She stood tall and golden,
this dry summer grass
beneath a setting sun that was
a leather belt
and anger
but
when the breeze blew
she grooved a little
and when the wind gusted
she danced like a storm
and soon
she danced the rain into being
and all the earth danced along
82 comments:
I have been astounded by the wisdom of the Harris/Walz campaign. Clearly, the people of the US are tired of the divisiveness, the bile, the bitterness of the mood of the day. We are concerned on all sides, but we're also wanting just a bit more upbeat.
Then comes Harris/Walz, busting out of the gate, late to the game but making up time as quickly as possible. And they stand in utter contrast to the mirthless venom and anger of the other side. The other side is staking claim on glee-less fearmongering and carnage in America! Cat ladies aren't welcome, the childless are not invested in our nation, we're going to tell women what medical decisions they must make, we're going to tell you what gender you are and what books you can read and we may just penalize you if you're one of the godless invaders and haters!
That's the other side.
But clearly, Harris/Walz are here to unite, to have fun, to bring the joy.
They are, of course, flawed humans and flawed politicians, as all politicians are flawed. Harris bought WAY too far in to the "let's prosecute black men" movement of the 90s and, hopefully, she regrets that.
But man, they are playing their cards right, right now. We want a Morning in America, the bright and shining hill... WHILE recognizing the US flawed history, as well. But mostly, joy. Mostly, we're all in this together. Mostly, let's have fun and smile and laugh a bit while we do what we can to be better citizens and a better nation.
It's clearly a message that is catching on, if the polls are any indicator.
Three weeks ago, Harris/Walz were not even a thing, but they've sure hit the ground running and making a clear, positive choice for voters this November.
Let's bring the joy.
"Fun" and "joy" will be realized by all when the nation is not run by your kind.
You should read more about and listen more to others on Harris' career as a prosecutor. You don't know.
https://www.vox.com/today-explained-newsletter/363859/kamala-harris-prosecutor-record-tough-crime
https://one.npr.org/?sharedMediaId=nx-s1-5051933:nx-s1-dc48b8aa-4a25-4186-89b4-62cff25381b7&fbclid=IwY2xjawEkUaNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHRS9bHX9hIkzWx_jhgGM9ITZS1voUioYcx398UME6jW2cg20NT9rL11-VQ_aem_xZhHo0HaFynkpzrpXgHoCA
Marshal practices mirthful venom and anger. That’s why he doesn’t recognize himself. “Your kind”. Whimsically fascist.
Otherwise, Dan, you are so right. Last night in Arizona, the Harris appearance gathered the largest audience in Arizona political history. In real numbers, not imaginary Trump-friends numbers.
I really dig the sentiment of the original post -- reminds me of a song from Jeff Bridges of all people!
The first comment, not so much. I think the country would be far less divided if the Democrats had some moderates in positions of power. California's Kamala and Minnesota's Walz may have a lot of things going for them, but Clintonesque triangulation ain't one of 'em.
"And they stand in utter contrast to the mirthless venom and anger of the other side. The other side is staking claim on glee-less fearmongering and carnage in America! Cat ladies aren't welcome, the childless are not invested in our nation," etc., etc., ad nauseum.
You say that, Dan, but Trump rallies and the 2024 RNC have been more like NASCAR parties than Nuremburg, and I bet you can't tell precisely what Vance said about cat ladies -- verbatum -- that's so damned offensive.
Thanks, Bubba. I love Jeff Bridges.
As to what Vance meant by his cat ladies and single people comments (which he's apparently made many references to), I point you to his own vulgar, demonizing, idiotic words:
"“We are effectively run in this country … by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they wanna make the rest of the country miserable, too,” Vance said. "It's just a basic fact. You look at Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez), the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children."
and...
"I'm worried that it makes people more sociopathic and ultimately our whole country a little less mentally unstable."
and...
“We’ve allowed ourselves to be dominated by childless sociopaths - they’re invested in NOTHING because they’re not invested in this country’s children. Fighting back won’t be easy - our childless opponents have a lot of free time. That’s why I need YOU to stand with me.”
and...
“Our country is basically run by childless Democrats who are miserable in their own lives and want to make the rest of the country miserable too… What I want to know is: why have we turned our country over to people who don’t have a direct stake in it?”
...and I don't know how many more examples there are of this (interestingly) sociopathic and insane sounding attacks on single people.
THAT is what he said multiple times in multiple instances on this theme. Why do you think I don't know what he's said? It's out there now.
The point he's making quite clearly, quite repeatedly, is that people without children, in HIS opinion, have no interest in the future of the country AND that they tend to be - he says with NO basis - "sociopathic" and makes "our country a little less unstable..."
Why? What do YOU think he's intending?
Also, his wife and others have defended him saying this was his way of making a "quip" to make a larger point. But what IS that larger point? That the democrats are anti-children and anti-family?
IF that's the point he wants to make, do you recognize how insane that sounds on the face of it? How rude all these comments are to people without children... as if you can't be invested in the nation and the future if you don't have children?
What point do YOU think he was trying to make?
Do you recognize how ugly and just plain stupid such comments are? ... that he is shooting himself in the foot? As if the GOP is not already perceived to be anti-woman enough without adding these insulting and abusive and vulgar comments to the mix?
Are you familiar that there is a known history of this kind of sexist assault on women and childless folks?
He has called falling U.S. birth rates a “civilizational crisis,” and advocated in recent years that adults without children should pay higher taxes and have fewer voting rights.
Let's give votes to ALL children in this country but give control of those votes to the parents of those children. When you go to the polls in this country as a parent, you should have MORE power you should have MORE of an ability to speak your voice than people who don't have kids.... If you don't have as much an investment in the future of this country, maybe you shouldn't get nearly the same voice..."
https://www.npr.org/2024/07/29/nx-s1-5055616/jd-vance-childless-cat-lady-history
Can you recognize this not only as offensive and stupid as hell, but genuinely crazy and dangerous?
