Town Quixote's

[Town Heretic]

I don't know why, it just called to me and felt right. I couldn't resist the tag.

People who feel their way through life tend to end up making statements and holding beliefs they can't actually support beyond that.

Now, either end the habit here or I'll ask to have you banned from the thread.

 

[Town Heretic]

Sorry about the moving about. Having a troll issue. Should be resolved shortly. This is Thursday's Wrap.

The Wrap
on Thursday


Said one of the former president...

He took drugs, fornicated

If you use that as a bar to public service the Mormons are going to end up running the country.

...You're just white privileged to him TH, he doesn't give a crap about you dude.

Your longstanding relationship with the president and the insight it gives you notwithstanding, I don't care. Why should I?

More to the point, why do you?

Fool continued, in fine Quixote fashion, to defend the urbane cowboy...

So is he appropriating their culture when he wears his hat?

Never part of my commentary. Tom Mix wore ridiculous "cowboy" bits too, but at least he actually was one and only donned the costumes to meet the expectations of people who couldn't saddle a horse if their lives depended on it.

What kind of hat is TH approved for the Sheriff from Wisconsin?

The fact is this sheriff from Wisconsin wore a hat no actual cowboy would wear to do what a cowboy actually does, and managed it while giving a speech in bow tie and suit. It was funny because of the degree of posturing and the way it summed an impression. And that's the long and short of it, not some insult to law enforcement, not an insult to gun safety, and not TH dictating what chapeau you can wear when atop that horse you rode in on.

While Yor was busily trying to dig out from under a mound of his own making...

Because saying "in general" explicitly acknowledges exceptions, while "all" requires qualification in this context.

Again, and I don't know what's complicated about this, when you say "Methodists" or "Muslims" and make blanket claims you are establishing your impression of the rule. As in Muslims must convert or kill those outside of their faith, liberals don't hold absolutes, etc. None of those generalized rules survived examination, empirically.

Argued abortion with quip...

Correct, biologically speaking. Why should this be the benchmark for rights?

Because either rights are inherent, or they're pure invention. If pure invention then restraining abortion at all seem capricious and a product of unreasoned fiat. And yet even in the hardest of us there is a recognition that taking life at some point is simply unacceptable, whatever we think of the origin of that objection.

Continuing with...

"It's Life" without discernment nor qualification instantly and conveniently eludes practical discourse such as, the moral estimation of incipient life against estabished rights being imperiled for the women in question

You could as easily have suggested, before slaves were free, "Yes, yes, that's one theory, but what of the inconvenience to those we KNOW are people?"

or the impracticality and inefficacy of maintaining the right-to-life for inchoate life which fails naturally in the womb upwards of 75% of conceptions.

We can't control a natural outcome. It doesn't follow that we should aid an unnatural one.

Noted in Angel's response to Trump praising Comey long after an incident that the President now claims is the basis of his firing...

yes, because its completely impossible to praise someone with limited knowledge, then find out later things are different than what one thought.

And it's weird how that realization happens to coincide with being investigated by someone who isn't in his pocket.

I do agree with you though that Trump is accurately described as someone who generally appears to speak from limited knowledge. :thumb:

And Horn, when he sounded an off note...

"Personhood" laws are extremely stupid and would be disastrously counterproductive if passed .

Abortion as a right is an extremely stupid idea and disastrously counterproductive to our essential humanity.

This would automatically cause a sharp INCREASE in surgical abortions.

Abortions increased each year following legalization until the Baby Boomers started aging. Laws prohibiting abortion don't increase abortions. That's counter intuitive and contrary to reason. Where you see a correlation is in countries that go beyond that to restricting contraceptive materials. If you cut that flow you're going to see a large increase in unwanted pregnancies and an increase in people seeking abortions, even when illegal. So it's laws relating to contraceptives and not abortion that is at the root of that particularly misused assertion by the left.

A cell is not person. An acorn is not a tree.

A one year old is not a thirty year old, and none of those are the point.

Tomorrow? Monumental errors of judgment, constitutional bathwater, and I say something inferentially insulting about Peyton Manning. :shocked:

 

[quip]

I don't know why, it just called to me and felt right. I couldn't resist the tag.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Yep, seems the new trend...at least something POTUS can hang his hat on.

 

[intojoy]

People who feel their way through life tend to end up making statements and holding beliefs they can't actually support beyond that.

Now, either end the habit here or I'll ask to have you banned from the thread.

TOWN HERETIC


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Town Heretic]

The Wrap
on Saturday


Patrick blew the bugle of...

Cuz the South's gonna do it again !!!

Champion a morally bankrupt cause wrapped in the robes of imaginary victimization and the rhetoric of outrage?

We largely already did. And now he's president. lain:

I wrote: distinguishing an acorn from a tree isn't really the same thing as distinguishing value outside of function and who would argue that right follows that?

All the more reason to introduce form and function (lack thereof) into the discussion.

Except that it can't be or you're ultimately arguing for the grotesque, where right is a Darwinian reflection of value to the social order. That never works out well for anyone in the end. In our compact we advance a different notion. The enfeebled stand equal to captains of industry before the law and in their rights.

And...

=You've no ground for such a declarative dismissal.

