|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 8, 2020 10:42:53 GMT -8
There's further news on the Ukrainian plane crash. The plane had just taken off in Tehran for Kiev, and was mainly full of Iranians and Canadians (possibly of Iranian descent). Iran has found the black boxes but won't let Boeing look at them, and may decide to report the findings themselves. We all know how much we could trust what they will say, whatever it turns out to be.
There is some skepticism that Iran would wipe out a plane full of Iranians, but it depends on who they were. If they were people the regime didn't trust (a category that includes scads of Iranians), they'd be very pleased to be rid of them. But given the necessity of killing no Americans in their show retaliation (and no Iraqis, or even their puppets in Baghdad might have to talk back to them), that would be a good way to assuage their blood lust. The link is:
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 9, 2020 11:47:13 GMT -8
The Pentagon is now saying the Iranians shot the plane down by accident. I still stand by my above post of January 9th.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 9, 2020 12:28:03 GMT -8
Accidents do happen, and antiaircraft gunners on hair triggers can make mistakes. But that can also be a convenient excuse. The reality is that while we can be confident that (as with a Malaysian flight over the breakaway eastern Ukraine a few years ago) that it was shot down with a Russian-supplied missile (in this case probably paid for with money the Black God gave them), we can never know why unless we have some intercepted communications at the time it was shot down.
And if we had that, we'd probably have announced it earlier. So we can say that it could be an accident, but there are plenty of reasons for doubt. Many of the passengers were Iranians going to Kiev, and I have to wonder how much the mullahcracy would trust such people. It was also some hours after the missile attacks that killed no one, and may have slaked their blood thrust without attacking us (there were no Americans on board to provoke Trump into droning someone like Khamenei). And their behavior since then has been very suspicious, like they had something to hide.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,243
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 9, 2020 12:43:01 GMT -8
Yes indeed. Wow.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 13, 2020 8:39:22 GMT -8
NEWS FLASH. Further proof Texans are not insane. Bloomberg FailTexas may have its share of hucksters and con men, but we aren't taken in by some New York City shyster who is trying to buy the presidency. Spend away mayor Bloomberg. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,243
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 13, 2020 8:44:44 GMT -8
It’s impossible for me to say who is and is not a viable Democrat Party contender. Certainly few expected Trump to be president.
I think Bloomberg is trying to play (in regards to the Democrat Party) the late-coming sober adult in a field of crazies. But Democrats love their crazies. Like I said, I can’t rule him out because, for the life of me, it’s difficult to see what the demented demos sees in any of these candidates.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 13, 2020 11:20:44 GMT -8
Another piece on that prince-of-a-man Bloomberg.
How clear do these people have to be for Americans to understand the threat they pose? Had nobody in the West Way Church of Christ had a gun, it is likely that a dozen or more people would have been killed by the gunman, but that would have been a small price to pay for Mayor Bloomberg.
Bloomberg and those like him don't want the public to have guns because it makes for a more independent and free population. Bloomberg knows the police cannot arrive at the scene of most crimes in time to prevent them. But for Bloomberg and his ilk, the purpose of the police is not to protect the public, it is to keep the public under control. This goal would be significantly more achievable if the public was not armed.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,243
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 13, 2020 12:15:38 GMT -8
I agree with all those reasons. But let us consider that the Founders — who were at the time implementing a rather powerful, if restrained, central government — were for private gun ownership. Back in the 1780’s, those in power wanted the populace to have the right to own guns.
What’s changed? Surely some of the reticence was in regards to restraining the Federal government. What state would have signed on if the second amendment had instead outlawed guns or left it to the whim of the Federal government?
But let’s also note that the Founders, almost without exception, were men. Although you’ll find all kinds of “chicks with guns” videos on Facebook and such, protecting the family was historically, and for good reason, been the province of men.
But today the idea of women being protected by men is deemed “sexist.” I think guns become the baby being thrown out with the bathwater. A feminized, domesticated, emasculated society has no more use of guns than it does men.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 13, 2020 13:13:35 GMT -8
The Second Amendment had no influence on states approving the Constitution. Congress only met after 11 states had approved the Constitution, and it took some time to pass the Bill of Rights through Congress. Since North Carolina joined later in 1789 and Rhode Island in 1790, I doubt either of them was influenced either.