I don't know, Dan, is it really any worse than suggesting that one's political opponents are bitterly clinging to their guns and their God? Have I forgotten or overlooked when you ranted about that rhetoric, calling it offensive and stupid and vulgar and demonizing?
It was pretty universally acknowledged that this was a dumb thing for Obama to say. Clinton denounced him for it. It was offensive and just stupid, especially given that he at least appeared to be appealing to NOT forget folks in rural settings who had been overlooked.
And THAT is the difference between the two. Obama was siding with the poor and marginalized in rural settings and managed to say a stupid and offensive thing for which he apologized, and it was a one off.
Vance has been saying some version of this, "childless people are sociopaths, they're 'cat ladies' (itself an offensive term), they should have less voting power than people with children.
Now, I'll ask you again: Can you recognize THESE comments and ideas from Vance as not only offensive and stupid as hell, but genuinely crazy and dangerous?
Also, you said, strangely, that I couldn't "tell precisely what Vance said about cat ladies -- verbatum -- that's so damned offensive."
You put it out there. I told you precisely what he said that is so very damned offensive and anti-liberty. Do you think I'm mistaken?
Oh, and Obama did apologize. Has Vance?
I mean, I know that he said he had nothing against cats, but that isn't an apology, is it?
Yes, I think you are just way off here. Saying, "Remember the rural folks who feel abandoned by the gov't... and some of them then cling to their guns and religion and opposition to immigrants..." AND THEN, apologizing for the stupid comment (after Democrats condemned him for it)...
...THAT is a completely different scenario from attacking childless adults as "sociopaths" and suggesting that "THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE THE SAME VOTING POWER as parents," and NOT apologizing for it and NOT having the GOP condemn it as dangerous.
It's amazing to me that you can't just unequivocally condemn the notion of giving parents more voting power than those without children. No. Your theories (about women needing to be mothers as a "general" rule and that society suffers when those women "fail" to live up to their "role" of mothers) are just sexist and has no merit.
You can GUESS that women who haven't married lean towards liberal/progressive ideas for negative reasons (they're selfish, they're sociopathic...) is a bad guess. Perhaps they lean progressive because the "conservative" position is so harmful to them. Isn't that more likely?
People are all different. Women are all different. Circumstances are all different. You can't make these sort of idiotic sweeping generalizations.
I just spent a month in middle Georgia with my ill and then dying father-in-law. 4 of every 5 SUV or Truck have decals with memberships of which gun club or which "armory" the owner belongs to. And billboards, rarely seen here in the Northeast anymore, are 90% religion or ads for civil lawyers representing some kind of harm that people can sue for.
President Obama said, "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate, and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, and they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Driving back along the Blue Ridge Mountains, my wife and I - she the daughter of a Black man from Philadelphia and a Black Panamanian mother - saw a garish display of a bar/axe throwing lounge with a huge Confederate flag and festooned with Trump ads.
Mr Obama was accurate, obvious to the most casual observer. But talking like a sociologist isn't rarely the best look for a Presidential candidate. Though there was a time - a golden age of American sociology and, with it, Black sociologists - when sociologists and developmental psychologists were on talk shows, on the cover of Time, and consulted by Congress and the White House. Brown v Board would be one famous example.
To guns and religion, we can add ATVs, highly processed snack food, and kidney doctors. No one over 30 can stand up straight or walk with hips at equal level.
Correction: talking like a sociologist is! rarely the best look for a Presidential candidate.
If Bubba and the raging right weren't so wrapped up in resentment politics AND those of us on the left can't win by talking about changing the systems that benefit the rich at the expense of 90% of us, we could hear what Mr Obama is saying:
When a society goes two generations without government effectively addressing its needs, the body politic suffers. Obama is saying that a politics of resentment in the public is a response to failure of effective leadership.
But how did we get to such a place in 2005?
Some outward causes: a} Reagan's hobby horse of deregulation - to unleash the power of corporate business - coincided with beginning of the global economy driving massive profits for CEOs and investors. Massive profits were the goal, the worker be damned. "Trickle Down" was a lie. b) White Americans resentful of narratives about diversity and inclusion - from way back then.
Put those two together and 90% of Americans could not vote for a politics that paid attention to them - most Whites voting against their interests - and middle America started falling behind at proportionately increasing rates. We were unable to blame the right agents of our falling purchasing power.
Inwardly, the GOP under Reagan - principally his campaign head, Lee Atwater, knew that the political economy was deserting most Americans and they needed issues that motivated White people to be unaware that they were voting against their own interests. Enter guns and religion: homosexuality and abortion (which was a newly manufactured issue for evangelicalism on the heels of not being able to maintain segregated education); and delegitimizing government as BIG BROTHER ( hence militias and the explosion of gun sales and, predictably, the birth of the phenomenon of young white men slaughtering crowds with AK47s.
Good points, all, Feodor. We are where we are today with much influence from the Reagans and Gingriches of the 1980s. And they "succeeded" to such a degree that a Reagan-type could probably not even be elected by their own party today... unintended consequences of political extremism. And yes, clearly, Obama was indeed speaking on behalf of the people he eventually insulted due to his wording.
Say what you want about the politics of the Obamas and the Carters, they were genuinely good people with good intentions from all that we can see. I think easily the two most overtly decent and good families to have lived in the White House in my lifetime.
