the conventions coming up

SepiaAndDust · Jul 14, 2016

dogs4thewin said:
Honest question Has any prior President had this much craziness going on? I mean particularly in different incidents that seem unrelated.

You must have missed the 1970s....

dogs4thewin · Jul 14, 2016

SepiaAndDust said:
You must have missed the 1970s....

yes in fact I did considering I was born in 91.

SepiaAndDust · Jul 14, 2016

dogs4thewin said:
yes in fact I did considering I was born in 91.

Well, let's see.... We had

the war in Vietnam
protests against the war in Vietnam, including the Student Strikes and the May Day Protests (12,000 arrested)
Skyjacking as a phenomenon
the Weather Underground bombing government buildings, including the Pentagon
the Weather Underground breaking Timothy Leary out of prison
the FALN bombings (a Puerto Rican terrorist organization) in New York and Chicago
the LaGuardia Airport Bombing in New York (still unsolved, but suspected to be the work of Croatian Nationalists)
Patty Hearst and the SLA in game-changing shootouts with the police in Los Angeles
the Munich Massacre, where Palestinian terrorists kidnapped and murdered Israeli Olympic team members
the Iranian Revolution (and the failed US-backed coup that followed)
the Iran Hostage Crisis
the oil crisis
the energy crisis
the 70s recession
the rise of Saddam Hussein in Iraq
the Kent State massacre, where National Guardsmen opened fire on college students, killing four, paralyzing one, and wounding several others
the Lod Massacre in Israel by the Japanese Red Army
President Nixon resigning following the Watergate scandal
the Jonestown massacre
the Cold War and its respite, détente
the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge, and the Cambodian Genocide
50,000 people killed by an earthquake in Peru
the Olean, New York school shooting (3 dead, 11 wounded) and the Cleveland Elementary shooting (2 dead, 9 wounded)
the exposure of the COINTELPRO program
the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa
the decline and demise of the original Black Panther Party, and the rise of the Black Liberation Army

That's mostly just off the top of my head. And all of this was on the heels of the protests, race riots, and assassinations of the late 60s (including the Democratic National Convention police riots of 1968). Pretty crazy.

ETA: Oh, and Elvis died.

Calvinist Dark Lord · Jul 14, 2016

pescador said:
It won't go well for federal forces? Have you seen the armament the feds have compared to what civilians have? There is no contest in this area. Think about the display of weapons of all kinds after the Boston marathon bombing!

First: There will be no conflict with Federal forces.

Secondly, what makes you think that US troops would obey any such orders?

Thirdly, you have obviously never seen or studied a Level 4 conflict.

Fourth, after 15 years of armed conflict, there are multitudes of younger men who have more combat experience than the troops they would face...and experience dealing with insurgencies. They would win.

Fifth: There is NO WAY that the local National Guard would allow federal forces to fire on their friends and neighbours without the life of said federal forces becoming forfeit.

Sixth: The federal forces involved also have families and friends just like the people that they would be sent to deal with. i doubt that they would carry out such orders.

Seventh: In my part of the US, there are old men in their late 80's...WWII and Korean Conflict veterans who can still --though often strapped to oxygen tanks these days-- pick which eye of the deer they're going to put the bullet through at 400+ yards over iron sights. FYI, the M-4 currently used by the US Military doesn't even have a 400 yard range.

Eighth: Standard military body armour is not going to stop the average mid-to-high power hunting round.

Ninth: bring heavy armour and weapons into an urban setting is like painting a big "Please Kill Me" sign on such weaponry. No Armour commander wants to bring his tanks, Bradleys, or MRAPS through such an environment.

In short, martial law is not going to happen, and the federal forces would lose, and lose badly in such a conflict. Chances are that they would rarely see the people who killed them.

As i said earlier, this isn't 1861 any more.

Calvinist Dark Lord · Jul 14, 2016

super animator said:
That is debatable and off topic.

Welcome to the thread Captain Obvious. i already acknowledged this point in a previous post, and then dropped the subject.

i am rather tired of these types of threads degenerating into "(Pick the name of your favourite offender) will declare martial law and suspend the elections!" threads. It is just nonsense. If Lincoln didn't do it, Obama isn't going to do it.

pescador · Jul 15, 2016

dogs4thewin said:
Honest question Has any prior President had this much craziness going on? I mean particularly in different incidents that seem unrelated.

