Moscow Marge + Lauren Bobo = the face of Putin and the QOP

[LeviF]

7 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

they did a bang up job in Iraq and the terrain would be very familiar.  I'd wager the stockpile locations of weapons are already known.  That and Bill Gates has already altered the DNA of every American...just needs to selectively throw the switch.  And we have awesome space lasers.

The sheer size and variety of terrain kind of negate any familiarity guys might have with wherever they are locally. As to the rest I did get a chuckle. 
 

And I think you give the belligerents too much moral credit. As has been pointed out, you don’t need to fight F16s, or even their pilots. Those pilots have wives, mothers, and children. This is an entirely different generation of warfare that has yet to see a true test. 
 

It won’t happen here though. Again I think decentralization and constitutional crisis are much more likely. If there is an aggressor in that scenario, it will be the feds. 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 minute ago, LeviF said:

If there is an aggressor in that scenario, it will be the feds. 

agree with all but this.  gotta laugh sometimes!  ok, now I need my munchies...

[LeviF]

4 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

agree with all but this.  gotta laugh sometimes!  ok, now I need my munchies...

Well who else do you think is going to attempt to enforce federal law when state governments ignore it?

[Joe Ferguson forever]

6 minutes ago, LeviF said:

Well who else do you think is going to attempt to enforce federal law when state governments ignore it?

Oh man.  

If states ignore federal laws they got it coming. or they could just sucede.  don't see that happening for the economic reasons given earlier.

Edited February 22, 2023 by redtail hawk

[LeviF]

2 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

Oh man.  

If states ignore federal laws they got it coming.

What did you think I meant by decentralization and constitutional crisis lol

[LeviF]

2 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

but if they don't back down...what a mess!

There’s already precedent on a very large scale with “sanctuary” cities and states. Just comes down to the will to power. How badly does the federal government want a certain policy enforced nationwide?

[Joe Ferguson forever]

8 minutes ago, LeviF said:

There’s already precedent on a very large scale with “sanctuary” cities and states. Just comes down to the will to power. How badly does the federal government want a certain policy enforced nationwide?

We (the majority of Americans) want it bad.   That I'm confident in.  Richest and most powerful country in the world.  Who, other than Putin and Xi, wants that to change?

[LeviF]

2 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

We (the majority of Americans) want it bad.   That I'm confident in.  Richest and most powerful country in the world.  Who, other than Putin and Xi, wants that to change?

Well apparently that’s not true for immigration law. Then the question is what else is that not true for?

[Joe Ferguson forever]

12 minutes ago, LeviF said:

Well apparently that’s not true for immigration law. Then the question is what else is that not true for?

look at historic revolutions.  the lowest tiers of society even the middle, almost never benefit.  the guys with the bandanas in France didn't end up running things.  The communist idealists in China and Russia were mostly purged.  History is not in your favor if you are serious about this. and most relevant, the confederacy was a failure that is still foundering generations later.  much better to try to change things to your way of thinking from the inside.  Support good, reasonable candidates.

Edited February 22, 2023 by redtail hawk

[LeviF]

2 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

look at historic revolutions.  the lowest tiers of society even the middle, almost never benefit.  the guys with the bandanas in France didn't end up running things.  The communist idealists in China and Russia were mostly purged.  History is not in your favor if you are serious about this.

“I” am not anything, this is all theoretical as 1. I live in NY and 2. I’m not a governor lol

 

But again the federal government has been happy to allow entire states to flaunt immigration law to include ignoring probable cause warrants issued by federal judges. No war, no national guard, not even a “hey wtf” from a US Attorney. The question is if they will tolerate that what else can (or should) they tolerate?

[Buffarukus]

4 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

That’s an absolutely ridiculous comparison and you know it. 

 

how? one side thinks the fundamental principals on which the country was founded are a good basis for living and the other sees them as wrong and must be changed from the very roots. how in the hell is that sustainable and what would make ANYONE think changing them is going to bring about more individual prosperity and freedom then the one place on the planet that has the most? 