I do and I've noted it: their [the S. Ct. in Roe v Wade] standard is no more empirically, objectively, demonstrably true than the fellow who believes right vests with breath. It was an arbitrary distinction and one enforced by power, not reason.

While in the NFL thread, my old pal Peyton was taking one for the team...

Dallas...also played in more SBs than any team during the 70s with a 5 to 3 edge over the Steelers.

Who counts losses? I mean other than the Vikings and Bills. lain:

Dallas also won more regular season games during the 70s than any team.

Ah, the Peyton Manning of franchises.

During the 70s the Cowboys had ten consecutive winning seasons which contributed to their NFL record of 20 consecutive winning seasons.

How'd they do in the last twenty? I'm kidding. No one wants to hear about that. :nono:

Dallas has the highest winning percentage of all teams during the regular season and during the regular season and the playoffs combined.

And still only dominated in one decade? How did they avoid moving to Atlanta anyway?

Found agreement with fool on the foolishness of romanticizing public embarrassment for posterity...

Run over them with the bulldozer on the way to knock the statue down.

If someone wants to buy the statues and put them in a museum I'm fine with that. If they want to put them around Gettysburg as part of the lesson, okay. . . and if they want to dump the lot of them into the Gulf of Mexico that'll work too.

My grandmother was DAR and descended from the Lee line and I had always thought that she was a Daughter of the Confederacy as well, but learned late that when that particular group came knocking she sent them on their way, politely. She was, as it turns out, almost as proud of our role in the nation's founding as she was embarrassed by what some of our relations tried to do with that legacy.

Good woman, my grandmother.

Angel expressed a sentiment that while widely spread has never made much sense to me, so I asked...

I like the confederate flag which simply means southern to me, am i a white supremacist because of it?

I don't have any real reason to suspect that degree of prejudice, but I would ask you to consider seriously why a flag that flew over one of the darker practices in our nation's history represents the South to you. What is there in that symbol to like?

Leading to the peculiar and erudite commentary of dbrumley...

:yawn:

And the even less understandable passive-aggressive...

yeah, i agree, you dont owe him an explanation for what you like.

I never asked him anything at all. lain:

I didn't even ask you why you like the standard. I suggested that you consider why it is you feel any warm connection to the symbol for a barbaric expression of racism. I'm fairly proud of the South for any number of reasons, but find the misplaced romanticism and regard some have on that point a point of personal curiosity and more than a bit baffling. I asked, more broadly, what's to like about it?

GM resurfaced in one of the Trump related threads...

There's a dark cloud over our Nation. We're experiencing a "Psychological Civil War" between the far-left Democrats and the Conservatives. The left has the Media,

Except for the most powerful, 24 hr. outlet, of course.

Antifa, Hollywood, and a number of Republican Trump haters. The Left uses the "Antifa Thugs" to riot, chant, destroy property, fight the Police, and commit acts of violence. You might say that Antifa is similar to the "Brown Shirts" used by Hitler and the Nazi Party in the 1930s.

You might, if you lacked any sort of rational perspective to keep you from doing it.

The hierarchy of the Democratic Party is making "Subliminal Speeches" containing words such as: "Resist, fight, speak up, and cause trouble. If the Police don't "Up their game" simple violence MAY turn into deadly circumstances where people are maimed and even killed. Instead of condoning the violence continuing in our streets the Democrats out to be speaking up against it.

Unlike the right, who used "unpatriotic, culture war, Christian persecution, take back America, etc." to stir the worst sort of fear and loathing in their base? And what Democratic leaders are condoning criminal acts of violence? Names, quotes. That would be great, because anyone who does that should be exposed. Any elected official who does that, right? Regardless of party affiliation.

Tomorrow? I'll be in church. Where will you be? :e4e:

 

[quip]

Tomorrow? I'll be in church. Where will you be? :e4e:

Heading down that fabled Highway....arriving at that Bon Scott, Chris Cornell double feature. :devil:

 

[Town Heretic]

The Wrap
on Saturday


There was a little of this...

Indeed ... I wear my vote against Putin's Puppet as a badge of honor.

Did you say you wear your vote for abortion, as a badge of honor?

Do you find misrepresenting someone honorable? lain:

Not to be outdone in a day...

Someone tell AB nobody cares what he thinks

Everybody notice CS cares enough about what AB thinks to post about it...which makes him nobody.

PJ did his level best to carry water with a sieve...

I feel sorry for the leftists who watch MSM instead of FOX News. MSM gives false hope that Trump will be "caught" for something, anything. It's really sad

I feel sorry for people that use beach slides after they've been in the water. It's just asking for it, really. lain:

Meanwhile, Trump apparently told the Russians he'd been relieved by the Comey firing. I wonder if he shook his leg at the Constitution just for effect.

Continued to differ with quip on abortion...

...the death scenario simply illustrates the obviousness of such - by necessity - that which the pro-lifer tends to circumvent by appeals to subjective theories of life such as the one you've espoused here.

Except, again, any line in the sand is subjective, including yours. There is no objective truth in your position, no prima facie case that the Court in Roe was anything other than arbitrary in its conclusion.

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

A lie told in robes is still a lie. The Court did nothing but speculate and give its speculation the force of law, to the ongoing potential violation of a right it has no authority to abrogate when recognized.