And let me add that Clinton contributed to runaway inequity by repealing glass steagall which only benefitted, again, CEOs and stockholders. Obama came in handcuffed by a near-terminal financial nation and Too Big To Fail. Once we survived that, any redress and correction by legislation to reinstate regulation and oversight and limits to CEO pay and moving companies out of the country was blocked by the GOP. Obama failed to punish Wall Street.
If the truth is an insult, then people need to look in the mirror. Doctors tell us bad news all the time. We don't hate them for it.
Inflation Falls Below 3% for First Time Since 2021
Dan,
You're quite right that people are different and circumstances are different, but that's actually a reason why generalizations ARE reasonable if they're recognized as PATTERNS without being IRON-CLAD laws.
Let's suppose you run a used music shop, you know that a really valuable CD was shoplifted, and there were only two customers in the store on that slow weekday afternoon.
- A regular customer, a 91-year-old woman who has trouble moving around
- A new customer, male, about 18 years old and in good physical condition
The woke left would have you believe it's prejudiced to draw any conclusions, but common sense really would tell you EXACTLY which customer is the most likely thief -- NOT a guarantee, of course, but a quite reasonable hypothesis, an educated guess based on years of real-world experience.
And note the conclusion you draw, based on generalization, would qualify as xenophobic, but NOT ageist, ableist, or sexist. The likely suspect isn't in the marginalized categories of senior citizens, the handicapped, or women!
---
"It's amazing to me that you can't just unequivocally condemn the notion of giving parents more voting power than those without children."
Let me ask you:
Suppose you live in a small town that hosts a large college, maybe Oxford, Mississippi, home of Ole Miss: it's a 25K town hosting a student body of 23K(!!). Locals support a residency requirement of, say, five years for local elections, to limit the distortions that are endemic when you let 20-year-old college kids from out-of-town vote on laws about noise regulations and open containers of beer.
Should I "unequivocally" condemn that requirement, or nah?
---
About presidential politics, I don't think we can say for certain that a Reagan is too moderate because, as I've argued elsewhere, Trump is truly more a triangulating Clintonite than an ideological Reaganite. The closest we've had to a Reaganite recently is Ted Cruz, and he's just not as personally appealing as Ronaldus Magnus: instead, we've had neocon progressives from Bush 41, Dole, and W. to McCain and Romney.
You really haven't seen extremism at the national level, and if you disliked the Tea Party and Trump, you're really going to hate whatever comes next. That's not a threat, it's a stone-cold promise.
I don't know much about the Obamas personal life, but I'd readily concede that Carter was and remains a good person with a good family, albeit a man with at-best naive ideas when it comes to policy. It's just a shame that the best families on the left tend not to (as I've heard it said) "preach what they practice," because a man like Obama would be an EXCELLENT role model for America's young men, black and otherwise.
Bubba is fake. The woke left wont play that even. Bubba, try imaging a 19 year old Izod wearing white kid and a 19 year old Pop Smoke T-Shirt wearing black kid. Where does your mind go?
"You really haven't seen extremism at the national level" Attacks on the Capital happened on the fake moon landing.
Feo,
Having read Thomas Sowell, I recognize that culture matters at least as much as race. If I go to my coffee shop and see a group of black men huddled around the Bible, I know that I'm almost certainly with my heavenly family.
Jan 6 was an unruly riot, but it wasn't any worse than the recent pro-Hamas rallies in DC, the fiery but "mostly" peaceful BLM riots, the 2020 takeover of the Michigan capital building, or the 2011 protests in Madison, to say nothing of the man who intended to murder Supreme Court justices or the attempted assassination of Republican lawmakers at a softball practice.
We may well be heading toward a second civil war, but I sincerely pray that it's still early yet, hopefully more 1850 than 1860.
But your prejudice for Christians doesn't influence your blank slate evaluation of the white and black kid. You don't know their religion. Your defense is specious and diversionary.
1. Pro Palestinian rallies have been infiltrated by pro Hamas individuals. And the pro Palestinian people shouted at them to stop and they weren't welcome. Your need to paint everybody with brush gives the lie to your offense at those who do cling to their guns and religion.
2. Eight people died from the Jan 6th attack on our capital. 5 of them police officers. One at the scene and 4 by suicide after. Your callousness and poo-pooing of the event dyes in a deeper hue of fascist brutality.
3. Even a state capital takeover doesn't seem to disturb you. Over Covid?! God awful people. You're cooly fine with White terrorism.
"Armed protesters brought signs that compared Whitmer to Adolf Hitler, showed nooses and Confederate flags. Some signs read, "Tyrants Get The Rope." During that gathering, demonstrators entered the Capitol and chanted: "Our House" and "Let Us In" outside of the House chamber against a line of Michigan State Police. Many protesters didn't wear masks or follow social distancing. Some armed demonstrators entered the Senate gallery and stood above lawmakers. At least one lawmaker donned a bulletproof vest."
4. The Civil War was started because the vast majority of White people in one region did not want to recognize the humanity of black people. If we have to have another one for the same AND extended reasons of protecting the rights of Americans, so be it. That's worth fighting for. No Nazification of the US will ever happen.
Bubba...
We are, of course, not heading towards a literal civil war. We MAY be heading to a time where more conservative extremists get more violent than they already are. If and when Trump loses, I would not be surprised that this violent extremist segment of conservatives lash out. But that's not a war, it's just a tiny minority of extremists (even if it numbers in the hundreds or thousands) being violent.
I am not going to start shooting at my conservative families, friends, or even strangers who happen to be conservative and they are not going to start shooting at me. You're not going to shoot me or Feodor and we're not going to shoot you.
What we need to do is cooperate and agree that all of us will stand against acts of violence to try to further political causes or those who might get violent because they've bought into nonsense claims and fearmongering about "stolen elections" and "the court systems are against us" and "the free press is against us."