 

the left wants to divide the national anthem! smothered in identity politics that no longer sees people on a individual basis. it doesn't get more divisive then saying some are discluded from a national anthem or different. you claim the right does this yet i never saw evidence.

 

the left thinks parents should not have the ability to discern their own children's education and this administration has targeted as terrorists if they demand it.

 

the left has changed definitions and science to push agendas. not extreme at all.

 

the left has emboldened criminal behavior with woke DAs slapping people on the wrist while seeking harsh criminal sentances to those who have defended their lives and not the aggressors.

 

freedom of speech is being erased by the left and ignored/cheered when tactics are used against anyone with differing opinions. covid was prime example twitter was conclusive in this.

 

one side wants war..one that can go nuclear...the other want peace talks.

 

these arent minor things and no justification should be made for any of the above..yet you will and say this will lead to a "better tomorrow". i see it on this board everyday.

 

they are LIBERAL principals!!!!

 

 

4 hours ago, redtail hawk said:

what exactly should he knock off?

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by Buffarukus

[Gene Frenkle]

5 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

The democrats have their own lunatic fringe in the House. Again, most folks just ignore them.

 

Yeah, totally the same. Look at all the Dems banning books and calling for civil war, errr "national divorce".

 

If we get divorced is it okay for Marge to screw that hairy tantric sex guru again?

[ChiGoose]

5 minutes ago, Buffarukus said:

 

how? one side thinks the fundamental principals on which the country was founded are a good basis for living and the other sees them as wrong and must be changed from the very roots. how in the hell is that sustainable and what would make ANYONE think changing them is going to bring about more individual prosperity and freedom then the one place on the planet that has the most? 

 

the left wants to divide the national anthem! smothered in identity politics that no longer sees people on a individual basis. it doesn't get more divisive then saying some are discluded from a national anthem or different. you claim the right does this yet i never saw evidence.

 

the left thinks parents should not have the ability to discern their own children's education and this administration has targeted as terrorists if they demand it.

 

the left has changed definitions and science to push agendas. not extreme at all.

 

the left has emboldened criminal behavior with woke DAs slapping people on the wrist while seeking harsh criminal sentances to those who have defended their lives and not the aggressors.

 

freedom of speech is being erased by the left and ignored/cheered when tactics are used against anyone with differing opinions. covid was prime example twitter was conclusive in this.

 

these arent minor things and there is no justification should be made for any of the above..yet you will and say this will lead to a "better tomorrow". i see it on this board everyday.

 

 

 

Already explained it, but divorcing an abusive spouse doesn’t result in a war in which people die. 
 

Also, I could list a similar litany of ways the GOP has betrayed the values of this country and denigrates the left, but it would be pointless. 
 

If you’re unhappy with how things are (as I am), you should be advocating for ways to make them better instead of excusing those who are advocating for us to kill each other. 

[Buffarukus]

34 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Already explained it, but divorcing an abusive spouse doesn’t result in a war in which people die. 
 

Also, I could list a similar litany of ways the GOP has betrayed the values of this country and denigrates the left, but it would be pointless. 
 

If you’re unhappy with how things are (as I am), you should be advocating for ways to make them better instead of excusing those who are advocating for us to kill each other. 

 

i edited. these are/were liberal beliefs. 

 

id love for you to name conservative beliefs. id prob agree with you on some but would much rather you address my points as to why any of them are not in stark contrast to what the fundamental american system should stand for and fight AGAINST without moving of topic or whatabouting.

 

if you can't even explain why they are being pushed/ agreed with then why shouldn't it be fought however necessary.

 

as i said these are fundamental principals under attack.

 

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by Buffarukus

[ChiGoose]

I didn’t want to list them out because I think it misses the point, but I’ll throw some out from the top of my head because you asked. 

 

Quote

how? one side thinks the fundamental principals on which the country was founded are a good basis for living and the other sees them as wrong and must be changed from the very roots. how in the hell is that sustainable and what would make ANYONE think changing them is going to bring about more individual prosperity and freedom then the one place on the planet that has the most? 