Had a word on the Robert E. Lee statue controversy in New Orleans...

The lamentable fact is that no amount of good or recognition of the ill of slavery on Lee's part, no compulsion to defend his state (which itself would not necessitate taking on the leadership of all the Confederacy's armies) pardons battling to champion a state established to protect and promote it.

If New Orleans had wanted to honor the other Lee it could have placed him on that pedestal without uniform. That it chose not to should inform us of its foundational intent, to pay homage to the myth of noble futility and the South that never really was...we don't need any of it. Southerners have offered the nation we nearly destroyed far better than that, more vital than that, and something we can all celebrate and go forward with together.

Butted heads with an apologist on the point...

There are thousands of these monuments throughout almost every single county of the South.

We don't have a single statue honoring one in my county. There are parks and plaques noting historical occurrences from the war, which is preserving history. Not a single monument to one of the losers though.

And...

Since you believe, wrongly I might add, these monuments glorify our racist past, let's tear down the Lincoln memorial in Washington DC as well....

Tear down a monument to the preserver of the Union and the man who, his own failings notwithstanding, ended slavery? That wouldn't make much sense, would it? A bit like defending monuments commemorating the men who attempted to destroy that union and perpetuate slavery. History isn't the issue. How we frame it and what we honor is.

Or...

Sadly, this happens in a democracy....trading 1 tyrant for 300 or more.

He said, arguing for the tyranny of the minority. Else the tyranny of his notion of a principle over any other.

And so it goes... lain:

Before coming up with an idea about what to replace the monuments (and that thinking) with...

This whole 'I'm offended' movement has gotten ridiculously stupid and embarrassing.

Said the woman offended by people wanting to disavow symbols of a racist empire? lain:

Stevie Wonder would have seen the problem with your complaint.


Good on you, Big Easy! Statue suggestions: Louis Armstrong (Algiers doesn't count), Elmore Leonard, The Mannings, Branford Marsalis, Hank Williams, Jr., Harry Connick, Jr., John Goodman, Mr. Bill, Randy Newman, Mahalia Jackson, William Faulkner even...Truman Capote, just to name a few.

Tomorrow? A civil difference, bad math, and the tragedy of good men wearing Speedos. :shocked:

 

[Town Heretic]

The Wrap
back to back


Tam posted that only 8% of Southerners owned slaves in the years leading to the war a handful around here mistakenly believe was about something other than slavery...

Here are a few more fun facts. In 1860, 47% of the population of the South was slave.

One third of Southern families owned slaves (that's more than 8% for the math challenged).

Number of slave owners in the South: 385,000. 50% of slave owners had fewer than five.

How profitable was the institution? Though the South had only 30% of the U.S. free population it had 60% of the wealthiest men among its number.

The war was all about slavery. Most people in the South approved and one in three participated in the process directly. Many more indirectly.

Spoiler

As to the myths being spread of late, again, using the History Channel:

Myth #2: The South seceded from the Union over the issue of states’ rights, not slavery.​

This myth, that the Civil War wasn’t fundamentally a conflict over slavery, would have been a surprise to the original founders of the Confederacy. In the official declaration of the causes of their secession in December 1860, South Carolina’s delegates cited “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery.” According to them, the Northern interference with the return of fugitive slaves was violating their constitutional obligations; they also complained that some states in New England tolerated abolitionist societies and allowed black men to vote.


Myth #3: Only a small percentage of Southerners owned slaves.

Closely related to Myth #2, the idea that the vast majority of Confederate soldiers were men of modest means rather than large plantation owners is usually used to reinforce the contention that the South wouldn’t have gone to war to protect slavery. The 1860 census shows that in the states that would soon secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned slaves. Some states had far more slave owners (46 percent in South Carolina, 49 percent in Mississippi) while some had far less (20 percent in Arkansas).
But as Jamelle Bouie and Rebecca Onion point out in Slate, the percentages don’t fully express the extent to which the antebellum South was a slave society, built on a foundation of slavery. Many of those white families who couldn’t afford slaves aspired to, as a symbol of wealth and prosperity. In addition, the essential ideology of white supremacy that served as a rationale for slavery, made it extremely difficult—and terrifying—for white Southerners to imagine life alongside a black majority population that was not in bondage. In this way, many non-slave-owning Confederates went to war to protect not only slavery, but to preserve the foundation of the only way of life they knew.​

And so on.

So...

Think I am going to throw up

You already did and I read it entirely. lain:

Began wrapping up with quip...

Your take on the matter is an ineffectual appeal to ignorance...You're simply appealing to a personal theory of life by whatever means it was derived.

If by personal theory you mean the byproduct of a reasoned examination of the foundational right to be, the prohibition of its abrogation, and the inability of anyone to state with objective authority when the vesting of that right could be said to exist, then asserting the necessity of its protection, sure.

Continued to discuss the problematic nature of lipstick and pigs...

...Were the statues of Southern generals "racist?"

Are the emblems of a slave state inherently racist? Yes. Of course they are.

Should the South be ashamed of exercising what they believe was their right to secede by states?

It should be ashamed of why it desired the exercise. That remains the point, not the attempt by some to rewrite the actual history into another noble fable.

