|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Aug 16, 2017 11:32:53 GMT -5
* I have to confess a complete ignorance here. I have no interest in those guys, and really have no idea what it is that they want. My suspicion is that they have no idea either. The asterisk here denotes American Nazis. What they want is really no mystery. Their chants on Friday night included "Jews will not replace us" as well as "blood and soil," a phrase invoking the Nazi philosophy of "Blut und Boden." Nazis are different. We fought a war over this. My dad was in it. Maybe yours, too. It was in all the papers. We are at a place where the occupant of the Oval Office cannot bring himself to offer a full throated, unambiguous statement that he won't walk back about people who are trying to resurrect the Third Reich. To blur modern day Nazism with garden variety identity politics is to deny the unique ugliness that took place in Virginia, and the disease that has now been folded into our country's White House.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Aug 16, 2017 9:37:52 GMT -5
Somehow a binary false equivalence has taken hold here. Commies and Nazis? Um, no.
College students and educated liberals who, you may argue, have a politically correct view of history that reflects a detachment from what history actually is? (Maybe, but I think it is more nuanced than that. That's a different discussion, though.)
Versus, torch carrying, gun toting, swastika waving White Nationalists and Nazis.
This is not even remotely complicated.Choosing up sides is easy.
"Both sides-ism" is a disease.
Nazis! F-ing self proclaimed Nazis, in the streets of the USA.
These are not nice people. They are easy to condemn.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Aug 13, 2017 13:52:19 GMT -5
I think you are full of shit here, Doug. Not sure why you should be the decider on the definition of words when we have dictionaries for that, all of which seem to agree that a terrorist is anyone who uses violence, especially against civilians, to intimidate and coerce others. None of them, except the Doug Dictionary, exclude domestic terrorists. To be a revolution, you must be fighting a government. Fighting Tories by the revolutionaries wasn't a revolution? You only have to be fighting those who support a government you want to over throw. People don't fight governments they fight those who support a government. Revolution has been defined for centuries and terror is often the weapon of revolutionaries but that doesn't make them terrorist. By the Patriot Act definition most of the congress is guilty as they are often violating the US Constitution that says the only things the US government can do are listed (enumerated) in Article 1 Section 8. and the US Constitution is the highest law of the land. All federal law enforcement except in territories or on federal property is unconstitutional. Who are they fighting? From the looks of it and judging by their own words and slogans, their beef is with liberal college students, Jews, black people and foreigners. Tiki-torch pseudo soldiers, yes. Revolutionaries? Please.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Aug 13, 2017 11:14:37 GMT -5
Tim McVeigh was a revolutionary? And these Tiki Torch punk Nazis in VA? Kind of on a par with the founding fathers? Sorry. A citizen committing political violence is a domestic terrorist. Just like the Weathermen in the 60's. "Revolutionary" sounded sexy to that bunch of terrorists, too. And just like these Nazi punks, they were full of it. Yep those are all revolutionaries not domestic terrorist. George called Washington a terrorist but he was a revolutionary. IRA bombings in Ireland were revolution, IRA bombings in England were terrorist. And yet McVeigh is referred to as a Domestic Terrorist in pretty much every article you can find on him, other than from sympathetic right wing sites. And the Patriot Act spells it out as a crime: "Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover ""domestic,"" as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism." By your definition, the mass killing in Orlando last year by American citizen Omar Mir Seddique was an act of revolution?
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Aug 13, 2017 9:42:21 GMT -5
Donald Trump refuses to utter the phrase "domestic terrorists." This is not an accident. This is cowardice and lack of character. No such thing as a domestic terrorist. In your own country that's called a revolutionary. It maybe a revolutionary using terror as a weapon but it's not a domestic terrorist it's a revolutionary. This being a country founded in revolution with terror. It's not cowardice it's good English. Tim McVeigh was a revolutionary? And these Tiki Torch punk Nazis in VA? Kind of on a par with the founding fathers? Sorry. A citizen committing political violence is a domestic terrorist. Just like the Weathermen in the 60's. "Revolutionary" sounded sexy to that bunch of terrorists, too. And just like these Nazi punks, they were full of it.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Aug 13, 2017 9:37:32 GMT -5
I am referring to anybody in America who gives Heil Hitler salutes while carrying sidearms and beating up on counter-protesters.
Donald Trump will talk trash about everybody from Mitch McConnell to Rosie O'Donnell.
But he can't bring himself to denounce racists intent on violence, without playing the "both sides" card. No Neo-Nazis went to the hospital or morgue this weekend.
Pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Aug 13, 2017 7:53:45 GMT -5
Donald Trump refuses to utter the phrase "domestic terrorists." This is not an accident. This is cowardice and lack of character.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Aug 11, 2017 17:34:19 GMT -5
Getting back on track, last night I resurrected one of my favorite college recipes, a 50/50 mix of Hormel's Chili and Chef Boyardee Beefaroni. Dang, I had forgotten how good that combo is. For variety, I switch out the Beefaroni with the Chef's spaghetti and meatballs. That is really good, also. The two are a tossup, really. Marty, I thought we had a "Recipes" section to the forum? I was going to add this, but I didn't see it. Ever dump a can of Hormel's Chili into a bag of Fritos? You have to force yourself to come up for air. I was a big fan of canned Chicken a la King in college.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Aug 11, 2017 17:32:44 GMT -5
And his team assembles them with such craft (only the best people!) that most of them won't have to wait for the next President to overturn them, as the courts still function as the only check we have right now. (Well that and the utter incompetence of the legislative and exec branches.) That's where those pesky Supreme Court nominations become so important (yes, I'm also old enough to know how the judicial system works). Trump is dismantling the left's entire political machine one dirty trick after another and all the DC establishment can do is worry about how he talks to that kid in North Korea. And that's exactly what he was elected to do. That can collapse all on its own now. I believe rotten seeds bear bitter fruit. So, I don't see the holder of Garland's stolen seat having much good. But Donnie did get a fellow birther appointed to one of the lower levels last week, so that has to make you proud to be an American. But the ACA collapse? The GOP is already working against that with Democrats in the Senate. I suspect it'll be another of the Vulgar Talking Yam's (c: not me) broken promises.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Aug 11, 2017 17:29:02 GMT -5
"These are quite novel ideas to me." That's 'cause you don't pay attention. I missed the part where FDR caused WWII, where people didn't get voting rights after 1965 and also the part where people do not still receive Social Security?
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Aug 11, 2017 15:15:56 GMT -5
The 2010 Senate race in MA was not decided by the fact that Martha Coakley was the worst candidate in, like, Senate candidate history? Who knew?
Trump is overturning as many of Obama's orders as possible, this is true. He appears to be animated only by self love and hatred of Obama. Kind of sick, but that may be just me... And his team assembles them with such craft (only the best people!) that most of them won't have to wait for the next President to overturn them, as the courts still function as the only check we have right now. (Well that and the utter incompetence of the legislative and exec branches.)
Pretty sure it's not possible to simultaneously phone it in and scramble.
As for the legacy? Well, repeal and replace is dead as vaudeville. So we'll always have the ACA.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Aug 11, 2017 15:07:30 GMT -5
The point was rather self-evident. That Trump is literally on record as having said the opposite of what he is actually doing in pretty much every area, and that his bold-faced lies are so easily proven, and since you are an admirer of his anyway, it’s understandable that you’d rather deflect than deal. A K-street corporate lobbyist who wants to destroy Washington and is blissfully unaware of the fundamentally absurd nature of the bullshit that Trump is peddling? That's something. No, I'm experienced enough to know how the system (including both legislation and executive orders) actually works. Trump wasn't lying at all when he said those things in 2015. Obama lost the ability to roll Congress when Ted Kennedy died in 2009 (yeah, I'm old enough to remember that too, along with the name of the guy that replaced Ted, along with the first casualty of that loss. Hint: it had to do with climate change). After that Barry was dead in the water. Never passed a budget, never passed anything. So to compensate he wrote executive orders. The unfortunate thing about that is that unless it's in legislation, it's pretty easy to overturn. Which Trump is doing. Yes, at the end of his presidency Obama was phoning it in and scrambling to do whatever he could to solidify what he'd done (and yes, nobody was listening to him). But then his anointed replacement basically crapped all over herself in an epic display of underachievement. Must suck to watch your vaunted "legacy" circle the bowl.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Aug 11, 2017 14:25:09 GMT -5
ummmm,
LBJ's civil rights efforts, which I supported at the time, turned sour awhile back. LBJ is remembered for Vietnam, at least by those of us who went to Vietnam.
FDR didn't really accomplish much. The depression was back in full swing in 1938 and WWII came from FDR.
IMHO, executive orders overturning onerous prior executive orders is no sin.
