Embracing Violence

Democrats have now embraced violence in their quest for power.  These are the actions of a desperate people who’s policies have failed miserably and have nothing positive to offer.  Recent comments back this assertion up, for example:

We can’t be civil with Republicans until we win – Hillary Clinton

When Republics go low, we kick them – Eric Holder

Maxine Waters, Cory Booker and others have chosen this road as well.  Intimidation and violence will backfire, non-lunatics don’t like it.  This will only get worse as time goes on, because that’s how losers act.  Then we have this coming down the pike:

ginsburg

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Let the fights begin!

  2. Democrats have now embraced violence in their quest for power.

    Objection! Support this claim.

    We can’t be civil with Republicans until we win – Hillary Clinton

    An acknowledgement that the Republicans (especially Trump) have not been civil in their victory and suggesting reciprocity is NOT advocating for violence.

    When Republics go low, we kick them – Eric Holder

    If you can’t see that this is metaphorical, I seriously can’t help you.

    • Oh hell no!!! Words mean something, right Mathius! Tisk, tisk

      • Yes.

        Words have meanings.

        But metaphors are things that exist, too.

        If I suggest that Democrats should “float like a butterfly, sting like a bee,” would you read that as me suggesting that Nancy Pelosi should literally flap her bingo wings (feel free to google that term) until she takes flight and then stab Mitch McConnell using a pointy barb attached to her hindquarters?

        Holder’s quote was a riff off what Michelle Obama (2020!) said: “when they go low, we go high.” He played with the words, arguing that, instead, when they go low, we should “kick” them.

        Two sentences later in, he seemed to realize that there’d be some deliberately myopic interpretations of what he said, because he clarified: “When I say we, you know, ‘We kick ‘em,’ I don’t mean we do anything inappropriate. We don’t do anything illegal. But we got to be tough, and we have to fight for the very things that [civil rights leaders] John Lewis, Martin Luther King, Whitney Young – you know, all those folks gave to us.”

        • Whole lot of dems. saying similar things. They all include some terms that brings to mind violence. Sounds like a tactic to me. A pretty crappy tactic. When they decided to use this tactic, what do you think they were trying to achieve, that they couldn’t achieve using less confrontational language?

      • Just a thought about “proving innocense” there is a reason that one must prove allegations because its impossible to prove an event that didnt occur if it didnt occur. The “proving innocense” requirement is nonsensical. The failure to prove guilt is thetefore proven innocence.

    • Did you miss the violent protests leading up to a beyond last election? Geez, your either seriously misinformed or you choose to ignore what is right in front of you.
      Holders words were followed by the chant “fight, fight, fight”.
      I can go on and on, but will wait till im home.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      When Trump is “metaphoroical”, you, among others do not accept it. Why should I accept Hillary and old Mr. Fast and Furious.

      • Please provide an example of a metaphor Trump used which I did not accept? Honestly, I’m not sure his grasp of the English language would permit the use of metaphors.

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:
          • I have no objection to any of the metaphors he used in that article.

            When he said minorities in inner cities were “living in hell,” I do not interpret that to mean that he is literally saying that they are living in a fiery inferno ruled over the Lucifer.

            SKT: When Trump is “metaphoroical”, you, among others do not accept it.

            So do you have an example of this?

            • Not really a metaphor but…How about when he said at the rally about punch the guy in the face, I’ll pay pay his legal bill? When to begin with it was all about the Ds throwing tomatoes at conservatives. But weren’t you all over it saying Trump was inciting violence?

              • Anita,

                Not really a metaphor but…How about when he said at the rally about punch the guy in the face, I’ll pay pay his legal bill?

                Great example. I actually referenced this below in another thread.

                This is not a metaphor.

                It might be considered a joke.

                But a metaphor requires that he says one thing and conveys a different meaning.

                Telling people to punch someone would have to mean something else for it to be a metaphor – eg (by “punch,” I mean “give him a back massage”). It doesn’t have an alternative meaning which can be reasonable inferred, so it cannot be a metaphor.

                It can, however, as mentioned, be a joke. He (probably) wasn’t really saying that they should punch the guy. Probably anyway. Who knows? But as a presidential candidate for one of the two major parties, I find that his words were in poor taste and, possibly, dangerous because they would have been easy for others to interpret as a legitimate call to violence regardless of whether they were or not.

                Does this answer your question?

            • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

              Then there are the comments about certain 3rd world countries.

            • Does this answer your question?

              I dont know 🙂 I dont think so. What the difference between a punch and a kick? Holder was just smart enough to cover his ass later…and by the way, he didnt cover til after he said a few other things regarding fighting. And touche` because Trump’s ‘punch’ could have very well meant ‘send a message’ too. Makes me wish I didn’t delete a comment yesterday about you saying words mean something, but at times like now, you get too hung up on, or read more into words than necessary. If we wern’t such a sensitive country neither of the comments should have been taken literally. And did i spell wern’t right, cause it doesnt look right.

              • Canine Weapon says:

                And did i spell wern’t right, cause it doesnt look right.

                It’s spelled werenene’rern’t.

  3. Your system (both ‘wings’) is based on theft, coercion, punishment/torture, death and/or destruction. That’s violence. The use of force against it is not violence, but is rightful defense.

    Pot: The kettle is black – the kettle black. Waah!

    • I think what Gman is trying to say is that “his side” is pure as the driven snow, whereas “my side” is the violent evil one.

      Of course, heading into Pirate Latitudes, we see that both sides are coercive, stealing, violent, etc. But that is within bounds that the American electorate has seemingly broadly accepted. (eg, it’s ok to tax… you, BF, and DPM might call this theft, but The People have broadly decided to condone it). In this light, of course, it’s the pot calling the kettle black. That’s undeniable.

      So, with that in mind, what he’s getting at isn’t relevant to the Pirate interpretation, but rather, he’s accusing “the Democrats” of condoning otherwise non-condoned violence by cherry picking, using fallacious generalizations, and obtusely interpreting narrowly cropped quotes. This, while pretending that “his side” (the Republican Party) does no such thing (See also: No True Scotsman). This he does by writing off inconvenient examples.

      So, when Bill O’Reilly spent years calling Dr. George Tiller a murderer and wishing that someone would stop him, and then a Christian Fundamentalist, Fox fanatic, and registered Republican walked into church and executed the doctor, Gman looks at me with a blank expression and innocently proclaims that he wasn’t really representative of his side – whereas, were the rolls reversed, of course, he would be jumping up and down proclaiming the proof of such evil behavior by Democrats, liberals, the left, and Mathius.

      But when Holder says something that is clearly a metaphor, but can be interpreted literally as a call to violence (assuming you also ignore the rest of the paragraph), then this is proof that the Democrats condone violence.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        Antifa! Nuff said! Find me an instance where the Tea Party, Young Republicans or Young Americans for Freedom have gone there. I’ll give you the Steve Scalise shooter as a one on one for your abortion doc.

        Then again….

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

          And don’t give me this shit they are NOT democrats. Ask them about Ms. Cortez or old Bernie. They represent the NEW democrat party or the old Nazi one. Not sure which.

          • So you’ve decided that the whole of the Democratic party is represented by these people?

            What, then, I wonder, is your take on these people:

            Or is it only violent when you actually pull the trigger, but it’s perfectly ok to stage an armed revolt and threaten to shoot government officials if they don’t cede land to you?

            Or perhaps, per the No True Scotsman, you’ll opt to write them off as not belonging to “your” side?

            • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

              Did they shoot anybody?

              • Got it. Armed insurrection isn’t violent as long as you don’t actually pull the trigger.

                By the way, the fact that no one got shot is a testament to it being well handed by the government, not to any responsibility by the “militia.”

              • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

                Wrong, wrong, wrong it is the “WELL REGULATED MILITIA”.

              • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

                So, they did NOT shoot anybody. hence it was a peaceful protest. Did anybody get hurt, hit with an iron pipe? Have Clorox thrown in their faces? or anything else like that?

            • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

              Goddam right wing Native Americans again…

            • Just A Citizen says:

              I’m sorry but WHERE was this “insurrection” you are talking about??

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        “I think what Gman is trying to say is that “his side” is pure as the driven snow, whereas “my side” is the violent evil one.”

        I do NOT think that is what he is saying, trying to say or has said.

        You really need to do some sole searching my friend. One of my best friends is a Democrat. Even he has noted this move towards more militant language and the increase of party members who call for violence or actual insurrection. Hell, the DNC leader has used this kind of language himself. The sole searching is needed because I know darn well that if this behavior was increasing on the Elephant side you would be pointing it out and criticizing it.

        Since you asked, most Native Americans vote Democratic. It has become one of those “captured” groups because the Dems are always making promises for Federal support while the Reps preach self sufficiency and individual responsibility. Then there is the Democratic alignment with the Environmentalists which most Natives think they are associated with.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        Yes, a killer killed Tiller the Killer but eventually he would have gotten the “Gosnell” treatment had the idiot just let him continue.

  4. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    Finally reading G. Gordon Liddy’s “Will”, for the first time. An interesting, bright guy, who did some incredibly dumb things (did I say dumb?). It gives me an opportunity to revisit the 1960’s and put today in perspective.

    There is a quote in there from Marc Rudd, former member now a respected adult (hah!) and contributor to the NYT (see below) who was a Weatherman and SDS leader and actually led the Columbia U riots in ’68. ( I remember that one well), cop’s still in a wheel chair).

    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/new-york-times-doesnt-disclose-op-ed-contributor-mark-rudds-ties-to-weather-underground

    Anyway, here goes, Mr. Rudd for your pleasure and enjoyment:

    “We have to start tearing down this fucking country. We have to have a revolution in this country that’s going to overthrow—like bombs like guns, like firebombs, by anything and everything…The most important thing that the Weather machine should be right now is to create a consciousness, a political consciousness and the best way to create this is by doing and preforming some exemplary action, like offing some pigs, creating some chaos in the streets, blowing up pig stations, blowing up banks. Once the Weathermachine begins this and starts the ball rolling, then the Weathermachine will not have to be involved as much. Other white revolutionaries are going to get involved and try to destroy the system that we all hate so much”

    Now this was the good old 1960’s among those who NEVER condemned any of this were Hillary, Bill, Bernadette Devlin, Bill Ayres (and still don’t) . The difference between them (including Rudd) and Antifa today? They all got hair cuts, shaved off their beards (and for the ladies) their underarms and started wearing clothes. Do any of them condemn the mob today? I don’t think so.

    You my friend suffer from a real lack of historical reference. Fifty odd years from now the current “leaders” will be writing op-ed pieces for what passes for the NYT , wearing suits and dresses and being very ordinary looking. But….in their hearts…They will still be the same goddam commo-fascist monsters.

  5. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    Some more Rudd stuff:

    The Times refers to Rudd as an “educator and community organizer,” but the late political activist Tom Hayden once used drastically different rhetoric to describe him.

    “This is the same Mark Rudd I met in the heat of the 1968 Columbia University student strike, the Mark Rudd who ended a letter to Grayson Kirk, Columbia’s president, by declaring, ‘Up against the wall, mother—–r!’, the Mark Rudd who proudly led Students for a Democratic Society to close its offices and end its organizing efforts in the midst of the greatest student rebellion of the 20th century, the same Mark Rudd who went underground and supported a plan to bomb Fort Dix, which went awry and killed three of his friends — all by the time he was 22 years old,” Hayden wrote.

    Rudd went into hiding in 1970 when the Weathermen exploded a bomb in the basement of a New York City home, killing three members of the group and destroying a four-story townhouse. Rudd wrote years later that his intention was to detonate the bomb at dance of non-commissioned American officers and their dates to “bring the war home.”

  6. Gman logic:

    Bad apples on my side are just bad apples.

    Bad apples on their side are indicative that the whole side is comprised of bad apples.

  7. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    Nobody is saying that there are NOT crazies on both sides but in the scheme of things 100 does not equal 1. Never has, never will.

    I consider myself to be a pretty astute observer (perhaps my only claim to fame) and I see a whole lot more of bad stuff originating from the modern left than I ever saw from the right. It is so easy these days to say things like the lynch mobs in the Old South were “right wing”. Truth be told they were composed of old style Wilson/Roosevelt democrats who with the exception of equal rights for blacks and Catholics and Jews were completely in the pocket of that party. Don’t see a whole lot of that up in the traditional rock ribbed republican states of the era.

    Now when the democrat party allegedly changed in the late 60’s those folks supposedly came on board in the Republican party. Maybe some did but the bulk never lasted. They wanted socialist policies, they loved government freebies, in everything except race. There was no real home for them over here. Some are still around, I know it but they have zero power to do damage.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      I am afraid that is a great example of the POLITICIAN as a specie.

      The example I think of on the Rep. side is all those R’s who ran on the promise to repeal “Obama Care” if elected. When elected and given the majority we discovered they lied to get our votes.

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    You are trying to apply some theoretical absolute to human interaction or understanding. Ethical, political and legal concepts should be complimentary but they are not identical.

    “PRESUMED innocent” is the standard. No, it actually isn’t the standard when it comes to how people view this ethical principle. It is innocent until proven otherwise. You are playing games with the word presumed because it suits you and you need it to throw your shade at Trump or anyone else claiming X innocent. The “presumed” standard is something I think you will find in legal language, but not often used in human language. Yes, I am saying lawyers may not be human. 🙂

    But let us look at “presume” in this context. Presume = assume. The presumption or assuming of innocence is the STANDARD. Ergo, in our minds, in our culture they are innocent until proven otherwise. In the legal sense we use assume or presume because there is a trial ongoing. An attempt to provide evidence and sway a jury to convict. Thus the instruction to the jury is to “presume” innocence.

    This is a moral/ethical and thus political and legal standard in our culture. As such it is not comparable to a scientific construct of absolutes, which is what you are trying to argue.

    Do we know for sure someone is innocent from a hard science perspective? No, unless it is us who is accused and we are mentally healthy enough to know we are in fact innocent. But that is not how we humans think or apply the concept.

    PROVEN innocent is a different concept entirely. Yes, technically or scientifically that is correct. And it would apply to the separate standard of “Guilty until proven innocent”. But again, you are nit picking the use of the word “proven”. I am beginning to think this is just so you can call Trump a liar and argue against those who think Kavanaugh innocent.

    At this point let me remind you of a time when I played this nitpicking card on you and you reacted in a most offended manner. Eventually accusing me of being insane because I would not accept your more general, that is popularly, accepted statement as an absolute.

    A lack of proven guilt does not mean you’re innocent. It means you’re not proven guilty. This is true only, again, in an absolute sense. As in “only God knows for sure” sense. But only a robot or Spock would demand an absolute be applied to human language use.

    Look Mathius, I understand your argument. In the absolute you are correct in that we have not “proven” innocence. We, as humans, have found this to be nearly if not completely impossible. That old issue of disproving a negative. So we developed the standard of innocence first. Thus, for the majority of humans, when we see inadequate evidence for guilt we often call this proof of innocence. Frankly, I think you calling Trump a liar over use of the word “proven” is petty.

    There are certainly enough other more concrete examples of him lying or distorting the language for his own benefit. I just disagree with you that this is one of those examples. I think his use of the term is completely consistent with how most people view the issue. That is who he is communicating with, not the Ivy League elite and certainly not the philosophers among us who can dissect things down to the atomic level.