Barring any big changes, I'm expecting that Harris will win in a landslide this year and, for most conservatives and many maga-types, even if they have some level of buy-in on the "stolen election" nonsense, they will realize that they've lost and lost soundly and hopefully they will start to think in terms of "What can we do to make our ideals more appealing" instead of "what can we do to suppress the vote of those we oppose."
Nor sure of what happened to the quote. The last comment should have began with,
Bubba:
We may well be heading toward a second civil war, but I sincerely pray that it's still early yet, hopefully more 1850 than 1860.
I noted that you, Bubba, can't do something as obvious and easy as condemning someone who says childless people should have less voting power than parents. Instead of addressing that, YES, I oppose that as dangerous and wrong or even NO, I do not oppose it and I agree with it, you offer this... whatever this is:
Suppose you live in a small town that hosts a large college, maybe Oxford, Mississippi, home of Ole Miss: it's a 25K town hosting a student body of 23K(!!). Locals support a residency requirement of, say, five years for local elections, to limit the distortions that are endemic when you let 20-year-old college kids from out-of-town vote on laws about noise regulations and open containers of beer.
Should I "unequivocally" condemn that requirement, or nah?
Yes, you should condemn that. IF the young adult citizens ARE citizens of that city/town, of course, they should be able to vote there.
??
This is, as they say, just weird.
I mean, would you consider it the other way... that if the town council wanted to strip voting privileges away from old white religious people to limit the distortions that are endemic when you let old religionists have too much say?
I would oppose that.
Citizens SHOULD get to vote in elections if we're talking about a free nation.
IF the city is concerned about having "too many" young adults, then they should take steps to discourage them from coming (civic suicide) or do more to attract old people. But you don't take people's voting rights away!
This is amazing. Bubba, please answer, as this is vital for a free republic:
DO you think that it's a good idea to give parents more voting rights than non-parents?
Bubba...
I don't think we can say for certain that a Reagan is too moderate because, as I've argued elsewhere, Trump is truly more a triangulating Clintonite than an ideological Reaganite.
I'm not saying that Reagan is too moderate (his conservatism is a large part of what drove me AWAY from the GOP and conservatism in general). I'm saying he would be perceived today to be far too liberal and the magagop would not vote for him. They would, indeed, demonize and attack him, just as they did with ultra-conservatives like Romney, Cheney and others.
And for the record, I don't think the Trump/magop are conservative at all... or at least not beholden to conservative ideals. Trump is an amoral, principle-less opportunist saying whatever he can to try to gain power. And the magop are just following him.
I think the magop stuff will die down once he's gone (Lord, please) because it was his unique power to sell lies to willing marks that made him unique. The Margie Taylor Greens and JD Vances of the magop crowd have, at least so far, appeared powerless in the shadow of Trump. I see no indication that any of the trump wannabes will be able to pull it off.
Again, God willing.
Regarding political violence, Dan, the evidence and the scholars aren't with you.
The Atlantic: "For years, experts have warned of a wave of political violence in America. We should prepare for things to get worse before they get better."
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/09/trump-butler-assassination-attempt-pa-rally/679153/
CNN: Trump’s continued attacks on Harris’ rise stir fears he could question election outcome if he loses in November
"One of Trump’s intraparty foes said the former president’s efforts to question the legitimacy of Harris as the Democratic nominee could be a way to lay the groundwork to question the legitimacy of this year’s election.
“We know one thing for sure: Trump never loses. And so if he’s not declared the winner of 2024, as in 2020, it must be because he was treated unfairly yet again; it was stolen yet again,” John Bolton, who was Trump’s national security adviser and has since become a vocal critic of the former president, told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins last week.
“I don’t think he knows exactly what his theory is going to be this time to explain how he was denied winning the election, so he’s trotting out a number of things,” Bolton said. “And I think this is why people need to start thinking more now about how to deny Trump the ability, the day after the election, if he loses, to try and throw the process into chaos again.”
Also, The Atlantic: "The Big Story: The Sprawling Universe of QAnon"
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/big-story-sprawling-universe-qanon/612127/
I'm not saying there won't (might not be) violence. I'm saying there won't be a war. I say that because, for however far into magaland most magop folks are, they aren't prepared to start killing their neighbors and families, not most of them.
I'm quite concerned about what the extremists may do, but I have seen no evidence nor expert opinion that we might expect more than hundreds or maybe thousands of violent actors. THAT would be horrible, but it wouldn't be war. It would be way too many violent idiots causing way too much harm, then getting arrested or killed by law enforcement groups.
Feo, I apologize for not answering your question about my racism to your liking, but perhaps you could elaborate on your question without all the derogatory presumption.
About Jan 6:
- Considering how many Palestinians voted for Hamas, it's probably difficult to distinguish between the two groups completely, but I'm willing to grant the worst of their protesting was coming from terrorist groups. On the subject of bad actors, I don't think the IC & DOJ have honestly answered how many agents and assets were at the Capitol on Jan 6.
- I was wondering if you would focus on the one other instance of political violence that wasn't caused by the Left, and you didn't disappoint. I'm genuinely opposed to capitol takeovers generally, but I'm also opposed to legislatures whose anti-democratic actions provoke such anger from the people. Congress could have and should have done more to reassure people that there were no shenanigans in the 2020 election.
- And I note in passing that you say you think freedom is worth fighting for, but you denounce people who protested the useless tyranny during Covid.
---
Dan,
I think it's naive in the extreme to say that we would never have another civil war: nobody expected Bosnia, either, and bad policies can still lead to bad outcomes like economic depressions and hyper-inflation, too.
I sincerely hope you're right, but I will not turn a blind eye to the evidence, including a political party's concerted effort to criminalize dissent and weaponize the justice system against its opponents. Those are dangerous tactics even in the best of times.
