Thursday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Thursday, June 15. 2017

Transgendered Track Star Proves We're All Insane

We Tested 13 Grocery Store Coffees and Here’s the Best One

Key criterion: drinkable if reheated in microwave. I can relate

Why you might want to disinherit your kids

Optometrists Feel Threatened By Technology, So Guess What Do They Do

Walter Williams: Rewriting American History

You’re Hired: Trump Plans to Build U.S. Workforce With Apprenticeships - The president, who hosted NBC’s reality television show ‘The Apprentice,’ will announce an expansion of apprenticeship programs

Excellent, but what does government have to do with that?

Woodpile on occupied territories

Here Are Five Fake Stories CNN Pushed

Russia Hacked our Election! (So what?)

Charlie Daniels: What Would Happen If Liberals Got the World They Wanted Here on Earth?

HuffPo Pulls Article Calling For Trump execution

When losing an election makes you lose your mind

As we always say, it's evidence that government is too important in our lives

Coulter: THE ‘RESISTANCE' GOES LIVE-FIRE

Virginia Shooting Suspect Was Distraught Over Trump’s Election, Brother Says

Baseball Shooter a Big Wake-Up Call for the Left

VDH:

It may not be that Trump earns hatred for unnecessary provocation and vitriol, but instead that he or any other Republican would have earned such venom anyway.

No doubt

Ruddy: Mueller Appears 'Out to Get the President'

Tom Cotton destroys case for collusion during questioning of Sessions

He's good

Democrats Trot Out Plan C In Their Never-Ending Trump Impeachment Crusade

Having Solved All The World’s Problems, United Nations Takes On Cultural Appropriation

Let's see them take spaghetti away from the Neapolitans

Meanwhile In Venezuela, Protesters Set Fire To The Supreme Court Building

Lefty Rome mayor calls for immigration restrictions

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 06:37 | Comments (68) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

The world liberals want: Venezuela comes to mind. I've never met a liberal yet who understood the role played by price signals and the profit motive in his comfortable life.

#1 Texan99 on 2017-06-15 08:48 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Charlie Daniels: What Would Happen If Liberals Got the World They Wanted Here on Earth? ... a world without borders, a world without morals, a socialist society ruled by an all-powerful, central government

Gross overgeneralization, one which equates a broad category with its most extreme manifestation, and conflates liberalism with the even broader category of leftism.

#1.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-15 10:06 (Reply)

Bro, we own this Farm.

#1.1.1 Nutsackriel on 2017-06-15 11:59 (Reply)

None of your criticisms are meritous. History demonstrates the veracity of Daniels' claims. Your best effort is that you used big words.

#1.1.2 DrTorch on 2017-06-15 12:11 (Reply)

We like big words. Today this Farm belongs to us.

#1.1.2.1 Nutsackriel on 2017-06-15 12:16 (Reply)

DrTorch: History demonstrates the veracity of Daniels' claims.

You didn't address the issue we raised, which was Daniels' assumption that everyone who is a liberal shares the view of the most extreme members of the class, or that liberal is equivalent to leftist.

#1.1.2.2 Zachriel on 2017-06-15 14:02 (Reply)

We stand for extreme leftism, you reprobate running dog.

So don't give me no more of your shi'ite.

#1.1.2.2.1 Nutsackriel on 2017-06-15 17:35 (Reply)

Damn that Mr. Daniels! How DARE he steal your schtick?

#1.1.3 aporitic on 2017-06-15 18:29 (Reply)

The story about Rewriting American history and the story from Woodpile on occupied territories had an ironic similarity. The mayor of New Orleans and politicians in other states are tearing down confederate statues and other historical sites.

In the second story Isis "They toppled priceless statues at the Mosul Museum in northern Iraq. They used sledgehammers and power tools to deface giant winged-bull statues at Nineveh on the outskirts of Mosul. At Nimrud, IS detonated explosives, turning the site into a giant, brown, mushroom cloud. They used assault rifles and pickaxes to destroy invaluable carvings at Hatra..."

What a sad and ironic comparison.

IMHO the destruction/elimination of Confederate statues and symbols isn't about racism per se. But rather it is about power and revenge. Racialist activists want to show their power and abuse their power and they want to poke a finger in the eye of anyone who doesn't agree with them.