Yes. All of them.

pescador · Jul 15, 2016

Calvinist Dark Lord said:
First: There will be no conflict with Federal forces.

Secondly, what makes you think that US troops would obey any such orders?

Thirdly, you have obviously never seen or studied a Level 4 conflict.

Fourth, after 15 years of armed conflict, there are multitudes of younger men who have more combat experience than the troops they would face...and experience dealing with insurgencies. They would win.

Fifth: There is NO WAY that the local National Guard would allow federal forces to fire on their friends and neighbours without the life of said federal forces becoming forfeit.

Sixth: The federal forces involved also have families and friends just like the people that they would be sent to deal with. i doubt that they would carry out such orders.

Seventh: In my part of the US, there are old men in their late 80's...WWII and Korean Conflict veterans who can still --though often strapped to oxygen tanks these days-- pick which eye of the deer they're going to put the bullet through at 400+ yards over iron sights. FYI, the M-4 currently used by the US Military doesn't even have a 400 yard range.

Eighth: Standard military body armour is not going to stop the average mid-to-high power hunting round.

Ninth: bring heavy armour and weapons into an urban setting is like painting a big "Please Kill Me" sign on such weaponry. No Armour commander wants to bring his tanks, Bradleys, or MRAPS through such an environment.

In short, martial law is not going to happen, and the federal forces would lose, and lose badly in such a conflict. Chances are that they would rarely see the people who killed them.

As i said earlier, this isn't 1861 any more.

Whatever floats your boat. I can't agree with anything that you wrote.

BTW, if the old men in their 80's can shoot a deer in the eye at 400 yards with iron sights they should be in the Olympics. As a shooter and hunter I know that is impossible at any age, never mind people with presbyopia. They can't even see the front sight clearly.

Albion · Jul 15, 2016

Calvinist Dark Lord said:
i am rather tired of these types of threads degenerating into "(Pick the name of your favourite offender) will declare martial law and suspend the elections!" threads. It is just nonsense. If Lincoln didn't do it, Obama isn't going to do it.

I feel like I'm on your side with this, but there's no reason for Lincoln to have tried doing it, so that's not a good argument IMO.

pescador · Jul 15, 2016

Calvinist Dark Lord said:
Welcome to the thread Captain Obvious. i already acknowledged this point in a previous post, and then dropped the subject.

i am rather tired of these types of threads degenerating into "(Pick the name of your favourite offender) will declare martial law and suspend the elections!" threads. It is just nonsense. If Lincoln didn't do it, Obama isn't going to do it.

I totally agree!

essentialsaltes · Jul 15, 2016

Albion said:
I feel like I'm on your side with this, but there's no reason for Lincoln to have tried doing it, so that's not a good argument IMO.

(oh nevermind)

KCfromNC · Jul 16, 2016

Larnievc said:
How's that different from anyone willing to die for their sincerely held beliefs?

I thought that these days people with sincerely held beliefs were just supposed to not make cakes for certain types of minorities.

Calvinist Dark Lord · Jul 16, 2016

KCfromNC said:
I thought that these days people with sincerely held beliefs were just supposed to not make cakes for certain types of minorities.

Your thoughts are in error.

However it would not bother me one way or the other to have a business that does NOT accept any type of government funding related to that business be able to reject anyone they want for any reason they want or no reason at all.

Even if said business refused service to me because of some characteristic or held view or anything else they considered a 'reason', i would simply find somebody who WOULD accept my money for services rendered and mention why the business that refused me acted as they did.

Incidentally i have no idea what you refer to with your comment. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has been refused service because they are a minority. Some have been refused service because of conscience issues with the owner of the business over the behaviour of the potential customer, not because they were a member of a minority. If you refer to the LGBT community, they're as diverse as the non LGBT community, so how anybody would know somebody was a part of that community without either prior knowledge or revelation from the LGBT community is a bit of a question.

In the interim, you're going to make yourself awful tired knocking down those straw men in your quest to derail this thread with off topic comments. However if it makes you happy, enjoy!

Frisky Wren · Jul 16, 2016

dogs4thewin said:
How likely is it that there will be issues? I have been hearing much about Obama trying to cause enough issues to cancel the elections and stay in office, but the security forces are going to be federal, so what is your take?

Do you have any evidence to support what you've been hearing?

The only way he can stay in office to my knowledge is if he declares martial law. An order that not even Congress can look at for at least 60 days.