 

The Right doesn’t own the founding of this country. The Founders were careful to keep the endorsement of a specific religion out of the Constitution but the right insists that we are a Christian theocracy. 
 

The founders grounded the right to bear arms as a way to maintain well regulated militias but the right believes this means everyone has the right to own any kind of gun with few to no restrictions. 
 

The right today is mythologizing a past that never existed. 
 

 

Quote

the left wants to divide the national anthem! smothered in identity politics that no longer sees people on a individual basis. it doesn't get more divisive then saying some are discluded from a national anthem or different. you claim the right does this yet i never saw evidence.

 

I bet that if you asked, a full 90% of the left wouldn’t really care about the anthem debate. 
 

And as for identity politics, you might be missing the “real American” identify driving the right. It’s rural white Christians as the true Americans and everyone else is “the other”

How many memes have you seen about this being a conservative country because if you plot the presidential vote by land instead of people, there’s more red?

 

Quote

the left thinks parents should not have the ability to discern their own children's education and this administration has targeted as terrorists if they demand it.

The right is literally banning books. When in the entirety of world history have the people who ban books turned out to be the good guys?
 

Quote

the left has changed definitions and science to push agendas. not extreme at all.

 

I honestly don’t know what this means or is referencing. 
 

Quote

the left has emboldened criminal behavior with woke DAs slapping people on the wrist while seeking harsh criminal sentances to those who have defended their lives and not the aggressors.

The progressive prosecutor movement isn’t even super popular on the left. Here in Chicago, the likely leading mayoral candidate is strongly pro-police and is endorsed by the police union.
 

However, the impact of these prosecutors on crime is greatly over exaggerated on the right because they won’t compare crime rates in similar cities with different approaches (hint: crime is up everywhere)
 

Quote

 

 

freedom of speech is being erased by the left and ignored/cheered when tactics are used against anyone with differing opinions. covid was prime example twitter was conclusive in this.

 

This conversation started because some on the right are literally calling for a war against their own country because they don’t like what people say. 
 

In addition to that, people’s lives are being endangered because the right insists on slandering trans people and drag queens as pedophiles. 

A guy with a gun went into a pizza place because he thought the owners were using the non-existent basement for pedophilia.

 

There is a popular twitter account on the right that routinely dehumanizes trans people and drag queens, driving people to threaten them or even instigate violence. 

 

Quote

 

these arent minor things and there is no justification should be made for any of the above..yet you will and say this will lead to a "better tomorrow". i see it on this board everyday.

 

These aren’t minor things and there is no justification that should be made for any of the above.. yet you will say this will “return us to our values”. I see it on this board every day. 
 

 

Look, the extremists on both sides push unpopular ideas that get popularized by the corporatist media that cares more about getting people mad so they stay tuned in than reporting the truth. 

 

But the overwhelming majority on both sides just care about kitchen table issues. They aren’t dialed into politics 24/7 and they aren’t familiar with the majority of things discussed on this board. 
 

Instead of defending the position of having us kill each other, why not advocate for ways to bring us back together?

 

PS: if you’re trying to say all members of a political party are as bad as the worst members of that party, do try to remember that the current GOP is supported by literal Nazis. 

Edited February 22, 2023 by ChiGoose

[Joe Ferguson forever]

4 hours ago, Buffarukus said:

 

how? one side thinks the fundamental principals on which the country was founded are a good basis for living and the other sees them as wrong and must be changed from the very roots. how in the hell is that sustainable and what would make ANYONE think changing them is going to bring about more individual prosperity and freedom then the one place on the planet that has the most? 

 

the left wants to divide the national anthem! smothered in identity politics that no longer sees people on a individual basis. it doesn't get more divisive then saying some are discluded from a national anthem or different. you claim the right does this yet i never saw evidence.

 

the left thinks parents should not have the ability to discern their own children's education and this administration has targeted as terrorists if they demand it.

 

the left has changed definitions and science to push agendas. not extreme at all.

 

the left has emboldened criminal behavior with woke DAs slapping people on the wrist while seeking harsh criminal sentances to those who have defended their lives and not the aggressors.