#2 GoneWithTheWind on 2017-06-15 10:03 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: IMHO the destruction/elimination of Confederate statues and symbols isn't about racism per se. But rather it is about power and revenge.

After generations of slavery, followed by generations of brutal suppression, the symbols of a war of rebellion whose cause, as proclaimed by Mississippi, was "thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery" are finally taken down. That's not rewriting history, but putting history in its proper context.

GoneWithTheWind: In the second story Isis "They toppled priceless statues at the Mosul Museum in northern Iraq.

The Confederate statues are not being toppled, but removed and preserved. Most will probably be displayed in a setting with historical context, rather than as conquerors above the city square.

Here's what toppling looks like.

#2.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-15 10:17 (Reply)

Z: After generations of slavery, followed by generations of brutal suppression, the symbols of a war of rebellion whose cause, as proclaimed by Mississippi, was "thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery" are finally taken down. That's not rewriting history, but putting history in its proper context.

Then why aren't they tearing down the Democratic Party? That's the institution that did that to them.

#2.1.1 mudbug on 2017-06-15 10:41 (Reply)

mudbug: Then why aren't they tearing down the Democratic Party?

In fact, the Democratic Party was torn asunder over civil rights, changed, and became the party that was inclusive of African Americans and their concerns over civil rights.

#2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-15 10:47 (Reply)

Ah, yes. The myth they created for themselves.

I'll just add this: If it is in the interest of poor people to vote Democratic, and in the interest of rich people to vote Republican, then isn't it in the interest of the Democratic Party to keep people poor, and in the interest or the Republican Party to allow people to become rich?

And what do we see of Democratic Party politics over the past 50 years? More and more programs that encourage joblessness, fatherlessness, and dependency.

#2.1.1.1.1 Another guy named Dan on 2017-06-15 11:30 (Reply)

Another guy named Dan: Ah, yes. The myth they created for themselves.

The Dixiecrats are not a myth.

#2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-15 14:20 (Reply)

Yep. See Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia).

#2.1.1.1.2 drowningpuppies on 2017-06-15 11:42 (Reply)

drowningpuppies: See Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia).

Good example. Byrd repudiated his past support of segregation.

#2.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-15 13:57 (Reply)

Yep. Only when it became a political liability.
See the Civil Rights Act of 1964 filibuster.

#2.1.1.1.2.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2017-06-15 14:18 (Reply)

drowningpuppies: Only when it became a political liability.

Quite true, proving the point. There was no longer a place in the Democratic Party for segregationist views. Indeed, the Democratic Party is largely a party of blacks and other minorities.

Most people believe Byrd's conversion on race was sincere, though your mileage may vary.

#2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-15 14:25 (Reply)

But Republican Trent Lott was hounded out of office because he made the mistake of eulogizing Strom Thurmond, who like Byrd was another "reformed" former KKK Democrat and segregationist. Tried to be nice to the old guy at his 100th birthday party, and as a result ended up being painted as a racist and it cost him his political career. Funny world we live in.

#2.1.1.1.2.1.2 Jim on 2017-06-15 16:30 (Reply)

Jim: But Republican Trent Lott was hounded out of office because he made the mistake of eulogizing Strom Thurmond, who like Byrd was another "reformed" former KKK Democrat and segregationist.

Except Lott never repudiated his past, and Lott did more than eulogize Strom, but said "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either." When Thurmond ran for President, he ran as a Dixiecrat on an explicit platform of segregation.

#2.1.1.1.2.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-16 06:12 (Reply)

We all mourn for the loss of Democratic institutions like the KKK and Jim Crow.

#2.1.1.1.3 Nutsackriel on 2017-06-15 12:03 (Reply)

You'll have to remind me when the Democrat Party was "was torn asunder over civil rights." The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was filibustered by Democrat Senator Robert Byrd (who was a leader in the KKK) and finially passed with a larger majority of Republicans than Democrats. Not only did Byrd continue to hold his seat for another forty five years without any push back from the Democratic leadership, but he was lionized by that leadership and the press - being known as the "Conscience of the Senate."

You might argue that the view of the Democratic Party has changed, but the truth is that current Democrats support old laws that were argued on racist grounds (Davis-Bacon Act, gun control, etc.) though they have changed their argument in support of the, the effect of those laws didn't change.