KCfromNC · Jul 18, 2016

Calvinist Dark Lord said:
Your thoughts are in error.

However it would not bother me one way or the other to have a business that does NOT accept any type of government funding related to that business be able to reject anyone they want for any reason they want or no reason at all.

We tried this before and it failed miserably.

Even if said business refused service to me because of some characteristic or held view or anything else they considered a 'reason', i would simply find somebody who WOULD accept my money for services rendered and mention why the business that refused me acted as they did.

I'm not sure how "but I imagine maybe someone else might not" is a good justification for refusing to serve minorites.

Incidentally i have no idea what you refer to with your comment. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has been refused service because they are a minority. Some have been refused service because of conscience issues with the owner of the business over the behaviour of the potential customer

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ohio-bakery-gay-couple-cake_us_577eb60ae4b01edea78d1e2a. Loks like a 2-fer, at least : gay and interracial. Maybe her or her partner shouldn't have "acted so black". Or so gay that the baker had to track them down on social media to figure out if they were or not.

Willtor · Jul 18, 2016

Calvinist Dark Lord said:
...

However it would not bother me one way or the other to have a business that does NOT accept any type of government funding related to that business be able to reject anyone they want for any reason they want or no reason at all.

...

This sounds reasonable, but it turns out to be less practical than it appears. The fact is that certain kinds of people will be refused service with high frequency. And the common arguments for why those businesses will fail tend not to work in practice:

They can take their business elsewhere.

But maybe it will cost them a lot more in time and money to do so, especially if a number of businesses in the area are discriminating. Especially in certain communities, feelings about race outweigh the desire for profit. This is evidenced by how things were before civil rights laws were enacted -- lots of businesses didn't care that they were driving away customers! Additionally, they may not be losing business. I had the unfortunate opportunity to talk to someone who told me, quite openly, that she preferred to shop at one grocery store (as opposed to another) because there were fewer Indian immigrants. And this is in the northeast!

But it's an opportunity for a new company without the bigotry/racism/sexism/etc. to start and thrive on all the business the others are rejecting.

Sounds great! But if the class of people being discriminated against isn't especially wealthy, there may not be enough business to sustain another company. Further, it may not occur to you us to look for the discrimination where we shop if we aren't especially aware of that discrimination. This is notably true of the disabled community. If society doesn't require a business to be accessible, it probably won't be. But, up until very recently, it never occurred to me to look for accessibility in buildings. And what if the discrimination is based on race -- some place I like to buy lunch doesn't serve black people, but there aren't very many black people in my community, so I never witness the discrimination. If I knew, I'd go somewhere else. But I don't know. And that leads to:

Informed consumers will choose companies that operate with good externalities.

This is distressingly untrue. Chances are, if most of the businesses are discriminating, most of their consumers support (even tacitly) the discrimination. And that's all assuming consumers are even informed. But trying to be informed about everything you buy is, itself, a full time job. And even you and I have blind spots. This was a good argument, once upon a time, in relatively homogeneous societies before the second industrial revolution (and long before globalization). If you want a product that contains a widget manufactured in a factory that refuses to employ black people, you probably can't know about it. Again, it was one thing when the mill was five miles away and you knew an employee or two, personally. But it's different, now.

All of this combines to create barriers to class mobility. As KCfromNC points out, we've tried this before. The results were pretty bad.

Albion · Jul 18, 2016

Frisky Wren said:
Do you have any evidence to support what you've been hearing?

The only way he can stay in office to my knowledge is if he declares martial law. An order that not even Congress can look at for at least 60 days.

Since when did Obama pay any attention to the Constitutional rights of the Congress? He enforces whichever laws he chooses to, disregards those he doesn't care for, wages war without a declaration of war, and states in public that he'll disregard the rulings of the Supreme Court. Who is seriously contending that he could not make a unilateral move such as has been referred to on this thread? I consider it unlikely, but it's far from unimaginable.

Calvinist Dark Lord · Jul 18, 2016

KCfromNC said:
We tried this before and it failed miserably.

Define failure. i suspect that it has more to do with "This did not work out the way I wanted it to work out." than it does with any real standard.