    • Unfortunately, I have spent far too much time over last two-three days playing with you, and I must return to doing actual work.

      But I do want to leave a question with you: If I claim that Hillary Clinton has been proven innocent, what would you think?

      Would you call that a lie?

      You would parse the meaning of “proven” and “innocent”?

      Would you insist on giving me the benefit of some awkward skewing of the meaning of what I said because that’s how “most people think” of such things?

      Or would you just call BS?

      Bear in mind, again, there’s a mile-wide gap between: “proven guilty” and “proven innocent” which encompasses the entirety of “doubt.”

      One more question: given that Trump has repeatedly personally led chants of “lock her up” and called Clinton a criminal, etc, what does this say in your opinion about how he thinks about guilt and innocence and the presumptions thereof? Is it hypocritical for him to act as though Clinton had been proven guilty though she has never been charged, but Kanavaugh has been proven innocent though he has never been charged?

  9. Just A Citizen says:

    It seems that our political divide has reached a point where we cannot even agree on what we see as a trend in society. Following is an example of how the “left” or a “Democrat” views the violence issue. I expect this is a reflection of why Mathius reacts to our observations with “Bull Shit” most of the time.

    The irony of this editorial is that it is itself filled with hyperbole which contributes to misconceptions about what has or is actually happening.

    https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/305749-republicans-employ-double-standard-to-discredit

  10. Canine Weapon says:

  11. Canine Weapon says:

  12. Just A Citizen says:

    A little more recent history. It is interesting to review these comments when we can see how things actually unfold.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/barack-obama-legacy-presidency

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    Kudos to Mrs. Obama. While her broader motivations are abjectly wrong, in my view, at least she is willing to stand on the rightness of this core value.

    https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2018/10/11/michelle-obama-rips-eric-holder-bastardizing-go-high-line-violent-rhetoric/

    • This elicits a giant yawn from me.

      Yes, she’s right.

      But I reaaaalllllyyy don’t care.

      Holder was advocating for an aggressive “politics as usual” tact, whereas she was advocating for a… errr.. .”take the high road” approach.

      Obviously, I agree with her, but I don’t think anything Holder said is nearly so outrageous as you seem to be making it out to be.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        Well, I for one believe he knew what his audience would think then made a comment that of course, on the surface seems harmless. I believe that his former boss did the, ” If They bring a knife, we bring a gun” type comment.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        It might not have been if it were isolated. That and it hadn’t come from the prior AG of the United States.

        But his comment was not in isolation. And his intent was consistent with the increased angry and militant rhetoric from Democratic Party leaders and hard core leftists. Some of whom do vote Democratic.

        I never said his comment was outrageous. But I do find it obnoxious and deliberately used to inflame his “side”. He wanted to jump on the “fight dirty” bandwagon. I also think he realized what he had said and then tried the old CYA with his caveat. That way he could not be called out for any actual “kicking” that might happen.

        • But I do find it obnoxious and deliberately used to inflame his “side”.

          Well, there we agree.

          He wanted to jump on the “fight dirty” bandwagon.

          Yup.

          Which is why I agree with Michelle

          I also think he realized what he had said and then tried the old CYA with his caveat.

          This is interesting.

          I read that and interpretted it as a “clarification,” to ensure he wasn’t misunderstood as endorsing literally kicking people.

          You, if I’m understanding it right, seem to be saying that he wanted people to hear the more militant message, but also wanted to leave himself an out to say “no, no, see? That’s not what I meant. Wink wink.”

          Might this point to BOTH of our intrinsic biases?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            “I read that and interpretted it as a “clarification,” to ensure he wasn’t misunderstood as endorsing literally kicking people.”

            You make me laugh. I don’t think anyone though he meant actually kicking. Not even those who are chastising him for the comment. Although I think he caught himself and stopped short of including “in the balls”. Which is probably what he was thinking. Note his caveat was for “actual kicking”. It was not “I don’t want people to think I am calling for any kind of violence. Because that is not appropriate if we want to maintain the Democracy we so desperately claim to want.” You know, something like that?

            Biases?? I don’t think so but it is possible. Like I said, I wouldn’t have given much stock to Holder’s comment if not for the TREND. My belief in him trying to CYA is also informed by many of his prior comments on other issues. He is a POLITICIAN first and lawyer/AG second. So either way CYA is second nature to that specie.

            • You make me laugh.

              I try.

              I don’t think anyone though he meant actually kicking. Not even those who are chastising him for the comment.

              What’s interesting is that “those who are chastising him” are taking what he said to be a metaphor.. and interpreting it in the worst possible light. Whereas I am interpreting it in a more benign light. This makes me wonder what those on the fringes of the left might have heard…

              This leads me to thoughts on dog whistles….

              I have often spoken here about conservative dog whistles. Whistles that many here are obstinately deaf to. But might this be a counter example on the left… one wonders.. I’ll have to mull that…

              I don’t think anyone though he meant actually kicking. Not even those who are chastising him for the comment.

              But if he wasn’t actually, literally, calling to kick anyone, then what do you infer was meant? Was he saying to attack the conservatives with pipe wrenches?

              Note his caveat was for “actual kicking”. It was not “I don’t want people to think I am calling for any kind of violence.

              It most certainly was for any kind of violence.

              “When I say we, you know, ‘We kick ‘em,’ I don’t mean we do anything inappropriate. We don’t do anything illegal. But we got to be tough, and we have to fight for the very things that [civil rights leaders] John Lewis, Martin Luther King, Whitney Young – you know, all those folks gave to us.”

              “we don’t do anything illegal.” That would certainly include all kinds of violence to which you might have been referring.

              I eagerly await that rarest and most glorious of things: An admission of error by Just A Citizen.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                OK, he used the words. But sorry, It is still my opinion he was CYA………big time. His long caveat does not change my opinion of the man. Not based on his history.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                I am not one that subscribes to the Dog Whistle theory. There may have been a day but that has long passed as a mainstay in politics. I do not think Trump was using the Dog Whistle.

                However, if one does believe the Republicans or “Right” use the whistle, then the Democrats or “Left” have to be considered on equal footing. In which case the whistle sound become deafening.

                With respect to most of the major issues, the Dems don’t use “whistles”, they simply lie and create paranoia and fear among their followers. Push granny off the cliff, they will kill women, they will kill the children, they want everyone to get sick and die, etc. etc.. All of which is pure Bulldookey.

                The left/D’s then cry fowl when the right/R’s say they want to take guns away or undermine the 2nd Amendment. Despite the D’s consistently proposing regulations or laws that do exactly those things.

                Both sides do use “code” to communicate fears. While “Second Amendment” is the R code, “Gun safety” is the D code. The first means, “they are after your guns”, the second means “we are after the guns but will not admit it.”

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                Dog whistles. Thought of a possible one from the D side. Maria Cantwell last weekend.

                “The republicans want to take away women’s birth control.” Now I put this in the gross lie category. But if you apply whistle theory, is it not really a disguised cry that “The R’s want to abolish abortion”??

                Would that be a whistle in your view?

  14. As JAC said, I do not think all Democrats or those on the Left are obnoxious violent lunatics. Most that I know reject the kind of stuff we have seen and heard. Many are becoming Independents because the Crats have begun to take a hard turn Left and they reject that as well.

    Reading the written words and watching how they are presented is important. One can tell if it is said seriously or not. It has been done here with video of what is said, when the claims are off the mark. That’s a good way to deal with these remarks.

    I do believe that the radical Left has mental issues, which shows up on videos and Tweets all the time. Antifa is even farther Left, but they are not what the majority of Liberals are.

    All political sides have lunatics. But lately it’s those on the Left who are making the news.