 

freedom of speech is being erased by the left and ignored/cheered when tactics are used against anyone with differing opinions. covid was prime example twitter was conclusive in this.

 

one side wants war..one that can go nuclear...the other want peace talks.

 

these arent minor things and no justification should be made for any of the above..yet you will and say this will lead to a "better tomorrow". i see it on this board everyday.

 

they are LIBERAL principals!!!!

 

 

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republicans-use-wokeism-to-attack-left-but-struggle-to-define-it/ar-AA17K7dS

“It used to be that [Republicans] were kind of free traders and anti-Russia and pro-military and for entitlement reform,” Carville said. “Well, that’s all out the window. The only thing they have that unifies them is cultural resentment — ‘Let’s all attack the trans kid’ or ‘We shouldn’t tell seventh graders there are gay people because then they’ll never know.’”

Edited February 22, 2023 by redtail hawk

[Joe Ferguson forever]

2 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

The right today is mythologizing a past that never existed. 

nailed it.  Leave it to beaver was a tv show.  not real life for most Americans.  This idealized, white bread, picket fence, apple pie, high pay for unskilled labor, lock step sexuality, conflict free world for everyone has really only existed in the minds of righty political strategists, advertisers and propagandists.  and they've convinced people that there actually was a time when all these things were real.  never was, likely never will be.  the wizard of oz was fantasy.  just a little guy pulling levers behind a curtain and fooling enough people to stay in control.  honesty, candor, elections and civil discussions on our differences and similarities (and there are many that all humans share through biology and instinct) are where the solutions lie.

[sherpa]

8 hours ago, redtail hawk said:

Does anyone believe the stockpile of civilian weaponry could compete with F16's and state of the art drones etc?  It'd be over faster than you can say Iraq.  But people would needlessly die.  Ridiculous to even consider.  Sure there are people that would be traitors within the military but punish a few appropriately and it would stop quickly.  c'mon guys.

 

I admit that I haven't read this thread, but if this is a reference to some kind of civil war, I most strongly disagree with your conclusion regarding the military.

I get that the entire thing is hypothetical.

"Punishing a few" would not stop the disintegration of an all voluntary military.

Additionally, you could never get US pilots to do something internally of any scale.

 

[LeviF]

The sheer amount of constitutional and historical illiteracy demonstrated above should be apparent to anyone with a high school education, but unfortunately the ideological capture of public institutions in this country means that said education basically taught three historical touchpoints and zero context for any of them. 
 

You can feel free to ignore anyone who uses the phrase “literal nazis,” insists that the founders didn’t mean what they said they meant, and pretends that America wasn’t at one time a high-functioning, high-trust society prior to 1964. 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 hour ago, sherpa said:

 

I admit that I haven't read this thread, but if this is a reference to some kind of civil war, I most strongly disagree with your conclusion regarding the military.

I get that the entire thing is hypothetical.

"Punishing a few" would not stop the disintegration of an all voluntary military.

Additionally, you could never get US pilots to do something internally of any scale.

 

so you are saying that the military would abandon the chain of command in a civil war and not defend the nation from internal attack?  where's the precedent for that in US history?  the plantation owners and elites of the south lead its succession.  the military on each side largely did what they were ordered.  Has there ever been a mass mutiny amongst the US military?  why would it happen now?  because they are volunteers?

[Tommy Callahan]

6 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

so you are saying that the military would abandon the chain of command in a civil war and not defend the nation from internal attack?  where's the precedent for that in US history?  the plantation owners and elites of the south lead its succession.  the military on each side largely did what they were ordered.  Has there ever been a mass mutiny amongst the US military?  why would it happen now?  because they are volunteers?

you are assuming that military is not part of said attack...

 

History of civil wars or strife shows military either gets in and takes power at the front, or waits and supports the winner.

 

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

32 minutes ago, LeviF said:

The sheer amount of constitutional and historical illiteracy demonstrated above should be apparent to anyone with a high school education, but unfortunately the ideological capture of public institutions in this country means that said education basically taught three historical touchpoints and zero context for any of them. 
 