#2.1.1.1.4 mudbug on 2017-06-15 13:19 (Reply)

mudbug: You'll have to remind me when the Democrat Party was "was torn asunder over civil rights." The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was filibustered by Democrat Senator Robert Byrd (who was a leader in the KKK) and finially passed with a larger majority of Republicans than Democrats.

Good example. You will notice that many Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act, but many supported it, including the Texan, President Lyndon Johnson. Passing the Civil Rights Act alienated large numbers of Southern whites, many of whom then voted Republican in the 1964 election. Nixon subsequently instituted what was termed the Southern strategy, which over a generation led to Southern whites becoming a solid Republican voting bloc.

The beginnings of the fissure date to earlier in the century, though. The FDR coalition was made up of liberals, labor, and southern whites. When Truman integrated the military, many southern white politicians, led by Strom Thurman, left the Democratic Party, and ran as Dixiecrats, nearly costing Truman reelection.

#2.1.1.1.4.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-15 14:13 (Reply)

"Passing the Civil Rights Act alienated large numbers of Southern whites, many of whom then voted Republican in the 1964 election. Nixon subsequently instituted what was termed the Southern strategy, which over a generation led to Southern whites becoming a solid Republican voting bloc."

Nonsense. Most state and local government in the South remained Democratic until the early 2000's.

As far as Presidential elections go: the South went for Wallace in '68, for Nixon in '72 (just like California and NY did); for Carter in '76, for Reagan in '80 and '84 (except for Georgia in '80); for Bush in '88, for Clinton in '92 . There was a split in '96 and in 2000, people were shocked that Gore did not carry his home state.

Except for '68, they showed no regional preference that was not mirrored in Northern States. Nixon and Reagan won in landslides throughout the country in '72 and '84. It wasn't until the 2000's that they voted as a GOP bloc.

Yet that has not stopped the Left from spreading nonsense about the "Southern Strategy." Far more Dems were elected in the South in '76 than in 2016 - do you mean to say that the South is more racist now than it was 40 years ago?

#2.1.1.1.4.1.1 Donna on 2017-06-15 16:14 (Reply)

Donna: Most state and local government in the South remained Democratic until the early 2000's.

That's right. As we said, the transition occurred over a generation.

Donna: As far as Presidential elections go: the South went for Wallace in '68, for Nixon in '72 (just like California and NY did); for Carter in '76, for Reagan in '80 and '84 (except for Georgia in '80); for Bush in '88, for Clinton in '92 .

Which proves the point. The South was solidly Democratic until 1964. After that, it was no longer a reliable Democratic stronghold. Also keep in mind that after 1965, large numbers of southern blacks got the vote, and while they didn't constitute a majority, along with a minority of whites, they could sometimes swing a state to the Democrats. Over time, however, fewer and fewer southern whites voted Democratic.

Donna: Except for '68, ...

Pretty big exception. The South voted for the segregationist.

Donna: they showed no regional preference that was not mirrored in Northern States.

Which proves the point. Before then, the South was solidly Democratic. After that, with black votes and some whites, the Democrats could win if they ran a southern politician.

Donna: Yet that has not stopped the Left from spreading nonsense about the "Southern Strategy."

Lee Atwater, Republican strategist: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites.

#2.1.1.1.4.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-16 06:36 (Reply)

So a greater percentage of the South's voting population is black than was the case in 1964 (obviously) and yet the South was solidly Democrat then and is solidly Republican now.

And you think that proves your case?

Liberal "logic" is a marvelous thing!

#2.1.1.1.4.1.1.1.1 Donna on 2017-06-16 13:21 (Reply)

It's called arithmetic.

In the South, as blacks started voting, whites began to migrate from the Democratic to the Republican Party. As whites constitute a majority, that means the South's electoral votes trend Republican.

#2.1.1.1.4.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-17 09:10 (Reply)

The problem with the "After generations of slavery, followed by generations of brutal suppression" argument is it can never be fixed. Never mind that no American alive today was either a slave or a slave holder we all must suffer forever because once someone was. 100 years from now we will take the last dollar from the cold dead hands of the last white middle class taxpayer to give "free stuff" to someone of color and the justification was that once long ago "After generations of slavery, followed by generations of brutal suppression" so therefore any crime, any violence, any punishment and discrimination is justified.