But there was a crucial difference. The Founders all believed in limited government, and knew that an armed population was desirable for that purpose. It was also a practical necessity for many. Today we have too many people in the Behemoth who want unlimited government. An armed population not only is unnecessary for that, but it's actually potentially dangerous. So if people suffer from being disarmed in the presence of a violent criminal, well, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.
Of course, as Arthur Peabody Goodpasture noted in Don Quixote USA, breaking eggs isn't the same thing as breaking people. Not that they care about that in the Behemoth. That's why Pepe in the book didn't trust people with titles such as Excelencia or Commandante. In San Marco as now in America, such people see the people as human fertilizer (as my father tellingly observed about Communism).
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,243
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 13, 2020 14:01:16 GMT -8
Okay. 1791. But the point is the same. These were still the Founders. Whatever their conception was of "limited government" (some more limited than others), they mostly believed that a man had a right and duty to protect himself and his property, particularity via the use of firearms.
So they ban them for all intents and purpose in England and now stabbings are up.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 13, 2020 15:19:42 GMT -8
I did a little checking up in wikipedia, with interesting results. The full Bill of Rights consisted originally of 12 amendments. The first, on Congressional apportionment, came close to passing early on but then was ignored, though it's technically still pending. The second, on Congressional pay, was a bit further from passing but then caught on a few decades ago and has since become the 27th Amendment. The remaining 10 (what are now the 1st through 10th Amendments) were passed in late 1791 after Virginia approved them. (It's interesting that Patrick Henry's Anti-Federalists, who controlled the state, were slow to pass the Bill of Rights. They elected 2 Anti-Federalist Senators and mostly Anti-Federalist Representatives, and tried to keep Madison out by gerrymandering his district against him and picking James Monroe to run against him. Otherwise, the First Congress was almost entirely Federalist.)
North Carolina joined after the Bill of Rights had passed Congress but no state. (New Jersey ratified 11 of 12 Amendments the day before, but I doubt anyone there knew about it.) Rhode Island joined after 8 states ratified, only one short of passage. Rhode Island became that 9th state, but by joining it meant the number needed was 10. Vermont eventually became the 10th to ratify, but by joining it meant the number needed ws 11. Then Virginia finished the task.
The 3 states that didn't ratify were Georgia, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. Georgia decided there was no need for a Bill of Rights (which was Madison's original view before he found out that most Virginia voters disagreed with him). The other 2 had disputes between their legislative chambers over which Amendments passed and never sent formal approvals in, perhaps because they weren't necessary. Kentucky approved all 12 in 1797, but no one seems to have noticed for nearly 2 centuries.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 13, 2020 15:24:39 GMT -8
You are absolutely correct. Americans inherited this line of thinking from our English brethren. The right to bear arms for the protection of one's property and rights is something which was well developed before our Constitution was written. It was a common belief amongst our Founding Fathers.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 15, 2020 10:27:20 GMT -8
Roger Scruton died last Sunday. I only discovered the man last year, but have read a few of his books and writings since and find him very sharp. The link is to an obituary in The Federalist. Roger ScrutonI think this might be the best paragraph from it. |
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 15, 2020 10:48:47 GMT -8
That's an interesting idea -- that leftism creates literally utopian dreams that can never be achieved at all. And until we reach those goals, they need unlimited power to bring us to them. Funny how that works out. Certainly it's true that they never solve the problems they identify because then they won't be needed. As long as they can set themselves up as arbiters between different identity groups, that doesn't matter.
Think of it as a multilayer cake, each layer being designed to help them achieve and maintain unlimited political power.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,243
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 15, 2020 11:00:21 GMT -8
That’s a fantastic quote by Roger Scruton. Nothing can survive the Utopian vision. Nothing is so perfect as the visions of The Golden Children. And when anyone tries to put those visions into practice, you can see why the only sanctuary for Golden Visions by The Golden Children is inside their own heads. They can’t deal with reality. They can’t deal with the realistic art of living in an imperfect world.
This describes the huge fundamental divide that exists between left and right. A decent sort of fellow understands that the world isn’t perfect. But even so, he can try to mold his conduct to make it just a little bit so.