You can feel free to ignore anyone who uses the phrase “literal nazis,” insists that the founders didn’t mean what they said they meant, and pretends that America wasn’t at one time a high-functioning, high-trust society prior to 1964. 

1964?  because of the civil rights movement?  I lived closer to 64 than you and despite growing up in a pretty idealized setting, I knew there were struggling, desperate  Americans back then.  There was also intolerance to non "mainstream" ideas (remember Joe McCarthy), rampant censorship, active hate movements, lower average education levels and literacy and global threats of annihilation (eg Cuban missile crisis). and there were homosexuals. The average standard of living was lower.  Attacks on organized labor were common.  There were actual wars in coal mining areas (eg matewan massacre).  there were sweat shops and child laborers.  but everything else was peaches and cream...for everyone.  btw, would you agree with the term self proclaimed nazis?

21 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

you are assuming that military is not part of said attack...

 

History of civil wars or strife shows military either gets in and takes power at the front, or waits and supports the winner.

 

 

again, where is anything close to a precedent in American history?  Do you think the culture has changed so much that history is irrelevant?  Could be but I wouldn't bet on it.  Also consider that there are now many weapons that require only a few humans to control that could have a devastating effect.  It's amazing that were at the point that we are even considering these scenarios but here we are...

Edited February 22, 2023 by redtail hawk

[sherpa]

5 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

so you are saying that the military would abandon the chain of command in a civil war and not defend the nation from internal attack?  where's the precedent for that in US history?  the plantation owners and elites of the south lead its succession.  the military on each side largely did what they were ordered.  Has there ever been a mass mutiny amongst the US military?  why would it happen now?  because they are volunteers?

 

What I am saying is that the fact that it is an all volunteer force, and that eliminates the term "mutiny."

 

The hypothetical would have to be more clearly defined, but in my view, the military would not survive intact if there was an internal conflict of any scope, especially if it was a regional situation.

 

The 9/11 situation notwithstanding, where there was intent to take down hijacked airliners inside US borders, the concept of using the US military in a civil war scenario is simply unimaginable.

 

The simple regional nature of National Guard units, much more important in the total defense capability than at any time prior, is alone an issue that makes this not thinkable.

 

The US is suffering from very problematic recruitment and retention issues, especially in highly skilled areas, like pilots, and the buildup to such a scenario would be catastrophic to that issue.

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

35 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

What I am saying is that the fact that it is an all volunteer force, and that eliminates the term "mutiny."

 

The hypothetical would have to be more clearly defined, but in my view, the military would not survive intact if there was an internal conflict of any scope, especially if it was a regional situation.

 

The 9/11 situation notwithstanding, where there was intent to take down hijacked airliners inside US borders, the concept of using the US military in a civil war scenario is simply unimaginable.

 

The simple regional nature of National Guard units, much more important in the total defense capability than at any time prior, is alone an issue that makes this not thinkable.

 

The US is suffering from very problematic recruitment and retention issues, especially in highly skilled areas, like pilots, and the buildup to such a scenario would be catastrophic to that issue.

 

therefore if you volunteer, you no longer need to accept the chain of command?  If you are correct, we are indeed in a very bad way.  I'd really like to believe you are part of a small minority of military, ex military but maybe not.  oh, and didn't we have a pretty catastrophic civil war in the mid 19th century?  I'd bet that was thought unimaginable before it actually happened.  as for examples of military involvement in internal conflict, Kent State (national guard) ,Wounded knee, the civil rights movement and quelling race riots come to mind but I'm certain to be missing some.

edit:  missing many.   plenty to cite in this list:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

Edited February 22, 2023 by redtail hawk

[sherpa]

38 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

therefore if you volunteer, you no longer need to accept the chain of command?  If you are correct, we are indeed in a very bad way.  I'd really like to believe you are part of a small minority of military, ex military but maybe not.  oh, and didn't we have a pretty catastrophic civil war in the mid 19th century?  I'd bet that was thought unimaginable before it actually happened.  as for examples of military involvement in internal conflict, Kent State (national guard) ,Wounded knee, the civil rights movement and quelling race riots come to mind but I'm certain to be missing some.

edit:  missing many.   plenty to cite in this list:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

 

I had a feeling this would be misunderstood after I posted it. My fault for not being more clear.