Rather, everybody should be encouraged to look at facts instead of assessments and opinions regarding our history.

Sure, that's why I noted inconvenient facts for those trying to preserve the old myth. I noted how prevalent slavery was among the common man, how many benefited from the institution both directly and indirectly. The average Joe wasn't walking about debating the idea of states rights and randomly deciding to test the theory. But they were tied to slavery, whose expansion and power were being threatened by the north with the election of Lincoln.

CS decided to whitewash my country cousin...

A really evil man huh town?

Lee led the armies of the South in defense of the evil institution of that slave state. You can choose to separate and compartmentalize whatever suits your bias. Bill Cosby did a lot of good for a lot of people while he was about the business of raping a much smaller number. Do you compartmentalize with him as well? I'd bet you wouldn't.

Ending with...

No man is either all good or all bad. I'm not really sure what good Cosby did with the intent to cause that good like Lee did. I won't defend Cosby on that basis.

To avoid a repeat of that, take it as a hypothetical. A guy is a real philanthropist, sends scores of deserving, poor kids with promise through college. He contributes time and money to all sorts of worthy causes. All the while he is raping women...say a couple of dozen. How do you judge him as a man?

And are you okay with a statue in his honor?

Lee, however, was a wholly honorable man for his time

No, he wasn't. He declared slavery an evil then served its master. That's not wholly honorable unless you own a crazy dictionary. And there were many men in his time who not only realized what Lee gave lip service to they acted on the belief and strove to end the practice, not defend its existence.

and his failure to live up to modern standards of morality does not obligate me to condemn him.

His failure to live up to his own and to serve that evil should.

Then...

You did not even attempt to meet this challenge by rational rebuttal

That wasn't a challenge. It was a declaration of fact (that my argument silences others) offered as though that in some meaningful sense should make it objectionable. Reason is by its nature authoritative. So is law. Neither are odious because they preclude other answers or action. They are only objectionable to the extent they can be demonstrated defective.

Are you not assuming a conclusion based upon an explicit lack of adequate knowledge, specifically knowledge of when rights-to-life commence?

Too broad. To narrow, if you're asking if I'm assuming a conclusion as to when right vests, no. The arguments made underscore the impossibility of that and the equal impossibility of divestment. Else, I'm not assuming, but illustrating with reason why the point of protection for what exists in potential is logically necessary.

Meanwhile...

Trump is within his "Constitutional" rights to fire the FBI Director and he can say whatever he wants about it

Sometimes what we can do and what we should do are very different things.

Anyone can wear a Speedo. lain:

Tomorrow? Monumental ideas, Concord and lexicons, murder to prevent murder, and unanswered prayers. oly:

 

[intojoy]

Lol how did that taste?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Town Heretic]

The Wrap
on Sunday


Strange goings on in the Supremacist thread...

The intent of the founders means nothing to you.

No, not intent absent framing as law. Just so, you might be a raving racist or a near saint and believe all sorts of crazy or wonderful things, and that's your right. But if you want law you write it down and men vote on it.

People of your ilk are directly responsible for having a constitution utterly alien from the original.

While any number of changes over the decades since it was written would no doubt surprise most of them and delight many who opposed some of what they sanctioned, like slavery (which I suppose you must still support given your position), the Constitution remains in force and is anything but alien to...itself. :AMR:

Of course you support that bastardization of it.

Your problem (well, one of them) is that you don't like some of the changes, which means you should go shake your fist at the ground and the founders who left that door open, ironically enough (given your position).

After a few fruits fell off the bad idea tree, suggesting the way to stop Islam was in bombing its holy sites...

Anyone who seriously believes destroying buildings can end a faith either doesn't understand how faith works...or architecture. lain:

Leading CS to opine...

You don't realize we are in a war with these guys do you?

Which is compelling except that we aren't.

BTW, agreeing on a point of view is not indicative of intelligence.

Neither is holding a point contrary to reason. lain:

On replacing the removed Confederate memorials, fool suggested...

So...That's one order of Tubman.

Not strong enough. Go with Malcom X and just sit around watching the heads explode as people walk by it.

In addition to melting down the Confederate Statuary I think we should rent advertising space on Confederate grave stones to raise money for Archeology at slave grave sites.

(inches away) You're going to show a cartoon of the Prophet next eating pork, aren't you? How many days do you have left and when did they tell you.

Over in the prayer thread...

My prayer is that any glimmer of hope or comfort that the irreverent and impious on TOL have is removed and that the end thereof is made public that others should tremble at the very thought of irreverent impiety.

My prayer is that your server goes down.

The Fox News thread was humming along...

Hannity is the BEST we Conservatives have now.

That alone invites sympathy. lain:

Once he's gone, the "Domino Effect" will take place.

Bad pizza will sweep across the world and ruin everyone's opinion of Italian cuisine? :chew:

It's back to the radio for conservatives.

But really, even that's a bit progressive for the hard core.

Weird how the complaints didn't start till they were being relieved of their jobs or positions they wanted

Weird that people trying to establish and further a career take crap from their superiors but turn on them when taking that crap doesn't help them?

Yeah, that's weird all right.

PJ was piping in the music...

Is that why the stock market has gained over 3 TRILLION Dollars in value since Trump took the helm?