    The Liberal media are leading the way for the Radicals. Some of the stuff these idiots say
    should make any intelligent person cringe. They also fail to report things that do not fit their Leftist narrative. This is all easily proven. It is also, along with our failing education system, part of the problem that is causing so much division.

    Florida got hammered.

    Here is a sad example of Left Wing lunacy: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/report-principal-boots-student-wearing-trump-jersey-america-night-football-game/

    I would demand that this Principal be removed from her position. It is ALSO an example of our failing education system.

  15. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    So, one charge against Harvey Weinstein has been dropped since the lady in question “May” have consented. Why should her version not be believed. After all, I just got back from DC where the average young woman in the NW section was wearing a “believe Women” T-shirt.

  16. Mathius,

    This whole thread is absurd.

    The reality (and not some pirate perspective opinion nonsense) is that both Dummycrats and Stupidpublicans are integral pieces of systematic violence. Their whole idealism, everything they do, and every position they may take is all based on violence. They are both violent organizations.

    But lets all ‘stand up’ in denial of this very obvious fact and make it about rhetorical bullshit.

    Oh, so the Dummycrats are being redundant? So what?

    We don’t want anyone to get the wrong idea and be independently violent, but rather only engage in collective violence, bonafide violence that can only be legitimate through ceremonies and BS on paper?

    It’s like we really do live in bizarro world.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      POS

      “Their whole idealism, everything they do, and every position they may take is all based on violence. ”

      So the Democratic Party position that all people should have equal rights, that homosexuals should be able to marry is “based on violence”????

      So the Republican Party position that we have a basic right to self-defense is “based on violence”????

      Generalizing and stereotyping doesn’t work well when trying to make reasoned arguments.

      • “Their whole idealism, everything they do, and every position they may take is all based on violence. ” – “So the Democratic Party position that all people should have equal rights, that homosexuals should be able to marry is “based on violence”????”

        False premise. That is not their true position. There position is ‘our way or else …up to and including murder/destruction’.

        So the Republican Party position that we have a basic right to self-defense is based on violence”????

        False premise. They are also ‘our way or else …up to and including murder/destruction’.

        Both parties compete over their chance at positions enabling them to force everyone to do what they want them to do. It’s not about gay cakes or guns. It’s about power to force people.

        “Generalizing and stereotyping doesn’t work well when trying to make reasoned arguments.”

        Neither does a complete denial of an obvious reality that’s right in your face.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          POS

          So you not only try to use definitions to limit debate you now claim to know what other’s true desires are despite their stated desires.

          Your reality is not obvious nor is it universal. So yes, your stereotyping is not helping you.

          • “So you not only try to use definitions to limit debate you now claim to know what other’s true desires are despite their stated desires.”

            It’s obvious. They say all kinds of different things. But whatever popular ideas they may sell, what they consistently do is work to compete for political power, which ultimately means coercing/punishing/murdering people for disobedience.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              POS

              You realize humans have done those things to other humans for thousands upon thousands of year. Many of which were during times where your despised version of Govt. did not exist.

              Now tell me, is striving for freedom or say increasing the freedom of others by political means an act of violence?

              • “You realize humans have done those things to other humans for thousands upon thousands of year. Many of which were during times where your despised version of Govt. did not exist.”

                And…?

                “Now tell me, is striving for freedom or say increasing the freedom of others by political means an act of violence?”

                That’s not what it’s about. Let me rephrase that for you:

                “Now tell me, is striving for power by violating the rights of others by political/coercive means an act of violence?”

                Yes. Exactly, JAC. I think you’re actually starting to see the light.

    • It’s not rape if he first dresses up in funny clothes, has a ceremony with magic special words, then describes it on paper. Then it’s whatever he wants it to be. He could call it waving at her, silverware, doughnuts or skydiving or something.

      Violence isn’t violence when you cast a magic spell.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Violence is always violence. What you are missing is the key adjective, or is that verb. I don’t know and I don’t care.

        That word is JUSTIFIED. Another similar but not precisely the same is LEGAL.

        • “Violence is always violence.”

          Of course it is. That’s the point. (I’m being a smart ass.)

          Billions of people actually believe that garbage, think magic spells make violence a good thing or acceptable or something else or whatever. If that is the popularly accepted standard, then he has a ‘right’ to turn raping her into skydiving or silverware or doughnuts or something. It’s not a crime to give someone silverware or or doughnuts or take them skydiving.

          A good example would be theft/extortion being magically transformed into taxes, which is something you owe in exchange for what they choose for you because they say so because they’re super humans with extra rights, super hero costumes and weapons.

          Another one would be armed aggravated roadside public sexual assault being magically transformed into “protecting the public”, but only within the imaginary lines defining Texas where marijuana is dangerous. (If you transport it to Colorado from Texas, it disappears through New Mexico and Arizona where it is prohibited, then transforms into cultural benefit when it crosses the imaginary line into Colorado. But it is somehow very very dangerous in Texas)

          “What you are missing is the key adjective, or is that verb. I don’t know and I don’t care.That word is JUSTIFIED. Another similar but not precisely the same is LEGAL.”

          Yep, you live in bizarro world alright. “Want to” in combination with magic spells does not automatically make something justified or anything other than what it is. And even if justifiable, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is the right answer.

          • Correction;

            (If you transport it to Colorado from Texas, it disappears through New Mexico where it is prohibited, then transforms into cultural benefit when it crosses the imaginary line into Colorado. But it is somehow very very dangerous in Texas)

            I started to use California, but changed it to colorado without deleting arizona.

            I suppose you can go through Oklahoma from Texas, but is probably easier taking the interstate through the center of NM and CO. Back roads through mountains suck.

            I digress.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            POS

            It has nothing to do with magic spells. The concepts of JUSTIFIED and LEGAL are HUMAN concepts. Devised, invented if it were, by HUMANS.

            Just as the concept of RIGHTS was developed by humans. Some like to say discovered, but then concepts aren’t really discovered in the same sense as things like gravity or rocks or how many atoms of Oxygen and Hydrogen comprise a molecule of water.

            As for Govt., you do realize don’t you that Govt. is not a real identity. It does not exist without HUMANS. Both to conceive of it and to run it.

  17. MSNBC pundit on Kanye West- This is what happens when a negro don’t read.

    I’m not a West fan at all, but I can see the need for prison reform….and I like his hat 🙂

    • Sean Diddy Combs: Someone tell that NEGRO to give me a call.

      Boy, oh boy! If a white person made either of these two comments…..

    • MSNBC pundit on Kanye West- This is what happens when a negro don’t read.

      I’m just going to go ahead and assume this is referring to the fact that he was caught on film unlocking his phone in the Oval Office with the passcode 0-0-0-0.

      I’m not a West fan at all,

      I’m not really either, but I have to admit he has some musical talent.. and quite a remarkable talent for self promotion..

      but I can see the need for prison reform

      The only people who cannot see the need for prison reform are (A) total blathering complete idiots and (B) the people who are profiting from the current system.

  18. JAC,

    Government does everything by force, it’s entire claim of legitimacy resting on popular opinion and magic tricks. That is the core of government; opinions, magic and force.

    Every argument you make in favor of government ultimately rests on that. It will always boil down to that. You will always try to justify a violent religious cult.

    It is not only false magic nonsense, but a violation of everything that defines humans. For starters, everything we do is based in choice, free will self determination, because that’s what we are, because that’s what nature/god made us. We have a right to think independently and determine what’s best for ourselves simply because that’s what we do and are.

    You cannot get around that. It’s reality. We are what we are. Government denies and rejects this basic reality and criminalizes being human as a core function, as it does not allow for self determination or anything but obeying it’s edicts.

    There is nothing that makes government legitimate. It simply isn’t. It’s just violence.