...but, to my point, I wonder, are there any restrictions on voting that you would grant as reasonable even if you don't personally support them? Age limits? Conviction for violent felonies?
If so, what's your guiding principle on when voting restrictions are acceptable as opposed to their being reprehensible? I may be able to argue my position knowing where you're coming from.
"Inflation Falls Below 3% for First Time Since 2021"
Fun Fact: that means prices are still going up.
Bubba, I don’t have any questions for you on this post’s thread. You’re confusing conversations. It’s the other post. Here, it’s just observations of observations of mine that are obvious to the most casual observer about your claims.
Feodor
My mistake, Feodor, I thought you asked this question with the expectation that I would provide an answer:
"Bubba, try imaging a 19 year old Izod wearing white kid and a 19 year old Pop Smoke T-Shirt wearing black kid. Where does your mind go?"
FWIW, I tend to evaluate situations more by actions than by physical appearance, whether that's attire or ethnicity. People naturally do judge situations by appearances -- they jump to conclusions based on past experience; to do otherwise would invite paralysis by analysis with every new encounter -- and I honestly think one of the least helpful cliches is that one should never judge a book by its cover.
On the contrary, a book's cover is often a very useful tool in determining what's inside.
Bubba...
to my point, I wonder, are there any restrictions on voting that you would grant as reasonable even if you don't personally support them? Age limits? Conviction for violent felonies?
If so, what's your guiding principle on when voting restrictions are acceptable as opposed to their being reprehensible?
?
I support our typical laws.
1. Resident of a city/state
2. At least 18
3. Not a felon
4. Citizen of the US
5. You can only be a resident in one place (ie, if you have multiple homes in multiple places, you still only get one Vote, not one for each city/state you live in)
Period.
With caveats that if you were a felon but have served your time, you should be able to vote and I personally am less concerned about being a US citizen IF you're living in a place, but I recognize the majority of US citizens don't support that, so that is what it is whether I agree or not.
The guiding principles are simple: IF you're living somewhere, then you have a vested interest in the policies of that place and, barring bad behavior and intent, of course your voice should be counted.
The history of denying rights to some (women, black people, non-landed men...) is not a good one for those who affirm human rights.
I don't know why you needed my obvious answer (ie, just the standard rules for the right to Vote that exist here today), but there it is.
Now, please answer.
DO you think that it's a good idea to give parents more voting rights than non-parents?
Do you support restrictions on people who haven't lived in a place "long enough..?"
Dan
Bubba...
"Inflation Falls Below 3% for First Time Since 2021"
Fun Fact: that means prices are still going up.
You know that, as a general rule, inflation is always happening? That economists are not seeking 0% inflation, just that it stays quite low, like 2-3%?
Dan
FWIW Bubba you did not present a scenario of actions. Just age and probable ethnicity. And then used a Trumped up scenario to smear the moral objective of being aware - woke - to inequities that impact people daily and have accrued in the our history leading up to today.
All of which by you is leveraging bigotry to deny injustice.
Feodor
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/low-inflation-or-no-inflation-should-the-federal-reserve-pursue-complete-price-stability/
Dan
Bubba...
I will not turn a blind eye to the evidence, including a political party's concerted effort to criminalize dissent and weaponize the justice system against its opponents. Those are dangerous tactics even in the best of times.
To the degree that Trump and his allies are promising to weaponize the justice system, I agree, it's a very dangerous promise for them to make/strategy for them to implement... or even promote casually.
Not sure of anyone criminalizing dissent, although Trump sure doesn't have much patience for it.
Dan, I wonder if you actually read the article you linked -- or at least its conclusion:
"The fortunes of firms continually change, and inflation greases the economy’s wheels by allowing these firms to slowly escape from paying real wages that are too high without actually cutting the wages they pay."
To hell with the working class, inflation is good for business: that certainly is a position a person may take, but I wouldn't have expected it from you.
Of course you're more concerned about the Left's claims that Trump will weaponize the government against his enemies than the Left's CURRENT BEHAVIOR doing exactly that. You don't even mind it, since it lets you call Trump a convicted felon.
And of course you're not aware of the criminalization of dissent. None of your political positions are a threat to the political elite, and so everything is sunshine and roses in your neck of the woods. The recent protests in England, Mark Steyn's legal troubles for questioning the hockey stick, none of that matters to you.
There is no data to support the extremist conservative wild conspiratorial opinion that Biden has "weaponized" the justice department. It is a partisan opinion - one that is just mistaken, given the data - and not anything like an actually proven factual claim.
And it's not the Left that is claiming that Trump will weaponize the Justice Department, it's Trump making the claim out loud, or at least speculating about it out loud. Multiple times. Are you not aware of this?
Trump:
"Yeah. If they do this and they've already done it, but if they want to follow through on this, yeah, it could certainly happen in reverse. It could certainly happen in reverse. What they've done is they've released the genie out of the box."
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/trump-has-threatened-dozens-of-times-to-use-the-government-to-target-political-enemies/
The point remains, there was no huge conspiracy to weaponize the justice department or the court system, involving hundreds or maybe thousands of people in a plot to prosecute a poor innocent man.
You have no data to support that claim and apparently it's a false claim that you're finding support for in your conservative silos. It's certainly not out there in the real world of professional journalists and legal scholars.
As to criminalizing dissent, or any of these outrageous and unsupported claims, you'll have to support them with actual data, not just your say so.
RE the resentment at being called a fascist and/or a Nazi: if you are trying to use the state to take away rights from certain groups of human beings you should know what you are doing and who you are.
If you stop advocating to take away rights from human beings, you stop being a Nazi. Pretty obvious to the most casual observer.