What has he specifically done that you could attribute that growth to?

The majority of Americans are proud of our President !!!

Only if you're very, very bad at math. oly:

Speaking of Islam... lain:

You mean the mudslimes who really do not need an excuse to kill all and everybody that is not a mudslime like their Koran teaches them ?

I mean precisely what I said, a thing you understandably fail to address in this childish response. Without question, some Muslims use God to murder in His name. And do you know who is doing most of the dying and fighting to oppose them?

Islam in its actual orthodoxy.

Your understanding of what Islam teaches lines up with those murderous nutters, to be sure, but not with the greater part of Islam that is contending with them. That alone should have you second guessing yourself, but I suppose you'll have to learn to spell properly first.

Answered quip's abortion question...

Let's try a hypothetical: We have an in vitro lab on fire. In this burning lab we have 100 human embryos in a cart of vials waiting for implantation into their human host. Also, we have an 11-day-old infant in this same burning lab. Now, you can only save one from the flames. Which one would you save? Which one would the vast majority of people save?Why do you think this is the case?

Most people would save the 11 day old infant. The more something looks and responds as we do the more we identify with it. The more literal or metaphorical points of contact the harder it becomes to lose the sense of humanity attaching, which is why people who are instructed in how to respond to a kidnapper are always told to insinuate their humanity, connect it to the person who has shown a willingness to subordinate that recognition to something else, an idea or desire. It's human nature. The more alien and/or removed the easier it becomes to make the wrong choice, or the choice predicated on a lesser thing, which is why the ovens of Auschwitz don't begin until you've dehumanized the Jew.

And from a contentious acorn a surprising tree grew...

Thanks TH, thanks for the kind reply to me and the good advice.

De nada. Sometimes the nature of the ring can make us take swings out of habit. It's good to stop ourselves from time to time and try an old fashioned conversation instead. It seemed to me that both of us could use the break.

Tomorrow? Hystery lessons. oly:

 

[Town Heretic]

The Wrap
on Sunday


Thanks in advance to north for his contributions, which will be widely accounted for in this addition, beginning with...

If you live in small town or rural Missouri in 2017 you won't see any Muslims.

Are they absent or is there a new Muslim cloaking device we should be aware of?

Brumley trotted out the old war horse who neighed and nickered (no, Trad, no)...

The Donald & The La Raza Judge By Patrick J. Buchanan June 7, 2016

Before the lynching of The Donald proceeds, what exactly was it he said about that Hispanic judge?

He called him a "Mexican" and impugned his ability to do his job objectively.

Can there be any defense of a statement so horrific?

Of course Pat is being disingenuous, but to answer anyway, no. He could have claimed a bias on the judge's part due to certain observable leanings and without adding the "Mexican" comment. But the remarks he made as he made them are indefensible or should be to anyone without a bias problem of their own.

Pat should understand that, but then Pat has his own issues.

Excerpts from Suicide of a Superpower by Pat Buchanan

"When the faith dies, the culture dies, the civilization dies, the people die. That is the progression. And as the faith that gave birth to the West is dying in the West, peoples of European descent from the steppes of Russia to the coast of California have begun to die out, as the Third World treks north to claim the estate."​

Translation: "The Latinos are coming!" Of course, they're disproportionately Catholic, the brand of Christianity Buchanan only appears to note among those of European descent. Recognizing that, his comments contain a startlingly obvious deficiency that doesn't appear to reach Mr. Buchanan's prefrontal cortex.

"Nothing in the Constitution or federal law mandated social, racial, or gender equality."​

Translation: I miss the good old days, when whites could romanticize their misogyny and racism and no one could say boo about it.

To put the icing on that cake:

"Back then, black and white lived apart, went to different schools and churches, played on different playgrounds, and went to different restaurants, bars, theaters, and soda fountains. But we shared a country and a culture. We were one nation. We were Americans."​

No, Pat, you and the people like you were pretending that those separated from you by law and social nods were better off with their own and without the privileges and power you likely still consider your birthright.

Meanwhile...

I don't believe I have spotted a Marxist Leftist here either,

The easiest way to tell is the plumage. A rosy tinge to it.

Then dr suggested...

Nothing the secession letters said were worse than what the President [Lincoln] said and his cohorts....sorry your blind to this....

I can't be "blind" about an argument I wasn't having with anyone, but as I've said, in speaking to the internal and external realities, most of the white men of that age were racist by our understanding. And yet some of them freed men and women from an evil that destroyed body and soul. If they did so without fully redeeming their own it was their loss, the good being done in spite of their inclinations.

Continued the argument over separating extremism from orthodoxy, where dodge played the "been there/know that" card loudly and...

Go spend almost 6 years in the middle east and then come back when you might have a clue what you are talking about.

Jules Verne couldn't imagine a less credible appeal to anecdotal and personal authority.

Here's one quick rebuttal: you've spent far less time there (assuming) than the people who live there and are fighting ISIS. You've spent far less time (assuming) trying to understand that religion than the Muslims who are fighting ISIS and the religious authorities in Islam that have widely and repeatedly condemned them.

Here's another: there are racists who've lived near and around black people their entire lives. They still don't get it.