IMHO this kind of thing "builds walls and not bridges" between the races and political groups at the very point in history where racism and discrimination is lower than ever in this country and undoubtedly lower than any other country. Why inflame passions? Well for more "free stuff" of course.

#2.1.2 GoneWithTheWind on 2017-06-15 14:25 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: The problem with the "After generations of slavery, followed by generations of brutal suppression" argument is it can never be fixed.

If you mean history can't be changed, that's obviously true, but if you mean that people can never reconcile, that is not necessarily the case. Significant strides have already been made.

GoneWithTheWind: Never mind that no American alive today was either a slave or a slave holder we all must suffer forever because once someone was.

There are people alive today who suffered under segregation. For the young, it was their parents and grandparents. People do look to their family history. In the case of African Americans, that history is often one of perseverance against oppression, and a march towards freedom. For many whites, for too long, it was the glorification of an unjust cause.

Forgetting the past is wrong, but putting up statues in the city square of people who fought to preserve slavery isn't remembering history, but historical blindness.

#2.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-15 14:36 (Reply)

Enough with the sanctimony, kiddies.

#2.1.2.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2017-06-15 15:13 (Reply)

"...putting up statues in the city square of people who fought to preserve slavery isn't remembering history, but historical blindness."

Should we name streets after someone who used his fame and agenda to endlessly cheat on his wife??

#2.1.2.1.2 GoneWithTheWind on 2017-06-15 15:39 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: Should we name streets after someone who used his fame and agenda to endlessly cheat on his wife??

Not sure that's on the same level as putting up statues to those who fought to preserve slavery.

#2.1.2.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-16 06:37 (Reply)

Slippery slope huh! Why not. It is all about racial politics and paybacks. Removing the Confederate statues was the equivalent of the nuclear option. Now they are looking around to see what else they can destroy in their effort to "get whitey". That damned pendulum has the tendency to swing the other way. Now that the road was paved to rewrite and write out the things that offend us let's see where it takes us. Let's put it to a vote. Every city with a MLK street votes to return it to the previous name or perhaps Robert E Lee street. Let's see how it feels when the tables are turned.

Someone in the blogosphere once said that the MLK st. name is a good thing. He opined that you should avoid any city that choose to name a street after MLK and if you find yourself in a city with an MLK st to avoid that area after dark. A very "rude" but very honest observation, don't you think? So maybe naming streets after MLK is a public service. Maybe we should rename Detroit and Chicago to MLK-villle.

#2.1.2.1.2.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2017-06-16 11:05 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: It is all about racial politics and paybacks.

After generations of oppression, it's time to remove statues honoring the Confederate cause, which was, in the words of the Texas declaration of secession, "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

#2.1.2.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-17 09:15 (Reply)

I get it. In your mind the Civil War was ONLY about those mean nasty Southerners wanting to keep black slaves. No other possibility in your mind and for that the descendants of anyone who lived in those Southern states must be punished forever, into eternity. Not just punished but prevented from ever discussing their thoughts or having a point of view. Until they are all crushed and the entire country is destroyed this "stain" cannot be erased.

But what you seem incapable of understanding is that MOST of those who fought fought for their rights, their constitutional rights as they saw it. I don't necessarily agree and I also am quite happy that the North won. BUT I recognize that as the losing side they take solace in the belief that they did indeed have the right to secede and to live their lives as they wanted AND most importantly this is the opinion of the millions who never owned slaves and did not want slaves and had nothing at all to do with bring slaves to this country, and later the opinion of their descendants.

Also that people like General Lee and Jefferson Davis were in fact good and honest people, great leaders and the epitome of Southern gentlemen. And that they and millions of other Southerners acted bravely and sincerely in their effort to secure their constitutional rights as they saw them.

Should we erase this entire era? Should we rewrite it and lie and make all of those people posthumously terrible racists? Why? Why not simply allow it to be what it was, the good, the bad and the ugly and allow individuals and groups on all sides of the argument to have and speak their opinions. Why the need to adopt the Leninist tactic of erasing them from history???

#2.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2017-06-17 11:08 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: In your mind the Civil War was ONLY about those mean nasty Southerners wanting to keep black slaves.

Well, they did write it down, you know.

