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.
I find there is a remarkably easy heuristic to use in examining such matters. Apply the same standards to the other guy.
I happen to remember some really nasty personal attacks said about Dubya, and it was the right wing hacks who used the same partisan claptrap in regards to sedition.
If one's degree of partisanship is so enormous that they cannot apply the same standard to all, then they aren't really revealing anything meaningful beyond their own inability to think beyond the most simplistic attachment to a group.
Politics should not be an exercise of tribalism. It should be an examination of ideas and principles.
I'm not suggesting that even the most vile of these faux patriots, those who seem to advocate armed resistance when they don't get their way, ought to be prosecuted. But I do believe they need to be confronted and reminded that democracy isn't perfect, and our form of government was designed by our Founders to be self regulating via the ballot box and not by violence or the threat of violence.
I see the conundrum created by the RNC and Mr. Trump. Will democracy prevail in the vetting of a candidate for the R nomination, or not. Time will tell, as will the measure of the man that is Donald Trump, if he has the votes and fails to receive the nomination.
"Sedition or protest?"
The latter is an observation and conclusion about the nature of things, the former is an instruction to act. It's not confusing to determine whether one's remarks are seditious or merely in protest.
- Sedition --> one or several persons inciting others to resist or rebel against existing lawful authority
- Protest --> one or several persons stating that X is wrong, unjust, etc.
Strictly speaking the GOP, if it be the entity against which Trump incites insurrection, isn't a lawful authority of any sort. The GOP isn't the government; it does not propose and ratify laws. It makes its own rules and it can change them at the will of its leaders.
I'm not suggesting that even the most vile of these faux patriots, those who seem to advocate armed resistance when they don't get their way, ought to be prosecuted. But I do believe they need to be confronted and reminded that democracy isn't perfect, and our form of government was designed by our Founders to be self regulating via the ballot box and not by violence or the threat of violence.
Well, I think the most vile of them should be prosecuted.
I see the conundrum created by the RNC and Mr. Trump. Will democracy prevail in the vetting of a candidate for the R nomination, or not. Time will tell, as will the measure of the man that is Donald Trump, if he has the votes and fails to receive the nomination.
From the get go, delegates who agree to or are pledged to vote on one's behalf, not raw votes cast by voters, are what have been the things that provide one with the GOP nomination to the Presidency. The quantity of those delegate votes needed has been 1,237, not 1,236, not 1,200, not 1,180, or any other quantity less than 1,237. The last time I looked, the GOP nomination is not like horseshoes or hand grenades; close does not count, and when one has not secured the 1,237 delegate votes needed, one must lobby delegates to garner the support/vote of those delegates who weren't originally pledged to a given candidate. Obviously, the closer one is to 1,237, presumably, the less lobbying one must do after the first round of delegate voting at the GOP convention.
There are things I don't like about our political process. For example, I don't at all like that one can gain the support Trump has
I don't like that, but it is the way things are, at least for now. I can rail against it, but I must nonetheless accept that is how it is. Trump should apply the same concept as goes securing the GOP nomination.
- without ever (so far) having articulated anything one can call a substantive policy and/or
- by uttering scores of unsubstantiated and vague claims.
"For years I have read posts from some very politically extreme persons whose posts go far beyond an expression of disapproval / or an objection to the policies and priorities in place under King George.
Personal attacks on the King, and even on the Queen, and government in general go far beyond civil discourse; the actions of some are clearly seditious - a crime as well as an affront to the men who built the foundation of democracy and freedom we all enjoy.
I'm not suggesting that even the most vile of these faux patriots, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson and Washington those who seem to advocate armed resistance when they don't get their way, ought to be prosecuted. But I do believe they need to be confronted and reminded that democracy isn't perfect, and our form of government was designed by our the Crown to be self regulating via the ballot box and not by violence or the threat of violence." -- WryCatchers ancestor, famous Quisling late 18th Century
Well stated and thought provoking for those who think.
I find there is a remarkably easy heuristic to use in examining such matters. Apply the same standards to the other guy.
I happen to remember some really nasty personal attacks said about Dubya, and it was the right wing hacks who used the same partisan claptrap in regards to sedition.
If one's degree of partisanship is so enormous that they cannot apply the same standard to all, then they aren't really revealing anything meaningful beyond their own inability to think beyond the most simplistic attachment to a group.
Politics should not be an exercise of tribalism. It should be an examination of ideas and principles.
You've missed the point entirely, that's what happens when one reads with a bias.