Fool weighed in on Trump and Judge Curiel...

Mexican isn't a race.

The judge wasn't and isn't a Mexican. So that says something about Trump's thought process and tendencies.

Continuing with north...

though if I were back in Madison, Wisconsin I would see both Muslims and Marxist Leftists quite frequently.

And Herons, I'd imagine...and Rotarian, though not at the same bank.

Glory piled in on one thread...doesn't really matter which when you read it...

Town the Clown shows the only bravery he has....running his big mouth while his fellow libs pat him on the back.

You'd think someone as myopically concerned with orientation of one sort or another would at least get this one right..

They are great at showing us what we don't want to be.

If this effort is any indication you don't want to be much...and succeed wildly at it. :thumb:

Continued with fool...

[Trump is] pointing out a conflict of interests. The Judge is a member of La Raza. A Latino advocacy and aid organization.

Actually and aptly enough, La Raza was founded in response to the stereotyping of people with Spanish surnames...

​

In 2004 a Politifact Nexis database search turned up the group issued a strong letter at that time calling for the ending of an LA show that had illegals competing for the services of a lawyer and a green card. Their complaint?

"[The show] functions as a magnet to encourage people to enter this country without documentation.​

​

The conservative Red State called Trump's attempt dishonest and noted that the attempt by Trump is to associate Curiel with the radical left wing and immigration driven group, the National Council of La Raza, with which the jurist has no association instead of La Raza, which is essentially the Latino bar of California.

He's a member of La Raza.

Which isn't a Mexican organization.

Talked hoops with an old friend...

I still hate the way Lebron's feet point outward, it makes his game unaesthetic....to me.

It would be aesthetically pleasing, for me, to watch you go one on one half-court with him for your life savings.

:rotfl:

And then...

there is that collection of buildings on the shore of Lake Mendota in Madison where they create thousands of Marxist Leftists. Its called the University of Wisconsin.

The only people who confuse a seat of higher learning with a seat of lower indoctrination are those in need of its ministration.

Before...

I am consistent..

So are the dead. And I don't mean musically.

Rebutted? You did no such thing. You gave your opinion backed by things said and documents that you THINK prove your point.

That's what a rebuttal consists of, dr. Opinion driven by reason and factual information. In my case documents that literally make my point, unambiguously [by literally quoting the authors of succession on their motivation].

That is all. And that is ok....Why get so uptight?

Probably because I'm not. lain: And that encapsulates your problem of late.

Fool took another swing at the Trump pinata...

http://sdlrla.com/about/mission-statement/
From their mission statement:
• Strongly advocate positions on judicial, economic and social issues to political leaders and state and local bar associations that impact the Latino community.

I don't know how to tell you this, but not everyone who is Mexican is Latino and many who are Latino aren't Mexican. And everything that impacts you isn't necessarily something you champion. For instance, if your organization objects to encouraging illegal immigration you aren't then reasonably protective of illegal immigrants, even if they're Latino.

Gun violence impacts Latinos. Which position is then inherently pro Latino, pro or anti gun ownership? And so on.

And I'll end today's addition with an inglorious defense of dodginess...

You claim he was using his service to "establish a rule", when what he was doing was expressing his opinion.

His opinion about Muslims is his rule, how he sees them and what he had to say about them, not to himself, but to anyone reading him. And it was and is insulting and ignorant, both in execution and intent.

One he developed because of his time spent over there, and, undoubtedly because of the radical islamic terrorist attacks we're seeing everywhere.

Right. It's a flawed methodology that confuses the anecdote, which is only good for illustrating a rule, with the rule itself. If I said all white people were serial killers because you see so many white serial killers all over the world you'd think what you should think in this case.

We see the results of your do-gooder "tolerance"

You live in a nation founded by immigrants, many of whom were persecuted for exercising a faith that offended some other, larger group.

You've learned nothing from it and that's a tragedy.

Muslims need to find themselves a new religion

I'd love to baptize and convert the lot of them, but I don't need to drown them to feel safe.

....they won't be saved without one, and we won't be safe unless they do.

So you're joining in the insult to those Muslims who died defending your right to abuse your freedom to insult them. Okay.

Tomorrow? Facts in the face of fictions, illegal eagles, and the importance of reading first and answering second. oly:

 

[Town Heretic]

The Wrap
on Monday


Catching up, CS was being CS...

Come back with hard data on terrorism conducted in America or Europe or in popular tourism destinations. That would be honest.

My data was on the U.S. and compiled by the University of Georgia. lain: The Global Terrorism Database they used is archived at the University of Maryland. It holds incidents from 1970 through the latest compilation, which was 2015, 2016 being available later this summer.

And...

Terrorism done for reasons other than hatred of the prosperous west is not the issue and to quote it as evidence of your point is dishonest.

Wait...:rotfl:...sorry, but you literally just insisted that it was dishonest not to jury rig the consideration by insisting on a focus that definitionally would require the outcome in line with your bias instead of exposing it utilizing empirical data.

You're a very funny fellow.

Then Clete went all Clete on anna...

That isn't an argument.

She made an observation. A statement of an observable truth. Everything isn't meant to be an argument of parts.

It's an attempt to say, "OOOH Ugly video that I don't like! The whole position and anyone who agrees with any version of it must be a religious lunatic! AAAHH! Get me out of here!"

