@diehardbrownsfan said:

Herr Schopenhauer only mentions the bad republicans. Not members of the Obammy/Holder Nazi's.

Actually, I am pretty timely. Notice in this article from December 2013 that it mentions the GOP resisting bringing back the fairness doctrine. Wonder why? Hmmmm. Cuz they BENEFIT from it not being around?

BTW, don't see you praising any lefties either in this forum. Pot meet kettle.

Are you still steaming cuz Alberto Gonzalez had to resign during the Bush presidency?

Permit me to say, guys like you need to stay inside your comfort zone...that is the reason for your meaningless one liners, and your rejection of things you know nothing about...and your need to project your behavior on others to put them down. You really are pretty messed up. Good luck with that.

Lead you horses to water and you piss in it.

Stay thirsty my friends!!

@westside-steve said:

Two thoughts. First of all I don't see how you can make a fairness doctrine work. There are more than two legitimate standpoint for any issue you can imagine. Does that mean every crack pot with an idea gets equal time? That could take all day.

My reading of the link I shared is that an opposing viewpoint is shared, not ALL possible viewpoints. Point is, things are not said that are not challenged by an opposition. Also, the doctrine did work for nearly 40 years. Many people on this forum reference that period of time as the good ole days, America's Heyday, etc. A single working parent could support a family...

The key for me is the wider issues in society. It's tough to find a specific example of this, yet ethics programs were dropped from a high number of business schools during the 1970s. Many attribute it to "liberal education" (as in liberal arts) diverging from "professional education". In any case, it had a serious effect on business practice. It's the type of thing that made Oliver Stone's "Wall Street" possible with its "greed is good" ethos. The Fairness Doctrine was deactivated in this context...possibly because it was working as planned?

And I will repeat I have no problem with Fox News. I have no problem with MSNBC save for the fact that I disagree with them most of the time. I would imagine that anyone who gets his or her news from one or the other of these stations is first probably more informed than 95 percent of the population and second quite aware which shows are opinion shows and which are news reporting. I understand that Sean Hannity Rachel Madow Bill O'Reilly and Al Sharpton are pundits.

That quite an imagination you have there my brother. Mine differs from yours. The opinions are embedded in the news. Put another way, the "news" presents the opportunity to insert the opinion or, put another way, the way the news is framed IS an opinion... Were you aware that Bain Capital owns ClearChannel for instance? That means Mitt Romney basically owns both...so, with Bain Capital related to genetically modified crops, do you think ClearChannel is going to present the opinion that GMOs are bad? That's where "fairness" comes into play. Ever hear anyone compare Romney and Gordon Gecko from "Wall Street"? They do...for a reason.

Unfortunately The New York and LA Times and the network news cast aren't nearly as transparent as those two cable outlets. But they lean left.

Yet they all share a common goal, mainly to sell soap cars investments video games and rubbers.

WSS

Interesting gun chat.

Thought maybe I would see a reference to this:

O'Reilly Text/Marijuana (January 6, 2014)

"Now more bad news, combine the drug aspect with the Internet. According to a report by the American Academy of Pediatrics, 75 percent of 12 to 17 year olds in the USA have cell phones and virtually all of them text. 33 percent of teenagers send more than 100 text messages a day and 66 percent of teens say their parents have imposed no rules regarding texting at all.

Here's a kicker, a study by the University of Winnipeg in Canada says students who text more than 100 times a day are 30 percent less likely to be ethical or principled in life. Are we getting all this? Young people in America are combining drugs, alcohol, and high-tech to build false lives to run away from reality."

Was the 70-something ex-cop thinking he was dealing with an unruly unethical individual on drugs who was living a "false" life and running from reality? It is a culture "war" after all, just look at the title of OReilly's book "Culture Warrior" and his description of the "secular progressive army".