Dan, I did mention two fairly significant events in the ongoing stifling of free speech: Mann v Steyn, in which the latter has recently been crushed with $1,000,000.00 in punitive(!) damages for daring to blog (accurately) that the former's "hockey stick" graph is fraudulent; and in England, the police are harassing locals and threatening to extradite foreigners merely for reposting video of the recent protests over schoolgirls being murdered by an immigrant with a knife.
You can find these stories easily enough if you actually gave a shit, but you would find that most of the coverage is in "conservative silos" because the so-called mainstream press can't be bothered to cover real news.
About the weaponization of the justice system, you would be more honest about Trump's quote if you said he promised to CONTINUE the behavior, that he's threatening payback and not threatening to introduce a whole new layer of corruption to our increasingly unresponsive government.
(I know, "two wrongs don't make a right," but retribution is an excellent way to ensure both sides follow the conventions of civilized warfare: how do you guarantee that one side doesn't use mustard gas? You threaten payback if the laws of war are ever broken.)
You say my claim "is a partisan opinion - one that is just mistaken, given the data."
WHAT DATA, DAN? Be specific, show your work, give me objective sources and not just puff pieces from the progressive silo. My understanding is that Trump has been convicted of a crime that isn't otherwise enforced against anyone else, and the recent documents indictment was thrown out because the special counsel was unlawfully appointed and funded.
Hell, Dan, Trump's lawyers are being indicted for doing their job and providing legal advice: serial killers' lawyers aren't prosecuted for that, NO ONE'S LAWYERS are prosecuted for that, except Trump's.
We're seeing everything except an outright bill of attainder.
It might not be a vast conspiracy involving the coordination of hundreds of people, but such coordination isn't needed when the entire political establishment sees you as an existential threat, NOT to democracy but to the ruling class's status quo of having effectively non-existent opposition.
When you want the state to take away the rights of certain groups of human beings, you should know what you are doing and who you are.
If you stop trying to establish a Christian Sharia state, you'll stop being a Nazi.
Bubba and Craig are flailing at trying to get under from Christian judgment. Bubba has even proclaimed himself an "enemy" in order to be treated better. The examples of Jesus and Paul castigating believers doesn't seem to come to mind for him. What's the point of being a Bible believer but not knowing scripture?
And then Craig wrote, "[Feodor] spends so little time criticizing Dan's non orthodox positions."
Pretty simple. Dan spends no time brutalizing groups of human persons; not in thought, not in word, not in deed. Pretty much the bottom line for Jesus, too.
Hypocrites lying and cheating the people were attacked by Jesus and Paul. Paul wanted to castrate them. My heroes.
Bubba and Craig are flailing at trying to get under from Christian judgment. Bubba has even proclaimed himself an "enemy" in order to be treated better. The examples of Jesus and Paul castigating believers doesn't seem to come to mind for him. What's the point of being a Bible believer but not knowing scripture?
And yet neither sound a note against Marshal' sexual and scatological and generally perverse rhetoric about you, Dan.
And then Craig wrote, "[Feodor] spends so little time criticizing Dan's non orthodox positions."
Pretty simple. Dan spends no time brutalizing groups of human persons; not in thought, not in word, not in deed. Pretty much the bottom line for Jesus, too.
Hypocrites lying and cheating the people were attacked by Jesus and Paul. Paul wanted to castrate them. My heroes.
"Bubba has even proclaimed himself an 'enemy' in order to be treated better."
I don't remember doing that, but I do write an awful lot. I don't necessarily mind considering myself an enemy of certain doctrines and the people who hold to them; I think I pick the right battles.
Bubba:
WHAT DATA, DAN? Be specific, show your work, give me objective sources and not just puff pieces from the progressive silo. My understanding is that Trump has been convicted of a crime that isn't otherwise enforced against anyone else, and the recent documents indictment was thrown out because the special counsel was unlawfully appointed and funded.
The data that Trump DID what he was accused of (let's say in the case of the hush payment where he is now a convicted felon);
That the legal authorities in good faith thought they had a case to pursue;
That the is NO evidence that Biden somehow influenced NY to pursue this case:
That the legal authorities involved are professionals who, by all appearances, are just doing their job;
That the jury of Trump's peers were selected through the normal process, where his lawyers could rule out some of the jurors if they had concerns;
That the jury of fellow citizens were just doing their public duty and that they, in good faith, thought the prosecution had made its case;
That there is no evidence that the jury was tampered with to force a bad decision.
Etc, etc. There is no evidence that this was a rigged case or anything but the legal system doing what it's supposed to do. AND it is unfair to the public servants and the jury members just doing their civic service to try to suggest some sort of secret conspiracy to unjustly prosecute an innocent man.
And, as with your claim against Mann: He had his day in the court, the system and a jury of the defendant's peers found him guilty. When you all keep attacking the court system, the legal system, juries, the media, the voting system, it serves to undermine faith in the system. IF enough people believe stupidly false claims about stolen elections, you all really COULD generate more violence (again though, not a civil war. We wouldn't be fighting violent actors. We'd just be capturing them and putting them in prison. Per the law.)
IF you have data that this was somehow unfair or rigged, then you should let Trump's lawyers know about your data, I'm sure they'd love to get this secret information that has as yet been undiscovered.
You; "About the troll, it's remarkable how much his understanding of the Bible seems to align more with small-o orthodoxy than Dan's understand does -- but it's more remarkable how little that matters in his obeying the command to love your enemies or in his displaying the fruit of the Spirit, most noticeably kindness and self-control."
You think "troll" displays the fruit of the Spirit, most noticeably kindness and self-control. I disagree.
Or
You think "troll" indicates we are enemies. I disagree.