No, she was clear enough over a few posts that what she's noting is some around here would be fine with putting homosexuals to death. And that's true enough.

It's called an Ad Hominem argument. Most people think that the mere act of calling someone a derogative name is an ad hominem but that just shows their ignorance of what the term means.

Well, thank heaven you know and can...apparently take your secret society of Ad Hominer knowledge to the grave...or failing that, to the mildly amused. :shocked:

The point here is that you are not making an argument. You're expressing a dislike for something to an audience made up of people who couldn't care less about your personal opinions much less be persuaded by them.

If you're any more indifferent we could all be here a while.

The God I worship says explicitly that homosexuality should be a capital crime and that those lawfully convicted of such crimes should be publically executed.

Then you haven't read his later work. You don't have to sacrifice goats now either...I've ruined it for you, haven't I. oly: I always do that. .

Dodge couldn't get out of his own way...

Are you really that stupid ? I mentioned my service as a means to show that I have spent time there.

No you didn't. You used it as a source of authority, suggesting people who you presumed haven't been there can't understand the subject like you do. I can quote you on the point or you can be a little more honest in the middle of your insult stream with anna.

In any event, you're about to do it again.

Since YOU have never been to the Middle East what exactly is your expertise other than your progressive fascist agenda as a point of reference ?

See? You did it again.

Before a faltering defense of a misread hope on his part led to...

There are laws that do apply to removing Muslims from the U.S.

Citizens? List them.

Even if that were not true, and it is, Congress could make one that would fit the problem.

Checks and balances. Look into it. If a law isn't constitutional it won't survive the Court.

Obviously congress is past caring about the American people and does not have the spine to pass a law that would actually protect the Americans much like the British, French, Germans, Swedes, and the rest of the spineless west that puts more importance on being politically correct than the evidence staring them in the face.

That's one explanation: you're right, see it clearly and most of the Western world is peculiarly unconcerned with their own self-interest.

Or you're wrong.

That's a tough one. lain:

This one might be on me...

I see that you're a full blown leftist now, brainwashed by MSM

:mock: PJ You can't be brainwashed by M&Ms! :rotfl:

And you screwed up the ampersand, to boot.

Then dodge put the "ho" in phobic...

We have brought the "sand" into our country,sadly. Many will be forced to do exactly that as in convert or die.

They're 1% of the population. Should be about 2% by 2050.

Or...

Every where through out history Muslims have immigrated they start small and end up taking over the host country.

Not really, but...let's say all of Islam radicalized, not just the relative sliver so many conflate with a rule. Say it happened. If 2 percent of anyone can kick the can of the remaining 98% that 98% doesn't deserve its own country to begin with. lain:

Hey, and the ignorant west will pay for the children that will teach their children to murder the infidels i.e. everyone that is not Muslim.

Which, again, the majority of Islam isn't doing and never did.

Tomorrow? foolish notions, holy violent acts, and plumage...

 

[Town Heretic]

On the Politics of Blood

In the wake of the recent shooting in Washington, a Post reporter quipped/tweeted, "If the shooter has a serious health condition then is taking potshots at the GOP House leadership considered self-defense?"

Response to the inappropriate and censurable post was swift and vitriolic. And a good bit of it was deserved. The reporter could have written, "Thankfully only the shooter lost his life and everyone injured had quality health care to offer immediate and long term treatment for their injuries. Sadly, that will not be the case for millions of Americans if those same Republicans have their way with the nation's current health care system. I wish them a speedy and mindful recovery."

It's in the nature of politicized rhetoric today to trade on violence in the lowest terms for political gain. And part of what makes it inevitable is found both in the tweet and in much of the response to it. That is to say, palpable contempt on the part of political advocates keeps moving the margin on what's reasonable and acceptable until nearly anything that isn't a slap to the face can feel like fair game.

 

[glorydaz]

The Wrap
on Wednesday



North was headed in the wrong direction...



fool continued to champion lost causes...but went a bit wide on the means...



CS had me mulling a new term for the TOL Lexicon...




Eventually it went sideways with...




Then glory weighed in...



Before...



North was back like Shoney's Big Boy...



Or was it that glory never really left? (extra rep pts available)...



That wrapped with...



Tomorrow? Shticks and stones may break the Constitution. lain:

Townie is a bit taken with me. He hates to be picked on. :rotfl:

 

[glorydaz]

The Wrap
on Wednesday



North was headed in the wrong direction...



fool continued to champion lost causes...but went a bit wide on the means...



CS had me mulling a new term for the TOL Lexicon...




Eventually it went sideways with...




Then glory weighed in...



Before...



North was back like Shoney's Big Boy...



Or was it that glory never really left? (extra rep pts available)...



That wrapped with...



Tomorrow? Shticks and stones may break the Constitution. lain:

Brought me back for a second showing. :thumb:

 

[patrick jane]

Brought me back for a second showing. :thumb:

He really IS obsessed with you !!!

 

[glorydaz]

He really IS obsessed with you !!!

The Wrap
on Wednesday



North was headed in the wrong direction...



fool continued to champion lost causes...but went a bit wide on the means...



CS had me mulling a new term for the TOL Lexicon...