Lots of discussion elsewhere on the interwebs about that. The old guy seems to fall squarely in O'Reilly's demographic. Add in O'Reilly's history with Tiller and his "war" rhetoric and it gets interesting. There may in fact be no link at all, yet it gets interesting...possibly two people murdered related to themes from O'Reilly's show? Especially since the latest show was just last week?

@calfoxwc said:

Well, Cracker Barrel put their Duck Dynasty/Phil Robertson stuff right back on the shelves,

and now A&E has reinstated Phil Robertson to the show immediately.

Perhap they thought all of America is gay and black.

Freakin idiots, wiser now, since Real America stood up to them, and lambasted them

with hundreds and hundreds of thousands of signatures on petitions, insisted they

immediately do what they just did.

Real America isn't perverse, nor hateful of religion, nor freedom of speech, and they'll stand

up for what's right.

Sorry Cal, anyone who knows anything knows Cracker Barrel is prejudiced against blacks at least. No wonder they love Phil.

Also, LOVE how the Duck Dynasty producer starred in a movie about Gay Porn. This is all about the money and publicity. A&E & DD got their publicity, now back to filming...

@legacy-fan said:

Except that Phil's looked that way for 30 years. Go check out his 1st hunting video: "Duckmen of Louisiana" (except you can't, it's from 1988)

Well, I did characterize him as a successful businessman in my first post, so I am not totally ignorant of his success with calls and videos. I didn't express myself well saying they destroyed his existence, meant they "tried" to destroy it...touche. Fact is, you go quoting the Bible and people will quote back. Every actually read the thing? Technically, we are not allowed to go to the bathroom...

As for the kids, I bet you can drum up some pics of yourself from your teenage years when you probably looked pretty douchey. I know I've got some in my parent's attic.

Actually, no, I can't. I really am rather photogenic. No shit. Also, these boys have families and such in the pics...they are not teenagers...weird thing to say on your part, like someone is picking on kids or something. These are grown men who should own their choices.

They adopted the "duck man" look when they started doing the videos with Phil and when they bought the company from him - well before reality TV.

You say they adopted the persona, I say they dress like daddy for $. Fair enough.

Source: me, someone who's duck hunted with my dad since Bernie was our QB.

Do his calls work that well? They must, for all his success. I am familiar with turkey calling but never went after ducks, not enough around I suppose...

Here's a less vindictive, butt-hurt article on the Robertson's pre-fame & pre-"controversy"

http://www.sportsspectrum.com/articles/2013/03/23/duck-dynasty-how-it-almost-never-happened/

Well, I did add a disclaimer about the pics... and wanted to rile you a little... Plus, you drop the hammer on somebody, you better be ready to get nailed yourself...

Cal, you mentioned that Phil would not like another chance to answer the question, yet he did take an opportunity to clarify.

Actually appreciated his clarification. His comments about dangerous "microbes" out there are spot on and more discussion needs to happen on those topics, especially in religious circles.

Amazing what you can do when someone holds your feet to the fire...

Sorry Cal, I tend to have good instincts even without watching garbage tv...

Looks like they hooked themselves a sucker. I thought it was all about the money, looks like I was right.

You can rail on about libs all you want, These guys are fake. I know you met them, you were fooled.

This link has the best pics and quotes bible verses to contradict Phil's entire being pretty much. I chose the site because it has the before and after pictures. There are other sites reporting this, check out Crooks and Liars too.

Add a beard and camo and you have instant redneck. LOVE the quote where Phil says he hates yuppies,..hilarious. Can we be done with these fools now?

Seriously bro, you need to lighten up and use some of your vaunted critical thinking skills. I'm willing to give you a break, but not when you act the fool.

Duck Dynasty is Fake: Sons Were Yuppies!

Just had a couple of hot dogs for lunch and saw the restaurant example that was posted.

I don't know why individuals successful in a business tend to venture into gray areas like this. Remember Jack Nicklaus in the early 90s when asked about blacks in golf?