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    So…………what is a Right? Why is it an important concept? What does it mean in the context of human action and interaction? Lets start with this:

    Noun:
    a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.
    “she had every right to be angry”
    synonyms: entitlement, prerogative, privilege, advantage, due, birthright, liberty, authority, power, license, permission, dispensation, leave, sanction, freedom; historical adroit
    “you have the right to say no”

    • A right is inalienable, a condition of your existence. Inalienable means that you cannot be separate from. Inalienable rights are based on what defines us as human. It is to say that you have a right to be a human and do as humans do because you ARE a human. You exercise rightful existence as a human up to whatever point it encroaches on another human’s right to be a human.

      Breathing is a good example of an inalienable right. You are a product of the natural universe, a real creature that needs air to survive. Your DNA dictates that you have to continuously cycle a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen called air through an organ called lungs or you will die. You, as a human, need air. It is an inalienable condition of your existence in your natural habitat called Earth. You have a right to do whatever you have to in order to breathe.

      Blinking is another one. You can’t help but to blink. You simply do. It is an inalienable condition of your existence.

      Eating food and water is another one. You have to eat/hydrate or you will die. You have a right to do whatever you have to do to eat.

      Those are simple ones though. A more complicated one is individual free will and self determination. We think for ourselves. We are not the borg or a hive species, but individuals with independent thoughts, wants, needs, ideas, etc. Mathius doesn’t tell me what I want you to crave for dinner. We simply do not function as such. We cannot not think for ourselves. Individuality and self determination are an inalienable condition of our existence.

      Rights cannot be granted or taken or customized. They are not reliant on governments. They simply are.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        POS

        Actually, we humans are a group animal. Not herd but group. Just as the Chimpanzees and greater Apes.

        “You have a right to do whatever you have to do to eat.” Do I have the “right” to kill your or steal from you to get the food I need to eat?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        What is the NATURE of these Rights you claim exist because we exist?

        How do they function? How do you know what is a Right and what is not?

        • “Actually, we humans are a group animal. Not herd but group. Just as the Chimpanzees and greater Apes.”

          Yes, we are indeed social animals. But we are individuals, not like a hive where we have a genetic hierarchy and collective purpose or condition of dependency. We are of equal status with free will and independent thought, wants, needs, values, etc.

          “You have a right to do whatever you have to do to eat.” Do I have the “right” to kill your or steal from you to get the food I need to eat?

          No, that’s violence. You have a right to do things like hunt/fish, dumpster dive, work, panhandle, prostitution, etc, …whatever nonviolent means gets you fed.

          “What is the NATURE of these Rights you claim exist because we exist?”

          What is that supposed to mean? Nature of them? – Reality, that’s what. They just are, JAC. Think of it as more of an observation rather than a claim, ..ya know; ‘Self evident truth’. You are a human and therefore have a right to be human. How much simpler can it be?

          “How do they function? How do you know what is a Right and what is not?”

          Is it a condition of you being human? If yes, it is a right. Does it violate anyone? If yes, then it isn’t rightful. If no, then it is rightful.

  20. “Dershowitz added another caveat, saying that the presumption of innocence outweighs the presumption that the witness or victim is telling the truth. “First of all, not only are you allowed, but if you’re on a jury you are obliged to presume the innocence of the defendant which means you cannot presume that the witness is telling the truth. You have to look at the totality of the circumstances,” Dershowitz stated”

    Never thought of it quite like that- “obliged to presume the innocence of the defendent”.

    https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/11/dershowitz-tucker-accusers-view/

  21. I am pleased to announce that Hillary Rodham Clinton has been proven innocent!

    • What is she innocent of?

      • I don’t know? Apparently everything.

        She is 100% completely proven innocent of having ever done anything wrong in her entire life.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      proven as opposed to declared?

      • Yup.

        I mean, if Kavanaugh was “proven innocent” without a trial, without a jury, without presenting all the evidence, etc, then surely Clinton who didn’t have a trial, jury, without all the evidence, and who wasn’t charged by the FBI must have been likewise “proven innocent.”

        What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    • In the email thing, there was plenty of corroborating evidence that she was/is guilty.

      • Nope.

        In following Gman / Trumpian logic, I have declared that she has been proven innocent, regardless based, apparently, on the fact that she has not been charged with anything. Or something. I don’t really understand it and no one has satisfactorilly explained the reasoning to me. All I know is that if Kavanaugh has been “proven innocent,” then so has Clinton.

        Neither had a trial.

        Neither had a jury.

        Both were investigated by the FBI.

        Neither were charged with anything.

        There’s public evidence against both.

        There’s non-public evidence related to both.

        So, as they say, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander:

        Hillary Rodham Clinton has been proven innocent!

        • test

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          The “evidence” against Clinton was corroberated. Hell, it was factual evidence. Not just an accusation.

          Ford and others made accusations. None of which were corroberated.

          You can claim what you want but it doesn’t make these the same nor true.

          What is true, is that those like you who think Clinton innocent have used the same phrase. She was proven innocent. Despite hard evidence to the contrary.

          So are all these Democrats who say she was proven innocent lying?

  22. I couldn’t help but to think of Mathius while I read this article. 🙂

    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/marc-thiessen-trump-could-be-the-most-honest-president-in-modern-history

    • I want to say give Matt a break since he’s busy tackling ‘proven innocent’ at the moment, but he probably considers that a lie anyway. He’s gonna have to spike his Red Bull after reading the article, which he probably won’t after reading the link headline. 🙂

  23. When did we start giving cell numbers to special interest groups? Just got a random text from Kelly @ The Voting Project… Hey Katrice! (fail), The upcoming elections are very important, so consider skipping the lines and voting absentee, which is a convenient way to vote on your schedule. Its as easy as 1, 2, 3. Just fill out this form (link to absentee ballot application), check the appropriate box and send.

    So the application is very specific as to who can vote absentee. I replied back to Kelly wondering why the push for absentee voting? Do you check the validity of the applications? Told her no thanks, I’d be there Nov 6 to KAG!. No reply back. Winning!
    http://www.michigan.gov/documents/AbsentVoterBallot_105377_7.pdf

    • I received the same text yesterday. Well, not from Kelly, mine was from Ann. And it wasn’t from The Voting Project, it was from the Indiana GOP. (But you get my point) She wanted to know if I would be sending in my absentee ballot today and if I would be voting for Mike Braun, Connie Lawson, Kelly Mitchell & Tera Klutz.

      I replied with “I will be voting. MAGA!” She actually texted back with “Awesome! Thanks for being a voter.”

      I’m sorry (not really) but I’m not going to tell a total stranger, via text message, who I am voting for, although the MAGA is probably a give-away. But it is very unnerving the amount of information that is given out to anyone and everyone.

      • But it is very unnerving the amount of information that is given out to anyone and everyone.

        If you think that’s bad, go to google images and search “moron.”

        If I do this, pictures of Trump come up (along with Homer Simpson, etc).

        I’ll bet that if you do it, you’ll a different result.

        • Interesting. I searched “moron” on google images.

          I did get a lot of pictures of President Trump along with Homer Simpson.

          However, the first image was that of Elizabeth Warren. Hahahaha 🙂

  24. Just A Citizen says:

    Something to consider on the topic of violence in politics.

    It is a very American trait. As American as baseball, apple pie and Chevrolet.

    If you look at actual American history it is filled with militant and violent rhetoric, slandering, inciting, etc. etc.. As well as actual violent actions in support of particular candidates.

    Like the myth of an “objective Press” or “Fourth Estate”, the idea that politics is above this sort of thing is a recent occurrence in US history.

    • Nodding along… nodding along..

      this sort of thing is a recent occurrence in US history.

      No…..

      It would be a recent occurrence, but in truth, it never actually occurred.