KCfromNC said:
I'm not sure how "but I imagine maybe someone else might not" is a good justification for refusing to serve minorites.

i don't see where anything need be "justified" --whatever that means.[/FONT]

KCfromNC said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ohio-bakery-gay-couple-cake_us_577eb60ae4b01edea78d1e2a. Loks like a 2-fer, at least : gay and interracial. Maybe her or her partner shouldn't have "acted so black". Or so gay that the baker had to track them down on social media to figure out if they were or not.[/FONT]

Still means nothing. That you don't like the choices the baker made is neither here nor there. --Don't patronise that bakery if you don't like it! If they were refused service for whatever reason then they were refused service. There are plenty of bakers. i simply did not know what the poster referred to.

Keep up those attempts at distraction from the OP. i am amused.

Calvinist Dark Lord · Jul 18, 2016

Willtor said:
This sounds reasonable, but it turns out to be less practical than it appears. The fact is that certain kinds of people will be refused service with high frequency. And the common arguments for why those businesses will fail tend not to work in practice:

They can take their business elsewhere.

But maybe it will cost them a lot more in time and money to do so, especially if a number of businesses in the area are discriminating. Especially in certain communities, feelings about race outweigh the desire for profit. This is evidenced by how things were before civil rights laws were enacted -- lots of businesses didn't care that they were driving away customers! Additionally, they may not be losing business. I had the unfortunate opportunity to talk to someone who told me, quite openly, that she preferred to shop at one grocery store (as opposed to another) because there were fewer Indian immigrants. And this is in the northeast!

But it's an opportunity for a new company without the bigotry/racism/sexism/etc. to start and thrive on all the business the others are rejecting.

Sounds great! But if the class of people being discriminated against isn't especially wealthy, there may not be enough business to sustain another company. Further, it may not occur to you us to look for the discrimination where we shop if we aren't especially aware of that discrimination. This is notably true of the disabled community. If society doesn't require a business to be accessible, it probably won't be. But, up until very recently, it never occurred to me to look for accessibility in buildings. And what if the discrimination is based on race -- some place I like to buy lunch doesn't serve black people, but there aren't very many black people in my community, so I never witness the discrimination. If I knew, I'd go somewhere else. But I don't know. And that leads to:

Informed consumers will choose companies that operate with good externalities.

This is distressingly untrue. Chances are, if most of the businesses are discriminating, most of their consumers support (even tacitly) the discrimination. And that's all assuming consumers are even informed. But trying to be informed about everything you buy is, itself, a full time job. And even you and I have blind spots. This was a good argument, once upon a time, in relatively homogeneous societies before the second industrial revolution (and long before globalization). If you want a product that contains a widget manufactured in a factory that refuses to employ black people, you probably can't know about it. Again, it was one thing when the mill was five miles away and you knew an employee or two, personally. But it's different, now.

All of this combines to create barriers to class mobility. As KCfromNC points out, we've tried this before. The results were pretty bad.

Your entire argument and objection turns out to be nothing more than "Your exercise of your rights dosen't generate the result that I have decided it should generate, so I'm going to use an agency of force to curtail your rights so that i can get the result I want."

Not on my watch you don't.

Now do you have any comments on the OP or are you here to merely distract?

Frisky Wren · Jul 18, 2016

dogs4thewin said:
How likely is it that there will be issues? I have been hearing much about Obama trying to cause enough issues to cancel the elections and stay in office, but the security forces are going to be federal, so what is your take?

I was watching when this happened live today. Apparently it made history as it has never happened before.

Back in March it was observed that there is a bunch of people in the RNC trying to take over the rules committee. I think all this at the convention has something to do with that. Especially when one guy with the RNC said the people don't choose the candidate they do. That kind of makes you wonder what all those votes for the delegates were about doesn't it? Just smoke and mirrors so we think we're part of the process when we're not or what?

We choose the nominee, not the voters: Senior GOP official

Frisky Wren · Jul 18, 2016

They even have trucks driving around Cleavland with the same banner. Hillary for prison 2016.

the conventions coming up

There's a FISH in the percolator

dog lover

There's a FISH in the percolator

Regular Member

Regular Member

Wise old man

Wise old man

Facilitator

Wise old man

Stranger in a Strange Land

Regular Member

Regular Member

IF YOU LOVE LIFE LIFE WILL LOVE YOU BACK

Regular Member

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

Facilitator

Regular Member

Regular Member

IF YOU LOVE LIFE LIFE WILL LOVE YOU BACK

IF YOU LOVE LIFE LIFE WILL LOVE YOU BACK

Similar threads