I think we both profess faith Jesus Christ as the Incarnate Word of God.
In which case, you are the one adds burdens to other groups of people as a requirement prior to their faith being accepted by God. In which case you are a classic Judaizer as described by the Apostle Paul, and a member of a group Paul wishes would castrate himself.
Paul, a lengthy voice on matters of the fruits of the Spirit, like kindness and self-control. I'll keep his company and ask you not to keep children and adults from coming to Christ. And, stop brutalizing groups of human beings. You are on the fasicsts path. A walking Nazi in thought and word. I have no idea what you actually do, so I can't speak to that.
And lastly, stop being a Trump sized hypocrite.
Bubba:
My understanding is that Trump has been convicted of a crime that isn't otherwise enforced against anyone else,
Other people convicted of felonies for falsifying business records:
https://www.justsecurity.org/85605/survey-of-past-new-york-felony-prosecutions-for-falsifying-business-records/
That rich people often get away with flouting the law is not evidence that Trump was uniquely targeted by corrupt prosecutors and convicted by corrupt jurors.
Dan, the article you quote mentions the salient fact, "For Trump to be prosecuted for felony violation of falsifying business records, the statute requires the DA to prove not only that Trump is guilty of falsifying business records (a misdemeanor), but that he did so with the intent to commit 'another crime,' or aiding or concealing the commission of 'another crime.'"
The DA didn't prove that Trump intended to commit or conceal some other crime. Unlike the examples listed in the article -- tax evasion and defrauding people of their insurance benefits -- Trump's act caused no harm and was in the furtherance of no underlying crime.
There are plenty of people who think Trump must be stopped no matter what -- "BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY," whether that means removing him from the ballot (legally or otherwise), putting a bullet through him, or simply bending the laws AND the requirements of a fair trial to find a justification (ANY justification!) to convict the Bad Orange Man.
This same NY DA just caused VDARE to shut its doors because of an expensive fishing expedition that was never tied to any actual lawbreaking, so don't act like the Left is above a little lawfare -- and I have little doubt that people like you would never acquit Trump of any crime if you sat on his jury.
Feodor, I referred to you as a troll because that's what someone else called you: I agree with the sentiment, but it doesn't mean I think you're my enemy, much less do I necessarily believe that there's absolutely no reason to talk with you.
Quite the contrary, one book I read (Victory in Christ by Trumbull, I believe) made the very good point that a truly humble Christian would accept correction from ANY source. If someone really things I'm making some sort of massive mistake in my faith, I'd appreciate his taking the time to walk me through the problem rather than rail against me: his ranting wouldn't do anyone else any good.
I have reasons, repeated to you now half a dozen times how you position yourself as a fascist and at the very least, a Nazi-like advocate of brutalizing others. I have also given you the reason I put you together with the Judaizers whom Paul was incensed by in Galatians.
You find this outrageously heavy handed. Without, let’s notice, worrying over the reasons I provide.
But you use Troll simple because others do. You didn’t give it a thought. How am I Troll? Maybe I am behaving like a Troll, I don’t know. You’re behaving like a fascist, maybe you have an answer.
I didn't use the term "troll" SIMPLY because others do: I could have referred to you by name, but since I agree that the term applies -- that you use deliberately inflammatory language -- I followed the other guy's lead.
I haven't much responded to your accusations of being (ironically enough) a Judaizing Nazi, for the simple reason that it's good practice not to feed a troll, but sure, I'll bite.
How exactly is it fascist to believe Jesus' teaching that God made us male and female so that a man would become one flesh with his wife? How exactly is it contrary to Pauline teaching to believe, that (per I Cor 6:9) homosexual acts exclude a person from God's kingdom and that (per I Tim 1:10) they instead place a person alongside murderers, perjurers, and other ungodly sinners?
If you can show me where I stray, I can course-correct and you will earn my respect.
Bubba...
How exactly is it fascist to believe Jesus' teaching that God made us male and female so that a man would become one flesh with his wife? How exactly is it contrary to Pauline teaching to believe, that (per I Cor 6:9) homosexual acts exclude a person from God's kingdom and that (per I Tim 1:10) they instead place a person alongside murderers, perjurers, and other ungodly sinners?
Oo! Oo! I got this! (Although, feel free to answer, Feodor).
For the same reason that a person enslaving another human being would be an enslaver, EVEN IF they cited the Bible.
In other words, citing the Bible is meaningless as to whether a behavior is oppressive or harmful or not. IF someone says to a woman (who happens to be a trans woman): You can NOT use the woman's bathroom, that IS an aggression, an oppression. Of course, it's not as severe as actual Nazis (which is why I wish that you wouldn't use that term, Feodor), but it is a denying a person of a very fundamental right: To go to the appropriate bathroom for them.
Or, telling gay guys that they can't marry each other. THAT is a denying of rights.
This is why the appeal to SOME HUMAN's opinions about what the Bible does and doesn't say about morality is problematic. Who are you to say you're right?
Now, the human rights way of dealing with this is to say, "Bubba, I will NOT tell you who you have to marry or which bathroom you must use. EVEN IF I think you're actually gay (!) that's your decision to make. Likewise, you don't get to tell other people who to marry or which bathroom to use." That live and let live method is respectful to human rights and to your own religious rights to believe what you want for yourself. Do unto others and all that.
Look, you almost certainly agree with the principle: IF someone wants to harm someone else, it doesn't matter one single bit if they cite the Bible for their justification. Am I right you agree with the principle?
Just as a slaver enslaves people, a fascist believes that marriage is between a man and a woman? That makes zero sense.
"Look, you almost certainly agree with the principle: IF someone wants to harm someone else, it doesn't matter one single bit if they cite the Bible for their justification. Am I right you agree with the principle?"