      Show me ANY period of more than a few months without some of what you describe.

      It may have been better recently, but politics has never ever ever been “above this sort of thing.”

      That said, my major complaint here is Gman’s persistence in acting like it’s only “my side” which engages in this and that, when his “side does” do anything wrong, it’s only ever as a reaction because “my side” is so terrible and forced them to respond.

      Mathius: Both sides are shit heads.
      Gman: Nu uh! Just yours!

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        The period of 1939 to about 1960 was relatively calm, relative to pre 1860 and the period since 1960.

        While shorter, 1983 to 1999 was pretty calms as well. Once the left got over Reagan winning in 1980 and the hyperinflation subsided folks got pretty mellow….until Bush II’s election.

        So I do think more recent history was mellower, not completely absent. On that we agree.

    • It is a very American trait. As American as baseball, apple pie

      Apple pie is dutch…..

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Sorry Sir but there is Dutch Apple Pie and there is American Apple Pie. Not surprised you don’t know that………. 🙂

        • Dutch apple pie is sooooooooooooooooooo much better, and I will fight to the death any man who says otherwise.

          Really, the most “American” food there is is probably French Fries and, maybe, “Chinese” food.

          I remember seeing a hilarious video of Chinese people trying American “Chinese” food and reacting to how it wasn’t anything like actual Chinese food. I also remember a business article about how Panda Express was having trouble in China because of this same issue.

          • Using my best Wizard of Oz Lion voice…….” Put ’em up….PUT ’em up…..”

            Dutch Apple Pie….American Apple pie…..should go the way of the Dodo Bird. Yeeeech!!! It is very hard to believe that someone who eats Churros would eat Apple Pie…..of any kind. I really thought that was a sliver if hope for you.

            Now….the correct pie to eat would be Cherry Pie. No a la mode….a la mode on pie is like putting beans in chili….as worthless as an elevator in an outhouse..

            Lemon Merengue,,,,,,is next…..great pie.

            But nothing……….NOTHING……beats a heaping bowl of “nanner puddin’…….

            And since I have been to and eaten several things in the Asian countries……Panda Express is NOT Chinese……like IN and Out is NOT a hamburger…..Sigh…………………..I have to teach you ‘younguns’ everything?

            Don’t know how to eat a proper steak….and you probably even eat fries with a fork and ketchup.

            AND…none of you, with a couple of exceptions, have had a proper meal as chicken and dumplin C rations (out of a can) heated with sterno tablets……tomato’s and rice cooked in a steel pot…..or the beef stew MRE heated on the engine of a M1 Abrams Tank, reconstituted fruit, and a freeze dried chocolate bar. WOOOOEEEEE…..good eatin’. Followed by a healthy swig of boiled water laced with Malaria tablets and iodine.

            I now return you to your regularly schedule arguments.

  25. Just A Citizen says:

    What irritates me most about Fienstein’s and Harris’ whining is that they should not have the “blue line” power for that Appeals Court. Because the court covers far more states than California. The idea of blue lining is also counter to the actual powers vested by the Constitution but was a legacy of those days when comity was part of the Senate decorum.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/10/trump_defies_difi_and_kamala_nominating_3_federalist_society_members_for_ninth_circuit.html

    • “Blue slips” sounds ridiculous to me. As you say, a district covers more than just the one state and also builds precedent which covers the whole country.

      While I’m sure I won’t be happy with his nominees for political reasons (even if they haven’t sexually assaulted anyone), I am completely ok with him ditching the practice.

      But I better not hear any whining when President Warren starts putting up liberals in the 5th Circuit.

  26. Just A Citizen says:

    An excerpt from an American Thinker article.

    “Unlike Democrats then, Democrats today approve of, and now celebrate, FDR’s threat to pack the Court for political gain. Scott Lemieux of New Republic says:

    [W]hile FDR’s initial Court-packing proposal – which was presented in an uncharacteristically ham-handed manner – failed, the constitutional crisis that compelled it quickly faded as Justice Owen Roberts started voting with the Court’s liberals to uphold New Deal programs. Soon after, retirements allowed FDR to make enough nominees to ensure a Court that would not interfere with the core New Deal agenda.

    Did you catch that? According to the left, Supreme Court rulings that “interfere” with an elected federal government’s desire to exceed its constitutional boundaries represent a “constitutional crisis.” It’s difficult to imagine anything more opposite a “constitutional crisis,” or more ignorant to the purpose of the Supreme Court, or more dangerous for the future of the republic.”

    Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/if_leftists_pack_the_court_they_destroy_the_republic.html#ixzz5TjPuGiHd

  27. Gman,

    Am I lying if I say Mrs. Clinton been proven innocent?

    • If you believe in your heart and mind that HRC has been proven innocent, then you are not lying. However, I don’t believe innocence can be proven, only guilt can be proven.

      • If you believe in your heart and mind that HRC has been proven innocent, then you are not lying.

        However, I don’t believe innocence can be proven, only guilt can be proven.

        It depends on how you want to set your burdens of proof. I could argue via Plato’s Cave or Brain-in-a-vat theories that we can’t “prove” anything, whether that be guilt, innocence, or our own existence.

        That said, proving the negative to a standard which a reasonable person might call “proof” is very difficult. But if a video turns up of Kavanaugh in Australia on the day in question – and experts verify its authenticity to the best of their ability and Muller admits to staging the whole accusation and Ford recants. Well.. I think we can all agree that, to any reasonable definition, he has “proven” his innocence.

        But, by the inverse, proving guild can be similarly nearly impossible. Baring unasailable videographic evidence, DNA, twelve eye-witnesses, etc, you can always harbor some doubt. This is why juries are instructed to find guilt by the absence of a “reasonable doubt.” In law school this is often taught as 99% confidence.

        However, I don’t believe innocence can be proven, only guilt can be proven.

        However, let’s play this out, shall we.

        Was Trump lying?

        Was he unaware of what his words meant?

        Was he just plain wrong?

        Or do you hold that, somehow, he was correct?

        • What comment by Trump are you speaking of?

          Did he say it in jest? Did he say it metaphorically? One thing about what people say, is that one should see how it is presented. Written words can be easily misconstrued. Holder’s comments, for example, when one watches it he seems quite serious, because he followed up with an explanation that it is what the new Democratic party is. I don’t think he was lying either and totally believe him.

          • What comment by Trump are you speaking of?

            Did he say it in jest? Did he say it metaphorically? One thing about what people say, is that one should see how it is presented. Written words can be easily misconstrued.

            Let me know if you think this was a joke.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/09/trump-said-kavanaugh-was-proven-innocent-he-wasnt/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0a09f044c83e

            Quote is around 1:10, but it’s not very long if you want to watch all the context.

            Something I (just not) thought was interesting was that it looked, to me, like he might have been reading a prepared script off a teleprompter. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t. That’s how it looked to me. It certainly didn’t sound like his usual off-the-cuff way of speaking.

            If that is so, then someone prepared that remark. And I might still call it a lie (or stupidity) for him to have said that Kavanaugh was proven innocent, but if it was written down and vetted by actual intelligent human staffers in advance, that would be very interesting… there is no way that any significant look at those prepared remarks would have noticed that this is just factually false. And that means that someone would have had to make the command decision to say it anyway. Well, that’s all supposition.. but isn’t it very interesting….

    • No, Mathius, you would not be lying. She has been investigated but never charged. So as far as the state or the courts are concerned, she is as innocent as it is possible to prove. Now in the court of public opinion and political debate, not so much. On that basis people will argue about Clinton and Kavanaughs guilt or innocence forever. And when they say she or he was proven innocent it isn’t a lie- it’s their opinion.

      • So as far as the state or the courts are concerned, she is as innocent as it is possible to prove.

        No, so far as the state is concerned, she is presumed innocent.