Nicklaus responded by saying "blacks have different muscles that react in different ways."

Now, I love Jack Nicklaus, used to cut the grass in his neighborhood in Dublin, Ohio, but, unless I am mistaken, he doesn't have a degree in physiology. So why would he say that?

Another guy here in town where I work has a restaurant. He plays Fox News the whole time he is open with the sound turned down, which is fine, I don't have to look and ESPN is on another TV. I am sitting at the bar on lunch and this guy starts feeding me the latest talking points about things that neither one of us seem to have a good grasp on. Screw me, I just want a hot dog, not hot dogma. How about asking whether or not my food is any good first at least? Bottom line, I get my hot dogs at a place now that doesn't even have a TV. The owner, well, acts like an owner instead of a political operative.

Now, I know next to nothing about duck dynasty, this is the most I have ever heard of the show and I have never seen it. Yet again, here is a successful individual complaining explicitly about butt sex and a host of other "sins". Pretty freaking far from duck calls unless they are up someone's rectum...Now I learn he is also a pastor, a "missionary who just happens to be on TV". Again, somehow pastors all across the country guide their flocks without explicitly comparing anuses and vaginas in public, especially in GQ, so why must he again? Surely he knows some missionaries were boiled in water and eaten for spreading the gospel, so what's the problem with a little blow back now? God is on his side after all...and in duck dude's mind good chefs stir the pot apparently...what's the issue? Oh yeah, he may lose some money...

Objectively, someone could posit that he was trying to build up his audience, congregation and duck call sales by publicly sharing his beliefs. Why else appear in GQ? If that was the case then he has to accept the flak with the kudos. He does play himself on tv and not Jesus of Nazareth...so it is easy to connect his "outside" opinions with his on-screen "character".

Bottom line: the LGBTQ folk are out of the closet and organized and aggressive. They are not the easy targets they used to be. I had to take a required class with someone whose specialty was identifying the centuries-old put-downs that people used to use for gay and transgender folks in Europe. Talk about looking to be offended, digging in the past to be offended more like it. Anyone else know a 500-year-old Spanish word for "fag"? Add to that the publicity of the high suicide rates for LGBTQ teens over the last ten years (many due to bullying) and you begin to see some of the reasons for their aggression.

Flip it around and look at it this way: what if Christian teens were suiciding in concerning numbers over Christianity and the LGBTQ folks were on TV and in magazines saying that Christianity is an abomination and that Christians are damned in this life and the next? Would that be considered free speech as well or a provocation?

Also, they are not just seeking "tolerance" as some have suggested. Tolerance for them is a joke, they want acceptance and do not appear to be willing to stop short of their goal.

As for Duck Dude, I wonder if he would like another chance at answering the question? As we see on these forums every day:

FREE SPEECH = FREEDOM TO PROVOKE CONSEQUENCES

Westside is all class...

Thanks to him and to everyone else.

I am a Sagittarius, I have a pet duck and a pet rock. I like to beat the shit out of the pet duck with the pet rock...

Seriously, great board. Happy to be here. Look forward to many spirited discussions and to the Browns turning this thing around in our lifetimes.

I suppose I am a progressive, not that that means much in a perpetual state of gridlock. Like Logic..I am also in WV, born and raised, so let's hear your best Deliverance-style put-downs. Also like Logic, I lived near Jersey and was glad to leave it behind.

Makes me think of a joke:

Dude and his girl were making out in the back seat of his car on the lower west side of Manhattan. Things were getting pretty hot and heavy, and she moaned in his ear, "Kiss me where it smells..."

So he drove her to Jersey.

I am pro-gun in gun season, and pro-bow in bow season, and pro-camera and pro-fishing pole in the off-season. I'm in favor of transparency and accountability in government, which ends up meaning that I am miserably disappointed every time I read any "press". Gotta jump on my soapbox for a sec...

Does anyone remember the Fairness Doctrine? Wikipedia does an OK job of describing it:

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.