 

Being an all volunteer force does not relieve one from following legal orders, and we're not in a bad way.

 

My point is that being volunteer, you can resign from active duty, and that is what I believe would happen on a very large scale if there was some whiff of using active duty people in a shooting war inside the US. Such a mass resignation would take time, but the effect would be immediate.

 

In addition, I believe their would have to be some changes that would have to be in place before such an order could be given, as one of the requirements of the UCMJ is to not obey an unlawful order. I believe the active duty military could not issue such an order.

Using the National Guard for minor police augmentation is a different and legal issue.

 

Regarding how small a minority is that thinks that way, the officer corps in the US military is every bid as diverse as the general population, so presumably the same differences that would lead up to this hypothetical would exist there and render it dysfunctional as a unified force. 

In my experience, despite what you may think, I cannot imagine a circumstance where US pilots would strike known civilians in the US.

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

17 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

I had a feeling this would be misunderstood after I posted it. My fault for not being more clear.

 

Being an all volunteer force does not relieve one from following legal orders, and we're not in a bad way.

 

My point is that being volunteer, you can resign from active duty, and that is what I believe would happen on a very large scale if there was some whiff of using active duty people in a shooting war inside the US. Such a mass resignation would take time, but the effect would be immediate.

 

In addition, I believe their would have to be some changes that would have to be in place before such an order could be given, as one of the requirements of the UCMJ is to not obey an unlawful order. I believe the active duty military could not issue such an order.

Using the National Guard for minor police augmentation is a different and legal issue.

 

Regarding how small a minority is that thinks that way, the officer corps in the US military is every bid as diverse as the general population, so presumably the same differences that would lead up to this hypothetical would exist there and render it dysfunctional as a unified force. 

In my experience, despite what you may think, I cannot imagine a circumstance where US pilots would strike known civilians in the US.

 

ok.  much more realistic scenario.  Personally, I'd rather see the disloyal resign than stay and sabotage the resumption of law and order.  Could the military function after such a purge?  I don't know but many private companies function during months of strikes from workers.  And there's always the option of mercenaries.  Erik Prince would likely work for the highest bidder.  Blackwater was in New Orleans after Katrina as I recall.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/blackwater-down/

Edited February 22, 2023 by redtail hawk

[LeviF]

1 hour ago, redtail hawk said:

1964?  because of the civil rights movement?  I lived closer to 64 than you and despite growing up in a pretty idealized setting, I knew there were struggling, desperate  Americans back then.  There was also intolerance to non "mainstream" ideas (remember Joe McCarthy), rampant censorship, active hate movements, lower average education levels and literacy and global threats of annihilation (eg Cuban missile crisis). and there were homosexuals. The average standard of living was lower.  Attacks on organized labor were common.  There were actual wars in coal mining areas (eg matewan massacre).  there were sweat shops and child laborers.  but everything else was peaches and cream...for everyone.  btw, would you agree with the term self proclaimed nazis?

 

 

Nobody here claimed that everyone had a great life in America forever. Growing up in the area I did we still had people who were literally dirt poor out in the sticks. But to paraphrase a particular Nazarene, there will always be poor people. FLSA passed in 1938 I think so I'm not sure where there would have been child laborers when you were growing up.

 

"There were homosexuals" lol ok and? Nobody denies the existence of homosexuality or the perpetual state of war that humanity seems to exist in. What exactly has everyone going to college gotten us? Prozac for half the country? At best, over-educated middle aged men talking politics on internet message boards?

 

Joe McCarthy was correct. Communist ideologues captured the American institutions in ways that not even he could imagine at the time.

 

As to the last part, why should I care about what national socialists think? Are there more of them now than there were in 1938? What threat do they pose? What power do they wield?