        “Proven innocent,” however, has a meaning. To “prove” means to present a logical case for something with supporting evidence or logic such that no reasonable doubt remains of the truth of the assertion.

        Not being proven guilty (which is the case for both) is not the same as being proven innocent.

        As I’ve said repeatedly, if a lack of proof of something means the inverse is true, then your inability to prove that the Earth does not rest atop a giant turtle named Bob means that I have proven that it does, in fact, rest atop a giant turtle named Bob.

        And when they say she or he was proven innocent it isn’t a lie- it’s their opinion.

        That may be, but their opinions will be WRONG.

        Nothing has been proven either way for either individuals.

        They can debate until the cows come home whether it’s true or not, but nothing has been “proven.” That’s just objective empirical reality and I’m not willing to abandon the idea of objective reality just yet.

        “Prove” DID. NOT. HAPPEN.

        And no amount of “belief” that it did will change that fact.

        So, I agree, it won’t be a lie because, via Costanza logic, it’s not a lie if you believe it. But it sure are shootin’ is wrong.

        ————-

        Which takes me full circle to Trump:

        A) Was he lying or just wrong when he said Kavanaugh was proven guilty?

        B) What do you make of his willingness to proclaim Clinton’s guilt in light this?

        • A) Was he lying or just wrong when he said Kavanaugh was proven guilty?

          LOL, Kavanaugh was proven innocent, according to Trump, and Trump may believe it to be true, therefore, he is speaking honestly.

          • So can I quote you as saying that he’s a moron who doesn’t understand the meaning of words or what happened in the confirmation hearing?

            • No, he simply stated what he believed in all likelihood. That doesn’t make him a liar or a moron. Maybe those are terms for those who spout off allegations that can’t be proven or are based on biased opinions 🙂

              • If he believes it, then he’s wrong.

                And, in his position, to be so obviously, factually wrong makes him a moron. QED

              • Opinions vary. Many, many people agree with him.

              • Opinions vary. Many, many people agree with him.

                Facts do not care about your opinions.

                Facts do not care how many people agree or disagree.

                I don’t care 7.5 billion people on the planet say that the Earth is flat. The Earth will remain an oblate spheroid. Empirical facts of reality are immune to “opinion.”

                And the empirical FACT of this topic is that, at no point, in no way, was Kavanaugh “proven innocent.”

                It.

                Did.

                Not.

                Happen.

                I will not kneel before your baffling level of obstinacy while you proclaim night to be day. I will not. I do not care how many times you present a question of factual reality as though were were subject to the whims of something so fickle and meaningless as opinion.

                It.

                Did.

                Not.

                Happen.

              • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

                OJ!

                Everybody forgets OJ.

                He was proven innocent.

              • He was proven innocent.

                He most certainly was not.

                He was found not guilty.

                I posted the relevant line yesterday: We the jury in the above entitled action find Orenthal James Simpson not guilty of the crime of murder. A felony upon Nicole Brown Simpson.

                Not guilty does not equal “proven innocent.”

                And, even it if did, which, again, it absolutely does not, at no point was Kavenaugh found “not guilty.”

              • Mathius,

                They’re thinking in terms of legality while you’re thinking in terms of logic.

                They’re fantasizing principles in government’s forced false reality where proof is the same as a presumption. It’s not, of course. The presumption of innocence is a legal answer or safe guard against false convictions, relevant only by compensating for investigative or judicial failures. …and not necessarily about what is logical.

                In government world, it didn’t happen unless you can prove it did. In the real world it either did or didn’t happen, and whether you can prove anything doesn’t change whatever actually happened. In the real world proof only changes your level of understanding.

              • Mathius, the beginning is always innocent. The accuser MUST prove guilt and when it can’t be done then it’s innocent, period. Semantics don’t change this, liberal group think don’t change this etc. You are INNOCENT until proven guilty. If you are not proven guilty, then you are innocent. It’s beginning to look like your just whining because Trump is very successful and keeping his campaign promises (something few politicians ever do). MAGA buddy!!!!!!

    • However, she won’t go away quietly and is guilty of being an annoying old hag 🙂

  28. https://www.infowars.com/facebook-and-twitter-ban-popular-independent-media-sites-in-coordinated-purge/

    Social media is seemingly very interested in being regulated. I don’t Tweet and only use Fakebook for birthdays, but I don’t see how this can help their respective business’s.

    • Social media is seemingly very interested in being regulated.

      Why should they be regulated?

      And, by what Enumerated Power would you suggest the government has the right to do so.

      • I didn’t say they should, you should read alittle closer 😉

        • I didn’t say you said they should. You should read a little closer. 😉

          • Social media is seemingly very interested in being regulated.
            Why should they be regulated?

            My quote, your question.

            Regardless, I don’t want them regulated. I want them to continue to censor conservatives like they have been. Next up, book burnings. Can’t get more Nazi than that. But that’s what Socialist’s must do to get power for their pathetic ideology. All it’s really doing is pissing off conservatives who will take out their anger on election day. I think it’s great!!!!!

  29. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/trumps-list-289-accomplishments-in-just-20-months-relentless-promise-keeping

    Mathius, don’t bother reading this. But if you do, answer a question, what do the Crats have to offer?

  30. Dale A Albrecht says:

    I’m surprised that our resident historians have not brought up how some political disputes were resolved, or insults. DC banned dueling, so combatants just went to the Bladensburg dueling grounds in Maryland.

    Example VP Aaron Burr vs Alexander Hamilton.

    Or Decatur vs Barron. Dueling was so prevalent there actually was a shortage of naval officers.

    Jackson fought duels

    • The Burr-Hamilton duel was in NJ. It was outlawed in NY.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        Weehawken.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        I only detailed where the Decatur Barron duel took place in Maryland. It was common practice to just leave the district and settle political or personal disputes with extreme prejudice. If dueling was practiced today, there’d be a lot of vacancies in government. Actually making it legal, but with non-lethal weapons, like spitwads or paintballs, the seconds make the rules of what satisfies the grievance. The loser shuts up or instead if dying leaves the political field. Would be interesting.

        Both Burr and Hamilton were running in the N.Y. governor’s race.

        I’m reminded how absolutely hacked off Hamilton was with Adams for resolving diplomatically a potential war with France. Sounds like the folks who are blasting Trump for making a darn good effort “diplomatically” an unresolved conflict of 65 years. Hawks do not want it resolved

        • The Texas way is better……just walk out in the street, face each other and draw. Simple, quick, no judge, no jury…..just the most accurate draw……fast is a myth…accurate gets results.

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    The anger and desire to strike back is understood. BUUUUUUT.

    Not appropriate there Mr. Candidate Wagner. I put him in the same dog house with the ex AG and Clinton. Time Out for all of them.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/republican-candidate-for-pennsylvania-governor-says-he-will-stomp-on-opponents-face-with-golf-spikes/

  32. Quarantine!

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    Hillary Clinton was assumed to be innocent in both legal terms and the court of public opinion when the investigations began. This was evidenced by the polling data at the time.

    Only the hard core Republican types, somewhere around 20%, thought her guilty from the get go.

    When the email investigation was concluded it was proven she was in fact guilty of violation several federal laws. Let alone agency protocols which would have gotten almost anyone else fired and their retirement jeopardized.

    She was not tried on these charges so you can claim she was not proven guilty in a court of law. However, she lost in the court of opinion. By the end only the hard core Democrats believed her innocent. Even though Comey never claimed she was “not guilty”. He in fact stated she had broken the law but he could not prove intent and therefore “no reasonable prosecutor would file charges under those circumstances”. Problem was that several State AG’s immediately said they would take the case if DOJ wouldn’t.