It's not about WANTING harm, the way you want to harm Christians for believing parts of the Bible you don't like, it's about obeying God's will and trusting that even things like capital punishment are for the greater good.
The Nazis put gay men in concentration camps and shot lesbians. But first, like you, they started out calling them unclean.
Pretty simple sense.
Feodor
Just because you’re not at B, Bunba, doesn’t mean you’re not standing in A using their alphabet.
Bubba...
Just as a slaver enslaves people, a fascist believes that marriage is between a man and a woman? That makes zero sense.
You can wake up in the morning and go ALL day long... you can live your WHOLE LIFE thinking in your head that marriage is only for men and women and heterosexuals... YOU can choose that for yourself ALL you want. That is not fascism and you have our blessing.
But, when you start denying human rights, that is where the harm comes in and where the path towards fascism has already begun.
Let's keep the points we're making straight. Is it the case that you're having a hard time understanding the distinction between the two points?
Would you criminalize/outlaw gay folk marrying if you could?
Would you deny transgender people choosing to live as they know they are, if you could?
That is the oppression, the denial of human rights.
I'll answer your questions, Dan, if you answer mine first:
1. Do you support the current marriage laws which prevent adult siblings from marrying each other?
2. Would you deny business owners the right to decide which bathrooms should have tampon machines, if you could?
Funny enough, Dan, my latest comment about Mark Steyn was censored, possibly auto-moderated because of my language: I've been following Mann/Steyn since the very beginning, and I'm a very passionate defender of Steyn in this case and political speech more broadly.
"Bubba, re: Mann v Steyn, you know that a jury found Steyn guilty of crossing a line into slander and harm. Slander is not protected speech. Mann's work was not found to be fraudulent."
The jury actually ruled that only $1.00 in harm was caused by Steyn's post -- no kidding, Mann said that a random stare in a grocery store was the only harm he could attribute to Steyn's blog post at National Review Online. The $1 million was punitive, and if you think that the court was right to find Steyn guilty of slander and was right to levy a $1,000,000 judgment, you're no friend of free speech.
The hockey stick IS fraudulent, for what it's worth: it makes no account of the Medieval Warm Period, for instance. Steyn contributed to a book arguing quite persuasively that climate science is a crock, and he should be free to do so without persecution through the court system.
Fun fact: since quote-unquote "gay rights" weren't protected anywhere in the world, WWII was less a war against fascism than it was a war within fascism, fascist England and fascist America fighting fascist Germany and fascist Japan.
Those brave men storming Normandy were fascists: #TheMoreYouKnow
Perhaps you can map out the gas chambers in Allied territory.
Doubtless many GIs - way to many - beat their wives and children. Even after returning home from liberating Europe.
But I'm glad you can relate the violence of bigotry to an early entree into fascism. Now if you could just see your position on that path.
This is what becomes of your myopic, juvenile moral view: you see only what affirms your identity, and no one else's.
Hundreds of thousands of Republicans have moral limits.
“ Prominent Republicans who are supporting Vice President Harris are urging fellow members of their party to back the Democratic ticket over former President Donald Trump. Organizers said more than 70,000 people joined the call live, where speakers urged Republican participants to get behind Harris through volunteering and publicly supporting her campaign.
During a Tuesday night meeting billed as an online rally for "Republicans for Harris," former elected officials and Republican Party leaders made a case for supporting Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.
Former Rep. Denver Riggleman, once a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, was an adviser to the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 insurrection. He described Trump as an "inveterate liar" and a "conspiracy theorist." “When you see the data and you see the awful things I've seen — you see the command-and-control infrastructure of Jan. 6th — there's no way as a Republican that I could vote for anybody who's anti-Constitution," Riggleman said.
On Tuesday night, several participants in the Republicans for Harris call did acknowledge that they do not always agree with Harris on policy. But, they argued, they believe Trump would endanger American democracy.
Mostly women and mostly political operatives.
Feodor
Harris Gains in Sun Belt as Demographic Patterns Start to Look ‘Normal’
Gains among Black, Hispanic and young voters lift her into a tie across four swing states, new Times/Siena polls show.
"Harris gains in sun belt..."
Still dancing down the joy. I think people are ready for a bit of rational joy, as opposed to the endless chaos and gloom and mean-spiritedness the magop offer.
VFW Slams Trump's 'Asinine' Remarks On Medal Of Honor
The veteran advocacy organization knocked Donald Trump for calling a civilian award "much better" than the nation's highest military
HOW has that amoral idiot ever been considered a serious candidate?
Marshal, you don't get to talk about my children. Move on.
Do you have anything to say on topic, Marshal?
And I've often noted that Trump WAS someone's child and his parents appeared to greatly damage the man he would become (although he certainly made his own choices). I've frequently noted that I can feel sympathy for Trump, the human, who was abused by his parents bad parenting and clearly has pretty significant mental deficits. That's awful and I feel for Trump, the man.
But Trump, the leader, who takes all his damaged goods and awful learned-behavior and uses it to demonize, attack, abuse and be corrupt and use that wealth handed to him to get away with it all... THAT person has to be opposed, for the sake of the people he's oppressing/abusing and for the sake of a free republic.
Now, anything on topic?
An incredible convention! The new political standard on how to spend four days presenting your political party and candidates.
It was. They're being very smart and strategic about all of this... and I think they're being genuine, too. This IS the party of joy and good work and unity. I don't know that I've ever seen the Democrats this on top of things.
"Do you have anything to say on topic, Marshal?"
I already did, but you deleted it on another bullshit premise. It's how you roll. What did I say about your kids which was so abhorrent to you? You're a liar if you're trying to pretend anything I said was truly problematic, because there wasn't any such thing I said which was.
Post a Comment