Mississippi: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery

GoneWithTheWind: No other possibility in your mind and for that the descendants of anyone who lived in those Southern states must be punished forever, into eternity.

Taking down statues is not exactly a punishment.

GoneWithTheWind: But what you seem incapable of understanding is that MOST of those who fought fought for their rights, their constitutional rights as they saw it.

Most probably fought because it was expected of them, patriotism, adventure, camaraderie, that sort of thing.

GoneWithTheWind: Also that people like General Lee and Jefferson Davis were in fact good and honest people, great leaders and the epitome of Southern gentlemen.

Men who fought to preserve slavery.

GoneWithTheWind: Should we erase this entire era?

No one is erasing history. The statues are a distortion of history. It is the leaders of the South who sent young men to war. They were most responsible for the institution of slavery and the resulting carnage.

#2.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-17 11:22 (Reply)

“Well, they did write it down, you know.”
Yes! Someone wrote something down and you conflate this with every Southerner.

“Taking down statues is not exactly a punishment.”
One of the first steps, stay tuned.

“Most probably fought because it was expected of them, patriotism, adventure, camaraderie, that sort of thing.”
I agree but it seems no different from what I said. They did not own slaves, didn’t want slaves and weren’t fighting for slaves.

Men who fought to preserve slavery. (re: General Lee and Jefferson Davis)
Yes. In todays “enlightened” world something bad but not in the world at that time. I always wonder when people make these kinds of virtue signaling statements what they are actively doing to end black slavery in Africa? Or other forms of slavery in Muslim countries? Help me out here what are you doing to fight slavery today or are you by your silence no better than General Lee and Jefferson Davis?

“No one is erasing history. The statues are a distortion of history.”
Oh give me a break! The statues are the very definition of history. If they had been put up just recently I might agree with you but we are talking about statues that are well over 100 years old. History! Yes indeed these activists are trying to rewrite history. Lenin would be so proud of you.

#2.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2017-06-17 13:20 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: Yes! Someone wrote something down and you conflate this with every Southerner.

Just their elected representatives, the ones who voted for secession. But you're right. Some in the South didn't want to secede.

GoneWithTheWind: They did not own slaves, didn’t want slaves and weren’t fighting for slaves.

That's not true for the vast majority of people depicted with Confederate statues. Furthermore, the political and military leaders of the South had far more responsibility for slavery and the disastrous war than did the young men who fought.

GoneWithTheWind: Help me out here what are you doing to fight slavery today or are you by your silence no better than General Lee and Jefferson Davis?

Robert Lee and Jefferson Davis weren't silent, but actively supported the institution of slavery.

GoneWithTheWind: If they had been put up just recently I might agree with you but we are talking about statues that are well over 100 years old.

The statues were erected at the height of Jim Crow.

#2.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-17 14:16 (Reply)

“…But you're right. Some in the South didn't want to secede.
You changed the subject. It isn’t about who wanted to secede. It is about the simple fact that 99% of the southerners who fought did not have slaves, did not want slaves and played no part in bring slaves here.

Re owning slaves “That's not true for the vast majority of people depicted with Confederate statues.”
While it may well be true that most/many of those depicted with statues owned slaves again I say that isn’t the point. The vast majority of proud Southerners who had a grand dad or grand uncle fight in the civil war those fighters did not own slaves. It is understandable and natural that the more famous Confederates are depicted by statues. Are you suggesting that each statue be replaced with a similar statue but with the face of a common non-slave owning Southerner? I doubt it you are most likely still in favor of erasing the statues from history.

“Robert Lee and Jefferson Davis weren't silent, but actively supported the institution of slavery.”
TRUE! In a time when slavery was common and legal. What I am asking you today when slavery is an abomination what are YOU doing to stop it???

“The statues were erected at the height of Jim Crow.”
Without the exact date and an argument over when the history of the civil war “ended” I don’t see how you have any meaningful point with this.

#2.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2017-06-17 20:11 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: It is about the simple fact that 99% of the southerners who fought did not have slaves, did not want slaves and played no part in bring slaves here.

That's false. We provided statistics to you previously, so we have no idea why you continue stating something that you know to be untrue.