'm not responsible for the attacks on President G. W. Bush; I respect the office if not the competence / judgement of the person who sits in the Oval, and always addressed Bush as Mr. or President while expressing my displeasure with Bush, Cheney & company.
To deny too many extremists are not civil, not respectful and seem to support violence as a means to an end is dishonest; and to seek to justify such behavior because others have done so is absurd. Few during the Bush years advocated the overthrow of government or a new civil war, in fact none that I remember; I can name several who post on this forum as regulars who hold violence as a legitimate tool in making change.
I find there is a remarkably easy heuristic to use in examining such matters. Apply the same standards to the other guy.
I happen to remember some really nasty personal attacks said about Dubya, and it was the right wing hacks who used the same partisan claptrap in regards to sedition.
If one's degree of partisanship is so enormous that they cannot apply the same standard to all, then they aren't really revealing anything meaningful beyond their own inability to think beyond the most simplistic attachment to a group.
Politics should not be an exercise of tribalism. It should be an examination of ideas and principles.
You've missed the point entirely, that's what happens when one reads with a bias.
'm not responsible for the attacks on President G. W. Bush; I respect the office if not the competence / judgement of the person who sits in the Oval, and always addressed Bush as Mr. or President while expressing my displeasure with Bush, Cheney & company.
To deny too many extremists are not civil, not respectful and seem to support violence as a means to an end is dishonest; and to seek to justify such behavior because others have done so is absurd. Few during the Bush years advocated the overthrow of government or a new civil war, in fact none that I remember; I can name several who post on this forum as regulars who hold violence as a legitimate tool in making change.
I hate to be the one to break this to you Sparky, but our nation was in fact founded on the principle of violence to affect political change, so it takes a complete ignorance of our own history to now say "violence never solves anything"
Sir Sparky forgets that Germany and Japan were under military occupation after WWIII find there is a remarkably easy heuristic to use in examining such matters. Apply the same standards to the other guy.
I happen to remember some really nasty personal attacks said about Dubya, and it was the right wing hacks who used the same partisan claptrap in regards to sedition.
If one's degree of partisanship is so enormous that they cannot apply the same standard to all, then they aren't really revealing anything meaningful beyond their own inability to think beyond the most simplistic attachment to a group.
Politics should not be an exercise of tribalism. It should be an examination of ideas and principles.
You've missed the point entirely, that's what happens when one reads with a bias.
'm not responsible for the attacks on President G. W. Bush; I respect the office if not the competence / judgement of the person who sits in the Oval, and always addressed Bush as Mr. or President while expressing my displeasure with Bush, Cheney & company.
To deny too many extremists are not civil, not respectful and seem to support violence as a means to an end is dishonest; and to seek to justify such behavior because others have done so is absurd. Few during the Bush years advocated the overthrow of government or a new civil war, in fact none that I remember; I can name several who post on this forum as regulars who hold violence as a legitimate tool in making change.
I hate to be the one to break this to you Sparky, but our nation was in fact founded on the principle of violence to affect political change, so it takes a complete ignorance of our own history to now say "violence never solves anything"
It's "Sir" or "Mr. Catcher" to you.
Our nation defended itself after declaring Independence from a tyrannical king. We did not invade and occupy Great Britain; in fact until G.W. Bush invaded and occupied Iraq our nation never invaded and occupied another sovereign nation until Bush, Cheney and Company invaded and occupied Iraq. We came close under Reagan (Grenada and Panama) but not to the degree and not with the consequences we observed during the Iraq Fiasco.
I find there is a remarkably easy heuristic to use in examining such matters. Apply the same standards to the other guy.
I happen to remember some really nasty personal attacks said about Dubya, and it was the right wing hacks who used the same partisan claptrap in regards to sedition.
If one's degree of partisanship is so enormous that they cannot apply the same standard to all, then they aren't really revealing anything meaningful beyond their own inability to think beyond the most simplistic attachment to a group.
Politics should not be an exercise of tribalism. It should be an examination of ideas and principles.
You've missed the point entirely, that's what happens when one reads with a bias.
'm not responsible for the attacks on President G. W. Bush; I respect the office if not the competence / judgement of the person who sits in the Oval, and always addressed Bush as Mr. or President while expressing my displeasure with Bush, Cheney & company.
To deny too many extremists are not civil, not respectful and seem to support violence as a means to an end is dishonest; and to seek to justify such behavior because others have done so is absurd. Few during the Bush years advocated the overthrow of government or a new civil war, in fact none that I remember; I can name several who post on this forum as regulars who hold violence as a legitimate tool in making change.