What constitutes an "onerous executive order" is, of course, subjective. What is not subjective the record of Trump being hugely critical of Obama's use of executive orders. (And that Obama issued, in fact, them at a slower pace than any president since Grover Cleveland.) But we are all learning that pretty much nothing Trump says should be taken seriously or as a reflection of anything that he may actually believe for more than a nanosecond. Civil rights turned sour? FDR didn't accomplish much? These are quite novel ideas to me.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Aug 11, 2017 13:59:58 GMT -5
I am old enough to remember the Obama administration, when Trump thought executive orders were a sign of weakness and a lack of leadership. Dec. 12, 2015: “I don't think [Obama] even tries anymore. I think he just signs executive actions.” Nov. 10, 2015: “Nobody wants to listen to [Obama], including the Democrats, so he just goes around signing executive orders.” I'm old enough to have worked for the Obama administration (GS14 in the Department of Transportation). I'm also old enough to remember the Bush administration where I got to sit front row in one of the events on the south lawn of the White House and shake the President's hand (K Street corporate lobbyist stuff).Now what was the point again?The point was rather self-evident. That Trump is literally on record as having said the opposite of what he is actually doing in pretty much every area, and that his bold-faced lies are so easily proven, and since you are an admirer of his anyway, it’s understandable that you’d rather deflect than deal. A K-street corporate lobbyist who wants to destroy Washington and is blissfully unaware of the fundamentally absurd nature of the bullshit that Trump is peddling? That's something.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Aug 11, 2017 13:38:10 GMT -5
If legislation doesn't matter, why did he promise to get a bill passed that would invest 350 billion in infrastructure? You can look up all of the other bills he has promised to pass and has shown zero interest in. LBJ is remembered for getting Civil Rights passed. FDR is remembered for signing the New Deal in law. Reagan signed budgets that built up the military and laws that reformed the tax code. Obama, yep, will be remembered for the ACA. These all required attention, diplomacy, arm twisting and deal making. Do you think Trump even read any of the various 'repeal and replace laws' that he Tweeted his support for between rounds of golf? You'd think Trump had only been in office for a little less that 8 months with all that stuff he hasn't gotten done. Don't ask me, ask him: Rare is the president "who's passed more legislation, who's done more things than what we've done, between the executive orders and the job-killing regulations that have been terminated." — Donald Trump on Monday, June 12th, 2017 in a Cabinet meeting I am old enough to remember the Obama administration, when Trump thought executive orders were a sign of weakness and a lack of leadership. Dec. 12, 2015: “I don't think [Obama] even tries anymore. I think he just signs executive actions.” Nov. 10, 2015: “Nobody wants to listen to [Obama], including the Democrats, so he just goes around signing executive orders.”
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Aug 11, 2017 13:22:23 GMT -5
If legislation doesn't matter, why did he promise to get a bill passed that would invest 350 billion in infrastructure? You can look up all of the other bills he has promised to pass and has shown zero interest in.
LBJ is remembered for getting Civil Rights passed.
FDR is remembered for signing the New Deal in law.
Reagan signed budgets that built up the military and laws that reformed the tax code.
Obama, yep, will be remembered for the ACA.
These all required attention, diplomacy, arm twisting and deal making.
Do you think Trump even read any of the various 'repeal and replace laws' that he Tweeted his support for between rounds of golf?
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Aug 11, 2017 12:08:38 GMT -5
I don't need to go back in your history. What you have typed right here convinces me that you are an unabashed true believer. I have not encountered many like you.
Many of the 30% or so that tell pollsters they support Trump seem rather mute these days. And, in my experience, I hear a lot more about how bad the left is than any specifics about why they are supporting someone who, with both Houses of Congress, has yet to score one significant legislative victory. (I don't count stealing a seat on the Supreme Court.)
The entire principle of nuclear deterrence has worked for 70 years, in part, due to adults having their hands steady om the wheel and new Presidents deferring to and turning to more experienced people in times of crisis.
It's idiot liberal talk to suggest that a President talk with the military before riffing on what he might do?
It has something to do with being a survivor of the 60's that makes me laugh at Trump's claim that he has drastically increased our nuclear capacity in the six months he's been in office?
Okey-dokey.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Aug 11, 2017 11:56:21 GMT -5
One thing that I have noticed is that many people seem to find it a lot easier to rip on Obama (no longer President) and Hillary (never was President) than to address or defend the words or behavior of the current occupant of the Oval Office. I've addressed my satisfaction with Trump numerous times (to the frustration of most of the rest of the board- hey, most of them are survivors of the 60's so I can understand). I think Trump's doing a great job. I expect he'll be easily re-elected (and after that it will become a dynasty when Ivanka spends 8 years as POTUS). The actual mechanics of what he's doing will likely be historic. As far as his bombastic theatrics, it's about time somebody took the gloves off with the left. Even this issue- somebody's threatening the US with nuclear weapons- and all the idiot liberal talk is about Trump's bad language. Spare me. If you'd like to go back in my history there's plenty of detail there to chew on. You're welcome to it.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Aug 11, 2017 11:36:59 GMT -5
You can have Barry. Good riddance. One thing that I have noticed is that many people seem to find it a lot easier to rip on Obama (no longer President) and Hillary (never was President) than to address or defend the words or behavior of the current occupant of the Oval Office.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Aug 11, 2017 11:33:59 GMT -5
As opposed to a loose canon provoking international anxiety with unprecedented statements about being "locked and loaded" without even bothering to consult the military? That's pretty useful adult and statesmanlike behavior right there, is it? I'll take Obama- or any of the other previous 43, or their ghosts. Comparing Trump to a mosquito on meth, would be unfair to to both mosquitoes and meth-heads. You can have Barry. Good riddance.
|
|