    The email issue was litigated here ad-nausium. So for you to now try to make this ridiculous argument about her being proven innocent shows that you are completely ignorant of the facts or choosing to ignore them. Since the facts were discussed here quite often, and you participated, you cannot claim ignorance.

    So on the email issue, Mrs. Clinton was proven guilty of violating the law. Mrs. Clinton was thus shown to be guilty of those offenses. She was not, however, prosecuted for those crimes.

    I stand by my assertion that your continued carping about Trump’s comment is CHILDISH.

    • I just came in from splitting and stacking wood and was going to respond to Mathius. JAC, good response, saved me the effort.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        You know, having a nice fire pit this year would be nice. Lots of down wood to be had.

        A gas log fireplace nice and easy, but just doesn’t cut it. Sit outside under a nice crisp autumn or winter evening, stars shining, can’t asking for more unless a nice totty is in hand

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Just read that HRC, Cheryl Mills and several other aides to Hillary, no longer have their security clearances.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Today’s further explanation is that HRC voluntarily requested her clearance be withdrawn. My bet is she didn’t want it to be withdrawn by the government invoking a media storm, which in turn would give an open season on her secret server and mishandling of classified documents all the way to Weiner.

  34. One of the reasons that the Benghazi investigation took so long was that the various executive departments stonewalled the committee similarly to what DOJ has done to the Russian investigation. It was very late in the investigation before it was discovered that Hillary had an illicit email server that the State did not have access to for FOI requests. The committee had been asking for Hillary’s emails which the department claimed they did not have but never explained why. Once discovered, it was learned that Hillary did admit privately the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack but publicly blamed the video. there were other anomalies in her story that could have been resolved early had the executive branch had been more forthcoming with information much of it not flattering to the State Department.

    The same is happening with the DOJ and the Russian investigation. Documents are dribbled out and large embarrassing sections redacted. Congress needs to put a stop to this behavior. They need to start prosecuting. Unfortunately it is the DOJ that does the prosecuting. Should we have a special Inspector General that can investigate such government malfeasance and have prosecutorial powers to charge and try miscreants. They should be limited in their scope to specific enumerated infractions of the law and only conduct investigations on request from at least 50% of one house of Congress.

  35. Just A Citizen says:

    Media being dishonest when it comes to Trump? Say it ain’t so Joe!

    I wonder how many others feel as the author does, regarding his support of Trump?

    https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2018/10/13/media-slams-president-trump-praising-abraham-lincoln-ulysses-grant/

    • JAC…you just can’t please some people.

      • And Cherry Pie is still be the best pie.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Colonel

          Never said it wasn’t. Although, I find a change of pies based on the season quite satisfying.

          Strawberry/Rhubarb in the spring. Apple in the fall but Huckleberry is the KING of that season. Pumpkin for Turkey day and Pecan at Christmas. Banana Cream and Lemon Meringue for special treats. Cherry is best in the mid to late summer when the Montana Cherries come ripe. But it is the GO TO pie for all seasons.

          Where we disagree is the ala mode part. Ice cream is good with anything. But you are correct when saying you do NOT PUT IT ON TOP OF THE PIE. It must be served on the side so you can mix the flavors as desired.

          As you can see. I love me some PIE.

          • Cherry pie is best if left untainted for a while before busting into it. The trick is to dig in while it’s still fresh, but after it’s allowed to ripen a little, in order to produce a sweeter, more potent, flavor.

            It’s also much better if you warm it up first, to release the flavors.

            And it should always include some kind of cream. Ice cream is a little too frigid for my taste. But whipped cream is comfortably cool with a smooth texture, and equally sweet.

  36. Just A Citizen says:

    Hmmmm. Interesting. I am guessing, no I am pretty sure there is more to the story. But what is presented is damning to those bragging. The other interesting thing is the call for help due to advertisers abandoning Think Progress. And of course how they distort the reason this is happening.

    https://thinkprogress.org/proud-boys-violent-mob-after-gavin-mcinnes-lecture-899d32404a75/

  37. Congrats MSU

    • Just found out TRay. Sorry, not sorry. Beautiful as it can get here in Northern Michigan tonight. Colors abound. Perfect attitude adjuster.

  38. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    Wife took me to the “Gosnell” movie, actually quite good. Did not want to go since I had followed the case and the testimony pretty closely but it was a good refresher course.

  39. Just A Citizen says:

    Warning:

    Do not overplay the “mob fighting” in Portland. Two groups with experience hassling each other, knowing the Portland Police will stand by until it goes Nuclear.

    Oh, and both groups are pretty small in size.

    Of course, the Portland Govt., the Mayor in particular, contribute by allowing the left wing mobs to literally take over parts of the city before ever acting. It is all part of the “keep Portland weird” culture the city has created.

    • The mob fighting really isn’t the problem, it’s the authorities allowing it. If it’s allowed, it will grow, then it will be a problem.

      • …or those who believe that authority is a super power derived from a ceremony and gives the right to violate at will.

        …or those who allow it.

  40. Dale A Albrecht says:

    I just love HRC’s newest revelation, the Bill’s affairs were not abuses of power.

    I may be mistaken, but hasn’t the mantra of feminists these past decades been when a senior manager, employer etc has relationship sexual like Bill’s with an underling, employee etc, that is an abuse of that employers power over the other.

    Different than, let’s say Jack’s affairs. He added notches to his gun with women outside of his office, with Marilyn Monroe being a prime example. There has been no evidence that I know of, of him abusing his office with employees, just abused his marriage.

    Bill, and slime like Teddy Kennedy abused both, the workplace and elsewhere.

    For such an alleged genius, HRC is making some really serious gaffes doing incredible harm to women everywhere. She certainly didn’t subscribe to the #trustme when it came to women accusing bill of assault. She went after them like a pit bull after rats.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Watched Sally Quinn, retired DC correspondent, several months back talk very matter of factly on C-Span about JFK being “serviced” in the White House Pool by an intern then passing her off to the other men in the same pool. All while Jackie was upstairs with the kids.

  41. I stand by my assertion that your continued carping about Trump’s comment is CHILDISH.

    And that, of course, is your perogative.

    That said, I find myself less interested in his obvious lie (or error) and more interested in the willingness of people to defend it.

    If Trump says “night is day,” well, he’s a pathological liar and that’s par for the course, but if I get into a multi-day knock-down drag-out with you and G-man over what exactly is commonly believed to be night and day and what about for Australians and well the sun is still shining, but we just can’t see it, so he was really right… if I find myself having that argument, then the real question is “why are some people so willing.. desperate.. to justify an obvious lie?”

    And, more importantly, if they’re willing to excuse and believe something relatively unimportant, but blatantly false, just because he said it, how does that bode for bigger lies that are a lot more hazy? Do they tacitly reject the concept of objective reality in favor of “whatever Leader says?”

    Isn’t that worrisome?

  42. Yes. it has been worrisome for the last 50 years. Amd as much as you might not like it…..Trump has not been the worse. I remember my dad saying that the only time you could be assured that Truman was not lying was when his mouth was closed. The same for Richard Nixon…the guy reminded me of a carnival barker.

    • Yes. it has been worrisome for the last 50 years.

      True enough.

      I guess I just find it extra glaring because Obama couldn’t open his mouth without being called a liar. If he said the sun rises in the east, some folks here would find a way to take issue with it and call him a liar.

      It wasn’t so much that he wasn’t a liar – he assuredly was – and it – but that he could say something true and he’d still be called a liar.

      Then along comes Trump with a, say we say, sub par record of honesty.

      And he says things that are BLATANTLY false. Outright undeniable lies… and those same people – the same ones who were so damned incredulous for the last 8 years – suddenly do this amazing about-face and now not only noddingly agree, but fight aggressively to defend the lies.

      As I say, it’s glaring.

%d bloggers like this: