Does anyone know if Walter Reed doctors conduct a blood test for syphilis when the presidents go in for their yearly checkup? If they don't, they should. Lord Dampnut exhibits all the symptoms of neurologic disease.
What is paresis derived from syphilis?
General paresis is one form of neurosyphilis. It usually occurs in people who have had untreated syphilis for many years. Syphilis is bacterial infection that is most often spread through sexual or nonsexual contact. ... With neurosyphilis, the syphilis bacteria attack the brain and nervous system.
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.”
Great, painful to read, summary of yesterday and the national and international reaction by the Post's Daily 202 column. Too long to copy and post, but truly worth clicking on the link.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
I see a lot of lip-service to the Constitution here followed by discarding the thing entirely.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the neo-Nazi scum have every right to march, chant their hateful slogans and offend all right-thinking people with their disgusting beliefs. For some reasons, leftists and other decent human beings, have trouble with this Constitutional protection.
The majority of Trump's base, as far as I can tell from people I know (some of them relatives), are also disgusted by neo-Nazis and their racist beliefs. They too have trouble with this Constitution thing because it protects thugs but.... they include elements such as the "Occupy" movement in that definition. They've watched leftist/anarchist riots for years on the streets of the US and across the world. And the news media simply report it - wall to wall condemnation is strangely absent.
Those Trumpy people, who don't deify leftist thuggery, clearly saw at Charlottesville two groups at war. Fascists wearing helmets, bearing shields and batons clashed with anti-Fascists wearing helmets, bearing shields and batons. Video shows neo-Nazi swine standing on a set of steps and being showered with thrown objects from neo-leftists. I saw helmeted thugs thrusting a wedge of wood daubed "No Gods"* into the midst of the fascist ranks; I saw video of evil neo-Nazis beating one young man in a parking garage; I saw awful behavior and hatred all around.
This does in no way excuse what the alt.right was doing in committing acts of violence and murder. The vast majority of them were ready for war. On the other hand, the vast majority of anti-Fascist protesters were NOT there for a fight but to express their opposition peacefully to repugnant ideas.
But for God's sake people, try to understand that the blanket condemnation of the rightist thugs does not mean a blanket amnesty for the leftist ones. Gandhi they are not.
The Nazis went there expecting, even seeking, a confrontation. The opposition extremists joined their aspiration and provided it. Thesis and antithesis. Hegel and Marx would have no trouble seeing this.
OK let the hatred against me begin.
*I suspect that was something to do with "Gods and Generals" - indeed, a rather objectionable association given the ungodly "Cause".
FWIW, my belief on all these statues is that they should be placed on battlefields or in museums as historical artefacts (plural noun form) and NOT in public streets and city parks.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Crackpot wrote:Guin
Is that link right? I get something about removing confederate monuments.
Thanks. Fixed.
Thanks Guin; interesting read.
It's honestly sad to see what politics has descended to, that people cheer him on for his incoherence and changing of the subject with idiotic non sequitors; it makes me fear for democracy (and realizing there isn't a better alternative brings me to despair. When we get rid of Trump (and let's hope it will be soon), we'll still have this section of America to deal with--and next time perhaps they'll elect a president who is much better at seizing and consolidating his power in the name of "freedom", using vacuous slogans and cheering wildly at the idiocy that is thrown to them--the way most despots get into power.
The remarks from POTUS yesterday indicate to me (who is next, Washington? Jefferson?) that he thinks this is about slave owners. I could be wrong, but I thought it was about the civil war, and memorials to those who committed constitutionally defined treason.
I doubt Great Brit has many statues honoring Washington or Jefferson.
MajGenl.Meade wrote:I see a lot of lip-service to the Constitution here followed by discarding the thing entirely.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the neo-Nazi scum have every right to march, chant their hateful slogans and offend all right-thinking people with their disgusting beliefs. For some reasons, leftists and other decent human beings, have trouble with this Constitutional protection.
Oh please. You did read above, didn't you where Sue, BigRR, and I (leftists, indeed) all agreed and supported their right to march (and I'd bet all of us support the ACLU, that lefty group that has defended the Nazi right to march in multiple cases -- go read the Skokie Illinois case, if you could use refreshing). If you want to talk about facts, you might start there.
As for the rest of it, you are very very close to drawing the same moral equivalence the Trumpanzee did. Please don't.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Meade--it's not that there was not bad behavior by protestors on both sides, but from what I could see, it was the neo Nazis with their riot gear and clubs who provoked the situation in the first place. If they had just come for a rally and speeches, I think it would have been far different, but standing on the steps of a church (inside which restraint was being discussed) with torches in one hand and clubs in the other sends a message of provocation, if nothing else. you want to condemn the behavior of some of the persons on the left? By all means do so, and make sure those who committed crimes are prosecuted regardless of their political motivation, but let's not use the criticism of those who acted badly on the left to blunt criticism and enouncing of the behavior of those who organized the original rally in a way to provoke the violence in the first place--those who marched with weapons to intimidate some and provoke others.
Personally, I would have preferred the community to react by laughing and ridiculing the neo Nazis, but when someone is swinging a bat at you, or threatening to, it's sometimes hard to respond nonviolently.
As for your assessment of the constitution--I agree the neo nazs have a right to preach their hatred (I stand with the ACLU on this), but no one has to listen to them.
Last edited by Big RR on Wed Aug 16, 2017 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Normalization of this behavior, rationalization of the behavior is NOT ACCEPTABLE, I don't care how "good" a person you are.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Burning Petard wrote:The remarks from POTUS yesterday indicate to me (who is next, Washington? Jefferson?) that he thinks this is about slave owners. I could be wrong, but I thought it was about the civil war, and memorials to those who committed constitutionally defined treason.
I doubt Great Brit has many statues honoring Washington or Jefferson.
snailgate
BP--while you make a point, I do think that the majority of the rhetoric on this point centers around slavery and the belief that the civil war was fought to perpetuate it. I don't want to start that debate in this thread, but I think few of those demanding the removal of the statues are prompted by an outrage of someone who dared to stand up and fight against the US government, more as outage against someone who fought to defend slavery and keep others in bondage. So much as I do hate to defend Trump, I do think this debate is prompted by slavery and racism, not as a defense of the US Federal government.
Guin--agreed that is not acceptable, much like the Westboro idiots who protested at the soldier's funerals. and before someone tries, denouncing the hatred of those who killed her at the funeral is not morally equivalent.
The rational defense of these statues, and the display of the flag ALWAYS talks about the noble, honorable men who deserve to be remembered for this part of our beautiful Southern heritage--they fought and died for the cause of liberty and to stop the tyranny of the federal government. Robert E Lee was such a nice man. Just look at the way he joined the Confederacy-- only after heart-breaking self-searching and only because of his loyalty to his beloved Virginia.
When they get honest and put up statues to honor Simon Legree (yes I know he was fictional) or Sheriff Bull Connor (who was not fictional), then, Big RR, we can continue this discussion.
snailgate
Last edited by Burning Petard on Wed Aug 16, 2017 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This was not a presidential press conference. It was a glorified barroom argument that exposed quite clearly how angry he is that he had to come out and make that second statement in which somebody forced him to say how bad Nazis are. He'd clearly been stewing about that for at least 24 hours.
But it was his tour through U.S. history and its controversies that will live in the annals of presidential tirades forever:
"George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? ... Are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him? OK, good. Are we going to take down his statue, because he was a major slave owner. Now we're going to take down his statue. So you know what? It's fine. You're changing history, you're changing culture, and you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, OK? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly."
"You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and it was horrible and it was a horrible thing to watch. But there is another side. There was a group on this side — you can call them the left, you just called them the left — that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that's the way it is ... I think there's blame on both sides. I don't have any doubt about it and you don't have any doubt it either. And if you reported it accurately, you would say it."
You know, that's just about the size of it. His speeches, even during the campaign, were hardly presidential. They sounded more like a high school speech-class student taking his first turn in front of the class; repeating a phrase, speaking in sentence fragments, stalling for time as if he's either totally lost his place or even he's not totally convinced of his own words. Even Nixon's resignation was more eloquent than anything that has come from Trump's pie-hole since he first rose, like a drowned, bloated, six-week-old corpse, to the top of the political morass.
And of course these have to be his own words. I have heard better oratory come out of FFA 'Junior Extemporaneous' speech competitions, and I just imagine people like Ben Stein, who was a speechwriter for Reagan and other Republicans as far back as Trickie Dickie, face-palming like Jean-Luc Picard
and bemoaning what has happened to the art of public speaking. -"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?
Burning Petard wrote:The rational defense of these statues, and the display of the flag ALWAYS talks about the noble, honorable men who deserve to be remembered for this part of our beautiful Southern heritage--they fought and died for the cause of liberty and to stop the tyranny of the federal government. Robert E Lee was such a nice man. Just look at the way he joined the Confederacy-- only after heart-breaking self-searching and only because of his loyalty to his beloved Virginia.
When they get honest and put up statues to honor Simon Legree (yes I know he was fictional) or Sheriff Bull Connor (who was not fictional), then, Big RR, we can continue this discussion.
snailgate
BP--I have not presented, and am not now giving, any opinion on whether the statues should be removed or not. all I was saying in that, as I see it, the debate is not whether "treasonous" military men should be "honored", but whether defenders of slavery (people who took up arms in its defense) should. Your bringing up the fictional slavemaster Legree makes me think you agree, but I fail to understand why you mention Connor.
Maybe because the statues were largely erected in the era of Jim Crow as a means to keep black people oppressed and that was what Bull Connor was all about?
Somebody (I'm not going to say who, for fear of a knee-jerk reaction) said something yesterday about Trump supporters that completely hit home for me: people who still support Trump now ARE racist, because they are supporting a racist. If you held down a woman while she was being raped, doesn't that make you a rapist? It's guilt by accountability and in many jurisdictions that exposes you to the same penalties as the rapist himself. At this point it is simply inexcusable to defend Trump or overlook his racism (and yes, you ARE a racist when you defend white supremacists as 'very fine people') because you think his policies are good.
What's truly sickening is reading the comments sections online and realizing how many of Trump's supporters aren't just guilty by accountability, but are vehement racists themselves. Trump has merely exposed a festering sickness that we have failed to heal in over 150 years.
I never had the chance to watch Ken Burns's Civil War, it aired while I was TV-less in college and until recently it was only available for a hefty price via DVD purchase from PBS. It's on Netflix now and has been in my queue and I'm watching it this week - it's unnerving to realize the parallels in the divisiveness in the country then and in recent years, especially since Obama's election in 2008.
I'm really sad for my country, which isn't the place I grew up thinking it was.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
MajGenl.Meade wrote:I see a lot of lip-service to the Constitution here followed by discarding the thing entirely.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the neo-Nazi scum have every right to march, chant their hateful slogans and offend all right-thinking people with their disgusting beliefs. For some reasons, leftists and other decent human beings, have trouble with this Constitutional protection.
The Constitutional "protection" of speech applies only to governmental action; apart from reasonable time. place and manner restrictions, the state cannot prohibit or limit public expression because of its content. That is all. The state is not obligated to prevent other people, as private actors, from shouting down or otherwise expressing their displeasure with the "protected" speech.
As much as I consider myself a free-speech absolutist, I confess that I genuinely struggle with the rights of Nazis, the KKK and their fellow travelers to spread their poison. These groups stand in direct and violent opposition to the very principles of American democracy that protect them -- and that protect the rest of us from them. Let's be very clear: these assholes promote murder, assault and other violent crimes against minorities, women and political opponents; cheer on their members who engage in such acts; and publicly taunt their victims. Contrary to Donald Trump's idiotic statement, there is no universe in which "very fine people" could associate themselves or make common cause with these motherfuckers.
Given the object of the "alt right" and its intentional incitement to violence, I am beginning to think that the standard of "imminent lawless action" may be insufficient for governmental intervention. I recognize that this is a very slippery slope, and I am hesitant to even suggest tinkering with the limits of expression. But the alternative is the non-state private action we saw in the streets of Charlottesville. And frankly, I believe that there are times when "speech" -- particularly of Nazis and racists -- should properly be met with physical violence.
And thanks, Sue, for picking up on the central dilemma that my post so (very) poorly expressed. This is exactly right on:
Given the object of the "alt right" and its intentional incitement to violence, I am beginning to think that the standard of "imminent lawless action" may be insufficient for governmental intervention. I recognize that this is a very slippery slope, and I am hesitant to even suggest tinkering with the limits of expression
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
BSG--it's very easy to condemn Trump because he is such a complete jerk, but most people are more multifaceted than that. By many reports LBJ was an unapologetic racist, but he also pushed through some of the most important civil rights legislation in US history. Lincoln was a man of his time, if not a racist, who pragmatically defended slavery in the Union (even after the Emancipation Proclamation "freed" the slaves), yet pushed through the Constitutional amendment to outlaw slavery. Our history is full of complex people, it makes IMHO little sense to label people; by all means condemn the sentiments and the actions, but most people are a mixture of good and bad, and we have to consider what they accomplish as well.
sue--I understand your point, and there may be time when violence is an appropriate reaction, but I cannot accept that the government should have any say in regulating the content of speech beyond the current standards (alt right "incitements" notwithstanding). I fear and unrestrained government far more than I do a bunch of idiots in uniforms spouting hatred. And let's not forget, no one has to listen, and we can shout them down, ridicule them, blast music, and do a lot of things other than confronting them violently.
Big RR wrote:sue--I understand your point, and there may be time when violence is an appropriate reaction, but I cannot accept that the government should have any say in regulating the content of speech beyond the current standards (alt right "incitements" notwithstanding). I fear and unrestrained government far more than I do a bunch of idiots in uniforms spouting hatred. And let's not forget, no one has to listen, and we can shout them down, ridicule them, blast music, and do a lot of things other than confronting them violently.
When ISIS propaganda and direction inspires and facilitates the commission of a murder, a bombing, or other terrorist act, would we not hold them accountable? Would we not consider aiding and abetting the commission of a crime to be beyond the pale of free expression? Would you allow the dissemination of instructions for building a "dirty bomb" nuke as protected speech?
All restriction is a matter of degree and what a society's consensus agrees is "reasonable" under the circumstances.