Eventually it went sideways with...




Then glory weighed in...



Before...



North was back like Shoney's Big Boy...



Or was it that glory never really left? (extra rep pts available)...



That wrapped with...



Tomorrow? Shticks and stones may break the Constitution. lain:

And here's the pudding with the proof. :banana:

 

[Town Heretic]

Appparently glory is conducting an exercise in trollish irony. Such is life. I'll move the Wrap once a day to make sure you regulars don't have to wade through her tantrum to get to the Wrap...and thanks for pushing this month toward 4k despite only a handful of postings (busy semester). :cheers:

The Wrap
on Wednesday



North was headed in the wrong direction...

If you live in small town or rural Missouri in 2017 you won't see any Muslims.

Are they absent or is there a new Muslim cloaking device we should be aware of?

fool continued to champion lost causes...but went a bit wide on the means...

Said the slave to the free man.

"Because nothing says "perspective" like comparing the inability to provoke others by burning their holy book to actual slavery," said no actual slave, ever. lain:

I the U.S. we have a saying: "I disagree with what you're saying but I'll defend your right to say it". Don't have that saying over there do you?

We also have a tradition of impinging upon all sorts of speech that we find unacceptable, from the printed to the spoken word.

CS had me mulling a new term for the TOL Lexicon...

Did any of those things actually do anything to improve the code of African Americans? No. Their situation is worse now than prior to 1964.

The code of African Americans? lain: No...I'm betting it utterly failed to impact their....code.

But to suggest blacks are worse off now than they were before the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were passed is to require an entirely new word, as it breaks the strong back of asininity. oly:

Eventually it went sideways with...

You are the one who is making race the determining factor in how you speak about them, not me.

I'm using the term black people mostly use to describe themselves. That's just good manners, clear communication, and common sense. . .You, on the other hand, are insisting on using a term you're just about to tell everyone you know will insult some of them. I'll come back to why that's funny in a minute.

I will use black when speaking about African Americans when they are present and may be offended by the term African American.

Why not use the term you know won't offend? One most black people prefer and one that is as descriptive given the topic restrictions of "this country" and "before and after 1964".

To do so on the basis that they prefer to be called that, shows a problem with you and all the other race baiters in this country.

You believe that using African-American will offend some black people.

You are being pretty emphatic about using it here, in a public forum.

Race-baiter: someone who baits a racial group. Merriam-Webster. That would be what you're advocating in potential.

What I'm doing is as descriptive and won't offend or bait a soul.

So there you go again, hoisted on your custom made petard.

Then glory weighed in...

They are worse off.....in many ways.

I suspect the average black person would take the problems that come with freedom over the chance of being lynched or beaten for attempting the exercise. Just a guess mind you, but an educated one.

Before...

They change what they want to be called every ten years or so. Most black people don't care,

Which is it?

and the only ones who do are still swallowing the liberal diet of victimhood.

Because nothing says "victim" like referring to yourself by a color? lain: Do you get any sillier or is this bottom?

North was back like Shoney's Big Boy...

Many Blacks do not understand that Racism is being used as a weapon of the Marxist Left to gain power for itself, rather than to help the Blacks. The large cities that are under Democratic or Leftist control are hell holes for the Blacks.

Whenever I read someone use "the blacks" I just know it's time to pay attention to their take on race.

Or was it that glory never really left? (extra rep pts available)...

Name calling without cause? :loser:

Your sensitivity really comes through with the choice of rebuttal smilies. If being called a doofus wounds you I hope you don't get out much, conversationally speaking.

The cause is our history and your general methodology, including the liberal nonsense you slather on me like sunscreen on a Norwegian toddler.

Are you hoping I win the cub reporter contest?

I'd tell you what I hope for you but no one would believe that kind of optimism still exists in the world.

Like I could ever gain anything from a clown like you?

What's funniest about that is that I didn't say gain it from me.

That wrapped with...

Claiming the higher ground in a rep comment

Which I didn't do.

is fitting for such a hypocrite as you are, Townie. :chuckle:

See, that's actual name calling.

If you keep that up I'm going to have serious doubts about exchanging Christmas presents.

You've already proven you have no high ground.

Sounds like you're pretty sure you have it. But it doesn't sound like it makes you happy, so if that's what it is you can keep it.

Tomorrow? Shticks and stones may break the Constitution. lain:

 

[glorydaz]

Appparently glory is conducting an exercise in trollish irony. Such is life. I'll move the Wrap once a day to make sure you regulars don't have to wade through her tantrum to get to the Wrap...and thanks for pushing this month toward 4k despite only a handful of postings (busy semester). :cheers:

Just making the point that I'm not a "regular" follower of yours, and I don't like being talked about behind my back. I see this appear in my quotation box and respond. If you think you're free to talk about people, then you should realize you've opened yourself up for some push back. Leave me off your "Wrap" and I'll stay off it. Pretty simple.

 

[Tambora]

Just making the point that I'm not a "regular" follower of yours, and I don't like being talked about behind my back. I see this appear in my quotation box and respond. If you think you're free to talk about people, then you should realize you've opened yourself up for some push back. Leave me off your "Wrap" and I'll stay off it. Pretty simple.

Atta girl!