ME cost them any cred they had with the Islamo-vermin and also Africa and South America. They couldn't even feed themselves, and both France and the U.S. had to feed them. They couldn't even defend a tiny ally state govt. in Afghanistan, after all. This was long before Reagan; he did like to take credit for other people's efforts, like any other hack politician, though.

 

[dblack]

The EO in question is not a "Muslim ban."

It's not a ban, it's a club!

 

[Picaro]

I'm a conservative and I yearn for the time when people treated each other with respect, even when they had major disagreements over policy.

The way I think of it, we all are creating the culture of the US every day, in every interaction, in every post, in every discussion. It isn't someone "other" than us, it is us. How we relate to each other creates a patchwork or mosaic of our total culture. Its starts on this micro, one on one level, and it is repeated everywhere in the country until we create an overall culture of dialogue. Right now it isn't terribly pretty.

So I ask myself before I engage in conversation, "What kind of a country do I want to live in?" Do I want to live in a country in which it's okay to question my opponents sanity and/or "Real American" status? Do I want to live in a country where some of the vitriol that people spout at each other creates the culture?

No, I choose civility. If we all make the same choice in how we talk to each other, we can disagree, as Ronald Reagan said, without being disagreeable.

It starts with every small discussion, every post, every interaction. It's up to us, not anyone else. And it isn't "their" fault, whoever "they" might be to you. "They" are Americans too.

i agree, 95 percent of life is local.

Unfortunately while life is happening to us locally, there is a profound effect on that local life from the decisions made in Washington

this administration will try to get out of the way. we needed a correction shift of power back to the states, which is great cause if hillary or bernie became president we'd be trying to make cuba great again. even roe v wade overturned would send it back to the states.

We need to replace a lot of Federal Judges, like the the traitors and hacks squatting on the 9th Court of Appeals, for instance. That is going to take a while, getting rid of all the seditionists who want to destroy this country, as the Democratic Party does.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The violence on the street started with rhetoric. I have to pick on the left here because the rioting and violence are coming from them.

The BLM group formed after a lot of smaller groups started rioting, looting and destroying neighborhoods. It was due to false statements and rhetoric that painted all cops as racist. To ensure the violence, paid thugs were bussed around the country to lead the way in violence and destruction.

The OWS started after the Obama administration started badmouthing wealthy CEOS. Of course, that was after they bailed them out.

The riots after the election were caused by months of hateful rhetoric from the left. People believed they were doomed because liberal wasn't in the WH.

The women's march was more hysteria stemming from even more vitriol aimed at Trump and false claims of a war on women.

More riots after the inauguration because it was 'doomsday' again.

Now, it's more riots over a totally warranted and constitutional travel ban.

Next week, it will be more riots and violence over some other issue.

It's never ending and every damn one of these riots has been funded by Soros, who wants one world government and open borders. His plan requires civil unrest and he has a rather impressive network of organizations to promote it.

It won't be until these groups out there acting out violently realize that they are being lied to and played that they might settle down and be willing to talk reason.

You cannot have a conversation with people who are torching buildings and cars, threatening violence to whites, cops and Trump supporters or posting thousands of death threats on social media. They need to get a grip and deal with the anger. They've been whipped into a frenzy and the instigators continue to ramp up their hateful rhetoric to keep it going.

The anti-Muslim ban, contrary to your assertion about a "constitutional travel ban" has been declared to be illegal by two federal courts.

And when it's overturned by the Supreme Court, will you then admit you were the one that was wrong?

 

[Eloy]

The violence on the street started with rhetoric. I have to pick on the left here because the rioting and violence are coming from them.

The BLM group formed after a lot of smaller groups started rioting, looting and destroying neighborhoods. It was due to false statements and rhetoric that painted all cops as racist. To ensure the violence, paid thugs were bussed around the country to lead the way in violence and destruction.

The OWS started after the Obama administration started badmouthing wealthy CEOS. Of course, that was after they bailed them out.

The riots after the election were caused by months of hateful rhetoric from the left. People believed they were doomed because liberal wasn't in the WH.

The women's march was more hysteria stemming from even more vitriol aimed at Trump and false claims of a war on women.

More riots after the inauguration because it was 'doomsday' again.

Now, it's more riots over a totally warranted and constitutional travel ban.

Next week, it will be more riots and violence over some other issue.

It's never ending and every damn one of these riots has been funded by Soros, who wants one world government and open borders. His plan requires civil unrest and he has a rather impressive network of organizations to promote it.

It won't be until these groups out there acting out violently realize that they are being lied to and played that they might settle down and be willing to talk reason.