 

We can acknowledge that nations have faults without demonizing the nation. America is the greatest nation in the history of the world, it surged ahead of every recorded civilization ever in every meaningful metric in record time. But it worked for that time for a reason, reasons that we seem hell-bent on undoing in the last sixty years.

[Tiberius]

6 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

ok.  much more realistic scenario.  Personally, I'd rather see the disloyal resign than stay and sabotage the resumption of law and order.  Could the military function after such a purge?  I don't know but many private companies function during months of strikes from workers.  And there's always the option of mercenaries.  Erik Prince would likely work for the highest bidder.  Blackwater was in New Orleans after Katrina as I recall.

If there was a disruption of the public order the vast majority of the population would rise up to crush the source of that disruption. People like to blow hot air, but in the end they want their coffee in the morning, their mail

delivered on time and all the luxuries of modern life available 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

11 minutes ago, LeviF said:

 

Nobody here claimed that everyone had a great life in America forever. Growing up in the area I did we still had people who were literally dirt poor out in the sticks. But to paraphrase a particular Nazarene, there will always be poor people. FLSA passed in 1938 I think so I'm not sure where there would have been child laborers when you were growing up.

 

"There were homosexuals" lol ok and? Nobody denies the existence of homosexuality or the perpetual state of war that humanity seems to exist in. What exactly has everyone going to college gotten us? Prozac for half the country? At best, over-educated middle aged men talking politics on internet message boards?

 

Joe McCarthy was correct. Communist ideologues captured the American institutions in ways that not even he could imagine at the time.

 

As to the last part, why should I care about what national socialists think? Are there more of them now than there were in 1938? What threat do they pose? What power do they wield?

 

We can acknowledge that nations have faults without demonizing the nation. America is the greatest nation in the history of the world, it surged ahead of every recorded civilization ever in every meaningful metric in record time. But it worked for that time for a reason, reasons that we seem hell-bent on undoing in the last sixty years.

you said before 1964. why 1964?  yeah, prozac wasn't around.  people were popping valium like m&m's.  the nazi comment was in reference to your disparagement of the literal nazis statement.  are you walking that back?  I'm no communist by a long stretch but freedom of speech applies to them as well as MAGA's that want to dissolve the union..  oh, and younger than middle aged folks spend significant time on the site as well.  I don't believe one can have too much education. 

Edited February 22, 2023 by redtail hawk

[LeviF]

Just now, redtail hawk said:

you said before 1964. why 1964?  yeah, prozac wasn't around.  people were popping valium like m&m's.  the nazi comment was in reference to your disparagement of the literal nazis statement.  are you walking that back?  I'm no communist by a long stretch but freedom of speech applies to them as well as MAGA's that want to dissolve the union..  oh, and younger than middle aged folks spend significant time on the site as well. 

 

If you're over 35, you're middle aged 😂

 

Walking what back? If someone says "literal nazis" in political talk they aren't a rational human being, they're a screeching loser. 

 

We just had the discussion yesterday about how much better cities were at the turn of the 20th century. Didn't see any pushback from you there. What do you think happened between 1900 and 1955 that made life so terrible for pretty much everyone in America?

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 minute ago, LeviF said:

 

If you're over 35, you're middle aged 😂

 

Walking what back? If someone says "literal nazis" in political talk they aren't a rational human being, they're a screeching loser. 

 

We just had the discussion yesterday about how much better cities were at the turn of the 20th century. Didn't see any pushback from you there. What do you think happened between 1900 and 1955 that made life so terrible for pretty much everyone in America?

yet you seem to accept the term self described nazis.  explain the distinction.  And why 1964.  Does that have anything to do with the civil rights act?

[LeviF]

1 minute ago, redtail hawk said:

yet you seem to accept the term self described nazis.  explain the distinction.  And why 1964.  Does that have anything to do with the civil rights act?

 

And I also rejected any talk of nazis at all. There's no reason for it. I don't care what nazis think. My assertion was neither should anyone else.

 

JFK assassination is when the worm turned. I say 1964 because 1964 ushered in the real third age of American presidents, as LBJ started throwing his weight around. The farcical Warren Commission, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Hart-Celler, assassination of Malcolm X, Vietnam. These are the defining moments for the era from LBJ through 9/11.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

8 minutes ago, LeviF said:

 

And I also rejected any talk of nazis at all. There's no reason for it. I don't care what nazis think. My assertion was neither should anyone else.

 

JFK assassination is when the worm turned. I say 1964 because 1964 ushered in the real third age of American presidents, as LBJ started throwing his weight around. The farcical Warren Commission, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Hart-Celler, assassination of Malcolm X, Vietnam. These are the defining moments for the era from LBJ through 9/11.

i care what nazis do.  In Charlottesville for example.  Was that ok with you?:  We'll have to disagree on the importance of the civil rights act and the genesis of Medicare and Social Security.

[LeviF]

1 minute ago, redtail hawk said:

i care what nazis do.  In Charlottesville for example.  Was that ok with you?:  We'll have to disagree on the importance of the civil rights act and the genesis of Medicare and Social Security.

 

Tell you what, I'll talk with you about Charlottesville when you acknowledge that every murder committed by an individual who should already be in prison is an example of far-left domestic terrorism. Starting with the Michigan State shooter.

[SoCal Deek]

I watched some of her interview on Hannity. Note, that I’ve already called her a clown. But…what she’s talking about is ‘divorcing’ the states from the federal government, not from one another. While in-artful in her presentation, as is usual, she’s expressing concern from her constituents over the ever expanding over arching authority of the centralized DC power base. Now THAT is a discussion worth having. Or…you guys can keep screaming at each other about muskets and fighter jets.

[Tommy Callahan]

2 hours ago, redtail hawk said:

therefore if you volunteer, you no longer need to accept the chain of command?  If you are correct, we are indeed in a very bad way.  I'd really like to believe you are part of a small minority of military, ex military but maybe not.  oh, and didn't we have a pretty catastrophic civil war in the mid 19th century?  I'd bet that was thought unimaginable before it actually happened.  as for examples of military involvement in internal conflict, Kent State (national guard) ,Wounded knee, the civil rights movement and quelling race riots come to mind but I'm certain to be missing some.

edit:  missing many.   plenty to cite in this list:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

they were also used to move and build the camps for Japanese Americans in the WW2

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 hour ago, LeviF said:

 

Tell you what, I'll talk with you about Charlottesville when you acknowledge that every murder committed by an individual who should already be in prison is an example of far-left domestic terrorism. Starting with the Michigan State shooter.

yes, because it's impossible to discuss them separately.

[LeviF]

3 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

yes, because it's impossible to discuss them separately.

 

It's entirely possible to do so.

 

The problem is that you want to imagine there is some kind of large, ongoing, national socialist conspiracy that is helping to inform policy decisions when in fact this does not exist. Deliberately or not, you want to insert imaginary enemies into a discussion about American life in the 20th and 21st centuries in order to assert that life is better now than it ever has been but for those dang nazis that are just messing it all up. It's dishonest. It's absurd on its face. It's an attempt to shout down any notion that suggests that hey, maybe the direction this country is going in isn't the best thing for her people.

 

If you want the GOP to be the party of nazis, then fine, I reserve the right to say the DNC is the party of Bolsheviks. 

[Gene Frenkle]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

I watched some of her interview on Hannity. Note, that I’ve already called her a clown. But…what she’s talking about is ‘divorcing’ the states from the federal government, not from one another. While in-artful in her presentation, as is usual, she’s expressing concern from her constituents over the ever expanding over arching authority of the centralized DC power base. Now THAT is a discussion worth having. Or…you guys can keep screaming at each other about muskets and fighter jets.

 

Do you think this clown is capable of nuance???

 

Not buying this spin, no offense.

[SoCal Deek]

4 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Do you think this clown is capable of nuance???

 

Not buying this spin, no offense.

Gene, I watched her actually speak. Unlike many on here who prefer to get their information from second hand nitwits on Twitter.