To my understanding, what the Fairness Doctrine really accomplished was establishing a firewall between the news room and the investors. That is, the monied interests that held stock in a broadcasting company could not dictate what kinds of news stories were covered or not covered, that was left to the editors/journalists for the most part. Not anymore, the Fairness Doctrine mostly went the way of the dodo during the Reagan Era. Now we live in the age of the never-ending editorial that daily promotes the interests of investors, whether they be left or right. The little guys are hosed....it was not really about "fairness" as in left or right, it was "fairness" as in rich or poor.

Does anyone else now wonder about Fox's tagline "Fair and Balanced"? Kind of ironic it came out after most of the Fairness Doctrine had been abolished. MSNBC does the same shit too...of course.

Morale of the story? Don't be a little guy...and, if someone brings up reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, you might want to give it some consideration.

GO BROWNS!

@westside-steve said:

I asked you, in sincerity, if you knew of any situations around the world in which the indigenous peoples are artificially preserved as we have tried to do, supposedly, on the Indian reservations. I just don't know of any successful examples. the Vikings, for example, did not set up reservations for the indigenous Irish but somehow melded with them.

WSS

Oh, I get you. Appreciate the clarification.

You mentioned the aboriginals yourself. Another example, though a little different. I think it is going to be difficult to tell for a number of reasons.

Mainly, the Native American situation in the soon-to-be US was different. The Vikings you mention and other groups that you allude to didn't administrate treaties the same way so there isn't a great deal of hard evidence. In "US" history we have the evidence for the "why" of it.

The name "reservation" comes from the belief that the Native tribes were sovereign nations at the time the U.S. Constitution was ratified. In the early peace treaties, where Native tribes gave up large parcels of land under duress to the US, the tribes, as sovereigns, "reserved" some land to themselves, and those portions of land became known as reservations.

I think that is why our situation is unique. Like I said in previous posts, it all comes down to that claim to the land. It really bothers some people that we cannot be the "legitimate" owners of the land while they still exist.

Beyond that, we could likely find similar situations across Latin America, in the Amazon, etc. Again, its tough becuase the Natives are kept at the margin. Again, good chat, gotta run,

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

Fascinating how you let them off the hook for trashing the world economy on purpose. I'm sure you didn't get paid off, so what's your angle? Serious question...

BTW, let's take a closer look at some promises....

DEFICIT RHETORIC

"As President, Governor Bush will pay the debt down to a historically low level."

[source: Bush-Cheney 2000 website]

DEFICIT REALITY

As of July 30, the national debt stood at $7,316,567,571,232.89, a record high. This year’s budget will also create a record deficit: $445 billion, according to the White House. [source: Treasury Department, 8/3/04, Reuters, 7/31/04]

SOCIAL SECURITY RHETORIC

"The Social Security surplus must be locked away only for Social Security." [source: Bush-Cheney 2000 – Social Security website]

SOCIAL SECURITY REALITY

During 2002, the first fiscal year for which Bush was responsible, he spent $159 billion of the Social Security Trust Fund surplus.
[source: CBO Historical Budget Data, ]

HEALTH CARE RHETORIC

"George W. Bush will establish the ‘Healthy Communities Innovation Fund’ to provide $500 million in grants over five years to fund innovative projects addressing targeted health risks, such as childhood diabetes."

[source: Bush-Cheney 2000 website]

HEALTH CARE REALITY

Bush never established this fund. [source: The Philadelphia Inquirer, 1/20/04]

ENVIRONMENTAL RHETORIC

George W. Bush "will also ensure that the federal government, which is the country’s largest polluter, complies with all environmental laws."

[source: Bush-Cheney 2000 website]

ENVIRONMENTAL REALITY

For the past three years, the Department of Defense has requested that Congress exempt it from environmental laws and regulations like the Clean Air Act of 1970. The exemptions were requested despite the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency has thus far declined to apply the policies to the military training facilities in question.

[source: Government Executive Magazine, 4/6/04]

HIGHER ED RHETORIC

George W. Bush will "fully fund the Pell grant program for first-year students by increasing the maximum grant amount by more than 50 percent, to $5,100."

[source: Bush-Cheney 2000 – Education website]

HIGHER ED REALITY

President Bush has frozen the maximum Pell Grant at $4,050 in his FY 2005 education budget. This is the third year in a row that Bush has frozen or cut the maximum Pell Grant. [source: House Committee on Education and the Work Force 2/2/04]

WELFARE RHETORIC

"To encourage states to help families in crisis, Governor Bush will provide states an additional $1 billion over five years for preventative services to keep children in, or return them to, their homes whenever safely possible." [source: Bush-Cheney 2000 – Child Welfare website]

WELFARE REALITY

Bush has proposed allowing states to use the federal funds currently earmarked for foster care room-and-board payments to be used for preventative services. In exchange, states must accept a spending cap on the amount of foster care funding they receive. [source: Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/24/04]

TAX RHETORIC

"y far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum." [source: George W. Bush, 2/15/00]

"Governor Bush’s income tax cuts will benefit all Americans, but they are especially focused on low and moderate income families."

[source: Bush-Cheney 2000 – Taxes website]

TAX REALITY

The top 20 percent of earners received 69.8 percent of President Bush’s tax cuts. [source: CBPP, 4/23/04, p. 17]

Millionaires received an average tax cut of $123,000. Those in the bottom quintile of earners received an average tax cuts of $27. Those in the second to bottom quintile received an average cut of $317. [source: CBPP, 4/23/04, p. 17]

*******

Seen enough yet? I could literally go on for hours, this is all first-term stuff...some of it isn't super serious, but politicians break all kinds of promises, serious and otherwise. You know that, now at least.

But that's OK, cuz Bush is "long gone." You do understand that a president's policies (and their impact) can easily outlast his tenure, right? Again, that was the whole point of tanking the economy just in time to blame the new guy. No wonder you fell for it, you can't grasp it when someone spells it out after the fact...."cuz Obama promised"...geesh, sorry you are disillusioned young jedi.

Oh, and I LOVE these one liners that are posted in these forums like some kind of trump card...seems like taking a shortcut to thinking to me. Perhaps you should focus on the widening gap between rich and poor and the dissolution of the middle class that is presently tearing apart this country but...nah...thinking is hard. "Obama lied" is much easier.

Keep smiling!

@koalabazooka said:

The Marxist ideal would be to reward everyone equally, the line of thinking for that being that everyone has their own place in the world. Not everyone can be a scientist or a coal miner. This proved to be a major weakness in Communist countries, as it killed the main incentive to go above and beyond. You'd earn the same for growing 100 kilos of wheat as 1000.

Marx had a few other challenges as well. For one, he really thought that he had identified a scientific basis for the functioning of history. That is, he thought that history could be predicted in much the same way that the results of a scientific experiment could be predicted, like water boiling at a certain temperature. He thought his method produced the inevitable truth...

That accounts for the dizzying success of his ideas. Less than 70 years after his death MILLIONS of people (China, Russia, etc.) were following his lead. That never happened before or since. Marx had the fastest and largest impact of any philosopher (if you can call him that) in history. National governments adopted his beliefs around the world. Crazy!

The main reason is that he said it was scientific, that if you thought his way you were "on the side of history". It must have been appetizing because so many signed on, yet obviously he was completely wrong; it wasn't scientific or inevitable at all.

As for the video starting this thread, couldn't finish it, sorry. The Financial Crisis of 2007 occurred under Bush, although Obama and Clinton both signed off on the solution. My question: Where did the money go? It didn't evaporate. Here's a hint, look into the number of yacht sales under Bush, they grew exponentially. There are other considerations as well. The Congress's refusal to pass a job's bill or to reinvest in infrastructure to name two. Funny how the record Stock Market is never mentioned when O is called a communist...he's certainly business friendly in that regard.

Here's a little more I remember about it. I remember a small but informed number of analysts who successfully predicted that Bush would wreck the economy so that people would blame the next regime. I'm talking years before it happened. Then, well, it happened right in front of me. Damn! I thought..they were right! Review the chart in the video and you see how it breaks immediately on the election year. Funny that. Also funny how most people think it came out of nowhere. We call that a shit bomb where I come from....

So, while I am not a big fan of Obama, I am less a fan of tanking our economy to score political points, all the while enriching your friends in the process. What about Bush's fiscal responsibility? He gets a pass, he's part of a political dynasty after all...

I would give a stool sample if I could smear it all over their uniforms...

Just moved out of Southeasten Pa not too long ago. Glad to be gone. They were stopping "foreign" looking people on the road for no reason to see if they were illegals, then taking the vehicles if they were and letting the illegals walk away (literally). Pretty much just a car grab. Couple of coworkers got stopped repeatedly and one (of Puerto Rican descent) got into a little trouble for voicing his concerns. He was lucky that his dad is a police chief in Jersey, or he may have had some serious problems.

Have to say though, with all of the apple orchards and what-not in the area, they were likely to find quite a few illegal pickers, and they did. Wonder if they swabbed them too?

@koalabazooka said:

Why do Americans call Deutschelanders "Germans"?

Good question.

Goes back to Roman times. Magna Germania was the name chosen to refer to the area where the "german" tribes lived. From what I understand it was revived during the late middle ages (about 1350) to refer to the German-speaking inhabitants of the Holy Roman Empire. Yep, the Roman Empire had come back around by then. Not a lot of people realize that Napoleon crowned himself Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, it was still there in the early 1800s.

Now, the one that gets me is "Dutch." It means "Deutsch" or "German" but they ain't German (despite all the similarities). Come on Europe, get it straight...

Ever hear the one about Satan loving God too much? I'm sure its online somewhere...

Anyway, kinda goes like this. God created Man in His image and was pretty pleased so He told all the angels that they had to worship and serve humanity as well.

Lucifer rebelled. He pointed out that humans were fallible, imperfect beings and that they did not merit the love that the angels reserved for their perfect God.

God threw him out of heaven for disobedience. Lucifer has been looking for payback ever since...

LOVE the Jesus skin color talk. Cracks me up. Ever hear about the Jesuses of the Middle Ages when the battles with the Muslims were hot and heavy? Jesus was seriously muscular and carried a big sword. Blessed are the meek indeed... Saint James rose from the dead and rode out with a flaming sword and beheaded 5000 muslims with a single blow....some bad-ass apostles.

Saw where a charity bell ringer got punched for saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. I think "Peace on Earth" is a good opening/reply no matter what. Somebody has problem with that...well, maybe they just have a problem period.

@westside-steve said:

Schopenhauer you seem like a very intelligent person maybe you have examples of which I'm not aware.

WSS

Not sure I am agreeing with you here. Very intelligent people don't need to flaunt it or belittle other's viewpoints. I think I've been guilty of both interacting with calfox. I regret that and apologize to calfox...it wasn't exactly fair..had a bad mood going and spread it around unnecessarily. Calfox is a great Browns fan and that is what matters most to me in this forum, not being right about everything. My bad.

Very intelligent people in my book seek the middle ground instinctively and reliably. If they know they are right they are content with that. Ever met a Sikh? Most would call them towel heads but they have been fighting the Taliban-types for about 1000 years in India. These are the guys that wear the big turbans, fascinating group really, and they are not the terrorists! Anyway, if you go to a Sikh temple they will house and feed for as long as you need...for free. Think about that one. Next, they are forbidden from evangelizing or proselytizing. That is, they can't promote their religion, they have to convince folks they are on the right path BY EXAMPLE. Another mind blower...

To your point about the forces of history, I have done good bit of geneaology work and have found over 2000 direct ancestors, some of whom perpetrated some seriously barbarous acts on others (the list goes back to Roman times). Ultimately it seems to be a personal choice; do you recognize that your ancestors acted on your behalf or do you recognize that their actions are independent from your reality and choices. It's a tough call. I was raised by my great-grandmother, who was born in the 19th century, so I tend to reach back that far and accept it as part of who I am. Not everyone does that and it is their choice.

Now I am aware of entire towns (in Europe) in the distant past that wanted to follow the teachings of Christ and base their towns on that. They were brutally slaughtered because of the nationalism of the countries that were developing around them. Does make you wonder what might have been...

Good chat.

@westside-steve said:

Apparently your opinions hold sway with the Board of Education...

You don't think that he was an isolated example during the Civil War do you? Human beings are brutal enough in peacetime let alone when war allows them to turn Feral?

WSS

That is insightful Steve.

As it happens, Forrest was a self-made millionaire (well, he had slaves to help) and highly successful and functional member of society as defined by the times. He raised, outfitted and served as general for his own army essentially, and, Fort Pillow aside, is considered, along with Abraham Lincoln, to have been the only two authentic geniuses produced by the war. Some very smart people think that.

I tend to agree with you...thinking he would have been "successful" in a variety of endeavors if not for the war. And no, there are not many incidents in the civil war that meet our present day definition of atrocity. The sad fact is that afterwards the Union turned what it learned during the war loose on the Natives...they never stood a chance. Basically, Custer, Sherman and Sheridan and the whole lot of them became the same as Forrest where the natives were concerned. His KKK went after the blacks, the Union army went after the natives. I think the difference in the tactics is negligible.

I guess that loops us back around to your "bloody hands" comment from a few posts ago...plenty of blood to go around for sure. Again, though, the ones who massacred the Natives are protected. It is hard to overstate how important the native claims on the land are, they HAD to be eradicated because they were a constant reminder of the land theft and represented the constant threat of one day suing for their land back.

Pen Mightier than the Sword? Frank Baum, who wrote the Wizard of Oz, participated by shaping public opinion himself, writing: "Why not annihilation? Their glory has fled, their spirit broken, their manhood effaced; better that they die than live the miserable wretches that they are. History would forget these latter despicable beings, and speak, in latter ages of the glory of these grand Kings of the forest and plain.” Imagine writing to annihilate blacks or latinos? We watch this guy's stuff to this day. Why? Because he targeted the "right" population...it's not all cafe and building bombings...kill them because they are not "great" anymore? Wow. Just wow.

What do you know?

I mention Nathan Bedford Forrest in a post yesterday and today they are renaming the high school named after him.

I didn't mention in my post that he was a founding member and former Grand Dragon of the KKK, didn't seem pertinent at the time.

Looks like it matters to some people...

@calfoxwc said:

Conservative opinions held sway in most academic institutions and "liberal" students out and out rejected what they were hearing in the classroom.

To be clear, conservatives were not shot at at Kent State, remember? Shopen

************************************************************************************************************

Wrong.

Actually, I think I am right in the assertions I made that you quote. It may be the case that a stray bullet struck some members of the crowd, but they were aiming at these folk, who, incidentally, were protesting the established view:

From Governor Rhodes the day before the shooting:

We've seen here at the city of Kent especially, probably the most vicious form of campus oriented violence yet perpetrated by dissident groups. They make definite plans of burning, destroying, and throwing rocks at police, and at the National Guard and the Highway Patrol. This is when we're going to use every part of the law enforcement agency of Ohio to drive them out of Kent. We are going to eradicate the problem. We're not going to treat the symptoms. And these people just move from one campus to the other and terrorize the community. They're worse than the brown shirts and the communist element and also the night riders and the vigilantes. They're the worst type of people that we harbor in America. Now I want to say this. They are not going to take over [the] campus. I think that we're up against the strongest, well-trained, militant, revolutionary group that has ever assembled in America.