You cannot have a conversation with people who are torching buildings and cars, threatening violence to whites, cops and Trump supporters or posting thousands of death threats on social media. They need to get a grip and deal with the anger. They've been whipped into a frenzy and the instigators continue to ramp up their hateful rhetoric to keep it going.

The anti-Muslim ban, contrary to your assertion about a "constitutional travel ban" has been declared to be illegal by two federal courts.

And when it's overturned by the Supreme Court, will you then admit you were the one that was wrong?

It doesn't matter what I think. The question is whether Donald Trump will call the Supreme Court "so-called" judges for making an "outrageous" decision when they uphold the appellate court's finding.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The violence on the street started with rhetoric. I have to pick on the left here because the rioting and violence are coming from them.

The BLM group formed after a lot of smaller groups started rioting, looting and destroying neighborhoods. It was due to false statements and rhetoric that painted all cops as racist. To ensure the violence, paid thugs were bussed around the country to lead the way in violence and destruction.

The OWS started after the Obama administration started badmouthing wealthy CEOS. Of course, that was after they bailed them out.

The riots after the election were caused by months of hateful rhetoric from the left. People believed they were doomed because liberal wasn't in the WH.

The women's march was more hysteria stemming from even more vitriol aimed at Trump and false claims of a war on women.

More riots after the inauguration because it was 'doomsday' again.

Now, it's more riots over a totally warranted and constitutional travel ban.

Next week, it will be more riots and violence over some other issue.

It's never ending and every damn one of these riots has been funded by Soros, who wants one world government and open borders. His plan requires civil unrest and he has a rather impressive network of organizations to promote it.

It won't be until these groups out there acting out violently realize that they are being lied to and played that they might settle down and be willing to talk reason.

You cannot have a conversation with people who are torching buildings and cars, threatening violence to whites, cops and Trump supporters or posting thousands of death threats on social media. They need to get a grip and deal with the anger. They've been whipped into a frenzy and the instigators continue to ramp up their hateful rhetoric to keep it going.

The anti-Muslim ban, contrary to your assertion about a "constitutional travel ban" has been declared to be illegal by two federal courts.

And when it's overturned by the Supreme Court, will you then admit you were the one that was wrong?

It doesn't matter what I think. The question is whether Donald Trump will call the Supreme Court "so-called" judges for making an "outrageous" decision when they uphold the appellate court's finding.

I wouldn't count your chickens on that one, especially if his nominee is seated by then.

Liberal judges sided with the liberal party. Gee, who would have thought that?

As the saying goes, you won the battle, but not the war.

 

[Eloy]

The violence on the street started with rhetoric. I have to pick on the left here because the rioting and violence are coming from them.

The BLM group formed after a lot of smaller groups started rioting, looting and destroying neighborhoods. It was due to false statements and rhetoric that painted all cops as racist. To ensure the violence, paid thugs were bussed around the country to lead the way in violence and destruction.

The OWS started after the Obama administration started badmouthing wealthy CEOS. Of course, that was after they bailed them out.

The riots after the election were caused by months of hateful rhetoric from the left. People believed they were doomed because liberal wasn't in the WH.

The women's march was more hysteria stemming from even more vitriol aimed at Trump and false claims of a war on women.

More riots after the inauguration because it was 'doomsday' again.

Now, it's more riots over a totally warranted and constitutional travel ban.

Next week, it will be more riots and violence over some other issue.

It's never ending and every damn one of these riots has been funded by Soros, who wants one world government and open borders. His plan requires civil unrest and he has a rather impressive network of organizations to promote it.

It won't be until these groups out there acting out violently realize that they are being lied to and played that they might settle down and be willing to talk reason.

You cannot have a conversation with people who are torching buildings and cars, threatening violence to whites, cops and Trump supporters or posting thousands of death threats on social media. They need to get a grip and deal with the anger. They've been whipped into a frenzy and the instigators continue to ramp up their hateful rhetoric to keep it going.

The anti-Muslim ban, contrary to your assertion about a "constitutional travel ban" has been declared to be illegal by two federal courts.

And when it's overturned by the Supreme Court, will you then admit you were the one that was wrong?

It doesn't matter what I think. The question is whether Donald Trump will call the Supreme Court "so-called" judges for making an "outrageous" decision when they uphold the appellate court's finding.

I wouldn't count your chickens on that one, especially if his nominee is seated by then.

Liberal judges sided with the liberal party. Gee, who would have thought that?

As the saying goes, you won the battle, but not the war.

There will not be a 9th member of the Supreme Court this week.

 

[washamericom]

The US DID win the Cold War, and it WAS due in large part to Reagan.

cold war's not over.