The indecent or destructive person is a phantasm of psychological projection whereby the faults are always in the stars, never in themselves. Therefore they must make the outer world perfect so that their inner world of Freudian angst can be unwound. But it never does work out. And we see that in the real world. The more they get what they want, the unhappier they become. On some level, they understand it isn’t working.
So they try harder. Kill a hundred million people. That will do it. Break a few eggs!
There is perhaps no better description of the Christian spirit than living in an imperfect world and yet trying to bring to it, and partake of it, Grace in every aspect. Waiting for the world to be perfect so that at last one can be free is inherently a Leftist/atheistic game. Kudos to Scruton for his keen observation.
|
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Jan 15, 2020 13:53:25 GMT -8
The left has, to be sure, its favorite concepts for vaguely imagining a triumphant future — “emancipation,” “social justice” — but those concepts “are used to condemn every mediating institution, every imperfect association, every flawed attempt that human beings have made, to live together without violence and with due respect for law. It is as though the abstract ideal has been chosen precisely so that nothing actual could embody it. I am not overly familiar with him, but it seems to me that he was influenced by the late Eric Hoffer: It seems that when we are oppressed by the knowledge of our worthlessness we do not see ourselves as lower than some and higher than others, but as lower than the lowest of mankind. We hate then the whole world, and we would pour our wrath upon the whole of creation.
Chaos, like the grave, is a haven of equality. Their burning conviction that there must be a new life and a new order is fueled by the realization that the old will have to be razed to the ground before the new can be built. Their clamor for a millennium is shot through with a hatred for all that exists, and a craving for the end of the world.When we lose our individual independence in the corporateness of a mass movement, we find a new freedom—freedom to hate, bully, lie, torture, murder and betray without shame and remorse.
Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance. Hoffer, Eric. The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (Perennial Classics) (p. 98). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition. There are also elements of Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience and Walden Pond. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,243
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 16, 2020 8:30:59 GMT -8
One has to try to explain how over 100 million people could be murdered in the last century because of Communist utopian goals. Hoffer gives as good an explanation as any.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 24, 2020 21:01:10 GMT -8
An interesting article by a German who says the U.K. will likely be stronger and the EU weaker after Brexit. BrexitThe Eurocrats are split between the liars who knew that Brexit would weaken the EU and the idiots who actually believed their own propaganda. The EU will be dead in less than 20 years, I suspect. And the same types who fought Brexit are the types fighting Trump, for much the same reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 24, 2020 21:49:37 GMT -8
It's nice to see that Brexit is finally about to happen. I gave up on it around a year ago because it seemed the Remainders (I like that term) would be able to keep blocking it. Fortunately, my pessimism was wrong.
We may well see other countries start to dropping out once Britain shows that it can work. This will take a while, but if it happens the breakup will accelerate at some point. Your estimate could prove accurate.
Of course, Brexit is hardly the only reason Merkel would have problems. They have the same problem the British have with greatly increased rape from Muslim refugee invaders. European culture lacks the self-confidence to fight and win a cultural struggle. It's no longer "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." (This apparently originally referred to different Christian rituals in Rome.) Instead it's "When in Berlin, make them do as you do." And not just in Germany.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,243
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 25, 2020 8:33:36 GMT -8
That’s an interesting perspective. I view the EU as the secular/atheist building of a Cathedral. It’s not necessarily wrong for the highest aspirations of people to be represented in some building or institution. But when your highest aspiration is a bureaucracy that takes seriously its role as deciding the proper curvature of a banana ( Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2257/94), you know you’ve gone…well…bananas. Plus, the EU is, from what I understand, a de facto way for the Germans to have won the war. The question then isn’t why anyone would want to leave the EU. It’s why anyone would want to stay. Find a strong German man to run things. (Err…but not too strong.) Not this ugly East German West-hater. In our lifetime we will witness a meltdown of Europe of epic proportions. Would one really want to be tied to the French at this point? Or the Italians? Or the Spanish? Or the Greeks? That’s another interesting perspective. Maybe England can open up a branch office. Let’s give them Mexico to run. Get women the hell out of European politics. At least establish a hiatus of ten years for the highest offices. |
|