Yeah he was full of hyperbole, but he was not talking about conservatives. The people that were shot (that were aimed at) were protesting the Cambodian Campaign. Again, not a big conservative issue at the time...

Also I already anticipated and responded to your personal stories in my post. I'm bummed that you didn't hang in there, like I said, they talk big but their opinion is not an objective truth and they are highly susceptible to their own policy and procedure, which they tend to ignore. I have won numerous victories over these folks, moral and otherwise.

My reference to conservative ideas holding sway was mostly directed at the era of buildup and expansion of Vietnam though. It was starting to shift around Kent State and the lefties were seeking some payback, of course. It was unfortunate but still goes on to this day, yet again, like I said, I don't see anyone getting shot for defying liberalism soon. They may get a medal from some conservative groups and become the next "Joe the Plumber", but they won't get shot.

Hard to believe you didn't do well in argumentation...Maybe because of things like a MYOB reference in a forum website? Wow. Here's one for you back: SMH.

Straight up tho, that is what I found for GGG... And I'm a little sad you didn't mention my lecture..pretty cool stuff, eh? History is, like, historical....

@calfoxwc said:

A freedom fighter is the opposite of a terrorist. Someone who fights/shoots in self-defense

against armed violence is the opposite of someone who initiates the armed aggression.

This all started with liberals in schools trying to convince students that they shouldn't believe

in anything but what they are told in class, because words can be redefined to twist reality

and common sense into confusion and garbage.

Critical thinking, that's my critical thinking lecture for December. It's my birthday present to myself. GGG

Quite an assertion, ironic that you refer to critical thinking and twisting reality and common sense into garbage.

Seems like history has worked against you. Consider the Vietnam Era. Conservative opinions held sway in most academic institutions and "liberal" students out and out rejected what they were hearing in the classroom. Conservatives did not start the anti-war movements, they believed what they were told in and out of class exactly as you say. This still has consequences to this day as the faculty felt betrayed by these students who would not toe the line; and students felt betrayed by faculty who would flunk them out into the army for their beliefs. Remember "don't trust anyone over 30?" Liberals were that challenge to the existing authority. To be clear, conservatives were not shot at at Kent State, remember?

So, while there are undoubtedly some "intellectually militant" liberal fools trying to do what you describe these days, there is obviously nowhere near the intensity that you seem to be hoping for. I've faced them down myself, plenty of times. They are full of bluster but there is nowhere near enough evidence to say that the pendulum has swung completely in the opposite direction and that people are going to get shot today due to defying liberalism.

You mentioned a lecture, how about the roots of conservatism versus the roots of liberalism? Let's go way back to Galileo. He knew the Earth wasn't flat and that it revolved around the sun. However, since the church was trying to CONSERVE its authority on every subject, Galileo knew the church would kill him and declined to defend his beliefs and published after his death. When Isaac Newton came along a 100 years later he used logic and reason to LIBERATE individuals from the absolute authority that the church had conserved for hundreds of years. His scientific theories proved that the church was wrong about certain things, and if they were wrong about some things, perhaps they were wrong about other things too, in fact, maybe they were wrong about EVERYTHING else too. It snowballed from there. Bottom line, we little people could finally have a say too, provided we were rational and logical.

There it is in a nutshell. Yes, there are some irrational and illogical people in schools today, yet you can't just hand all the power and the blame over to them like you seem to want to do. Yes, they suck, but they are not the absolute authority.

Also, I wasn't aware of this, were you? Why do you use it in your post?

"GGG stands for Good, Giving, and Game. More specifically: good in bed, giving equal time and equal pleasure, and game for anything—within reason. The term was coined by Dan Savage, gay author and sex advice columnist for the Stranger."