I hate to be the one to break this to you Sparky, but our nation was in fact founded on the principle of violence to affect political change, so it takes a complete ignorance of our own history to now say "violence never solves anything"
It's "Sir" or "Mr. Catcher" to you.
Our nation defended itself after declaring Independence from a tyrannical king. We did not invade and occupy Great Britain; in fact until G.W. Bush invaded and occupied Iraq our nation never invaded and occupied another sovereign nation until Bush, Cheney and Company invaded and occupied Iraq. We came close under Reagan (Grenada and Panama) but not to the degree and not with the consequences we observed during the Iraq Fiasco.
I find there is a remarkably easy heuristic to use in examining such matters. Apply the same standards to the other guy.
I happen to remember some really nasty personal attacks said about Dubya, and it was the right wing hacks who used the same partisan claptrap in regards to sedition.
If one's degree of partisanship is so enormous that they cannot apply the same standard to all, then they aren't really revealing anything meaningful beyond their own inability to think beyond the most simplistic attachment to a group.
Politics should not be an exercise of tribalism. It should be an examination of ideas and principles.
You've missed the point entirely, that's what happens when one reads with a bias.
'm not responsible for the attacks on President G. W. Bush; I respect the office if not the competence / judgement of the person who sits in the Oval, and always addressed Bush as Mr. or President while expressing my displeasure with Bush, Cheney & company.
To deny too many extremists are not civil, not respectful and seem to support violence as a means to an end is dishonest; and to seek to justify such behavior because others have done so is absurd. Few during the Bush years advocated the overthrow of government or a new civil war, in fact none that I remember; I can name several who post on this forum as regulars who hold violence as a legitimate tool in making change.
I hate to be the one to break this to you Sparky, but our nation was in fact founded on the principle of violence to affect political change, so it takes a complete ignorance of our own history to now say "violence never solves anything"
It's "Sir" or "Mr. Catcher" to you.
Our nation defended itself after declaring Independence from a tyrannical king. We did not invade and occupy Great Britain; in fact until G.W. Bush invaded and occupied Iraq our nation never invaded and occupied another sovereign nation until Bush, Cheney and Company invaded and occupied Iraq. We came close under Reagan (Grenada and Panama) but not to the degree and not with the consequences we observed during the Iraq Fiasco.
Red:
That's just not so. Surely you don't think Puerto Rico, Guam, and other U.S. possessions have always belonged to the U.S. or that they were peacefully acquired? And you cannot honestly believe the people there begged to be colonized by the U.S?
What is true is that the Iraq invasion and occupation was the most recent instance of the U.S. having done so, but not remembering the others doesn't mean they didn't occur.
- The US Has Invaded 70 Nations Since 1776 – Make 4 July Independence From America Day By Dr Gideon Polya
- Formations of United States Colonialism | Duke University Press
- Why They Hate Us (I): on military occupation
- U.S. Colonialism: The Cornerstone of U.S. Indian Policy
- http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/uhic/ReferenceDetailsPage/DocumentToolsPortletWindow?displayGroupName=Reference&jsid=1ae5d9d364eeb18e033ca99962c4a20e&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE|CX2587300408&u=seat24826&zid=085dd416d13745ab3e5a267f60ab2c9c
- Historical perspectives on u.s. colonialism - Colonialism and Neocolonialism
- "Let Us End American Colonialism"
The word Occupation and the impact of that resulted in that action is the most recent event in our historyt.
The word Occupation and the impact of that resulted in that action is the most recent event in our historyt.
???
The word Occupation and the impact of that resulted in that action is the most recent event in our historyt.
???
Sorry, "is the most recent event in our history" .... which demonstrates the failure and harm of imperialism in the 21st Century. We did not benefit from the oii - as Cheney stated - nor were we greeted as liberators.
The word Occupation and the impact of that resulted in that action is the most recent event in our historyt.
???
Sorry, "is the most recent event in our history" .... which demonstrates the failure and harm of imperialism in the 21st Century. We did not benefit from the oii - as Cheney stated - nor were we greeted as liberators.
I think I agree, but I'm not fully sure. The "t" at the end of history wasn't what confused me, but the second sentence in your post quoted above I certainly agree with, for the most part.
There's always opportunity to be found in the decisions Presidents make. For example, I upped my positions in oil companies and took one in Halliburton the day after Bush was elected. That worked out pretty well, very well actually. No matter what be my political view of a President's stance or deeds, I'd be a fool to ignore financial realities that stare me in the face; those things will come to pass no matter how I feel about their doing so. May as well make some coin the process.