About 26% of families in the slave states owned slaves. In the deep South, about 37% of families owned slaves.
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

#2.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-18 09:12 (Reply)

This false news that 37% of Southerners owned slaves is a classic example of rewriting history. The price of a slave was 5-10 times the yearly income of a poor Southern family. Your claim denies the reality of America, and the rural South at that time. The large cotton producers held most of the slaves and a few well to do non-cotton farmers might have a slave. Byt the vast majority of Southerners did not own slaves, could not have afforded a slave and didn't want a slave. It is ludicrous to think that some poor share cropper who could barely deed his family could somehow afford to own a slave.

#2.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2017-06-18 10:10 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: This false news that 37% of Southerners owned slaves is a classic example of rewriting history.

It's the U.S. census, an actual count of citizens and slaves.

#2.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-18 11:25 (Reply)

craZ-heil:

conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate conflate

Ragged little turd, aren't ya. How are y'all in that hot little box?

#3 tennesseered on 2017-06-15 11:04 (Reply)

tennesseered: conflate ...

Conflation happens when the identities of two or more individuals, concepts, or places, sharing some characteristics of one another, seem to be a single identity, and the differences appear to become lost... The result of conflating concepts may give rise to fallacies of ambiguity.

#3.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-15 11:08 (Reply)

Zach, you have defined the Dems and the media!

#3.1.1 Sam L. on 2017-06-15 12:02 (Reply)

We are not here to debate or even discuss. You do know that, right?

#3.1.1.1 Nutsackriel on 2017-06-15 12:12 (Reply)

Brah, be mo polite.

#3.2 Nutsackriel on 2017-06-15 12:01 (Reply)

Disinheriting your kids: Depends on how they get along.

Removing statues is a step to forgetting them and what they represented. "We have always been at war with East-Asia."

#4 Sam L. on 2017-06-15 12:00 (Reply)

Sam L: Removing statues is a step to forgetting them and what they represented.

What do these statues represent?

#4.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-15 14:23 (Reply)

Went right over their little headz.
Good one, Sam L.

#4.2 drowningpuppies on 2017-06-15 15:55 (Reply)

What do these statues represent?

#4.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-15 15:56 (Reply)

History. I trust you've heard of it.

#4.2.1.1 Sam L. on 2017-06-15 16:16 (Reply)

Golf clap.

#4.2.1.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2017-06-15 16:39 (Reply)

Sam L: History. I trust you've heard of it.

So they should put up a statue of Hitler because of his historical influence on the United States?

You can do better than that. What do these statues represent? You should be able to at least come up with the anodyne "heritage".

#4.2.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2017-06-16 06:40 (Reply)

So they should put up a statue of Hitler...

Logical fallacy.
Moving the goalpost, kiddiez?
But y'all do that often when y'all are losing an argument.

#4.2.1.1.2.1 drowningpuppies on 2017-06-16 10:56 (Reply)

If y'all weren't so myopic y'all could figure out what he was driving at with the quote, kiddies. 😂

#4.2.1.2 drowningpuppies on 2017-06-15 16:21 (Reply)

I award this comment One GOLD STAR!!

#4.2.1.2.1 Sam L. on 2017-06-15 22:02 (Reply)

drowningpuppies: If y'all weren't so myopic y'all could figure out what he was driving at with the quote

The quote refers to rewriting history, but, as we already pointed out, putting up heroic statues is its own form of revisionist history. After the Civil War, the myth of the Lost Cause animated the South. They idolized their heroes. Sort of like a participation award for losing the Civil War. However, while erecting these statues, they also went on a rampage against blacks, instituted Jim Crow, and robbed generations of their right to participate as equals in American society.

#4.2.1.2.2 Zachriel on 2017-06-16 06:43 (Reply)

Took y'all all night to figure it out...
And still more sanctimonious musings by you kiddiez.

After the Civil War, the myth of the Lost Cause animated the South

Hardly, after the war Reconstruction was brutally imposed upon the South, the effects of which lingered for almost a century.
Maybe y'all should read about it and learn something.

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”

#4.2.1.2.2.1 drowningpuppies on 2017-06-16 08:34 (Reply)

BTW kidz, statues are neither "heroic" nor a "form of revisionist history".
Y'all are mixing metaphors again.

#4.2.1.2.2.2 drowningpuppies on 2017-06-16 11:09 (Reply)

drowningpuppies: Hardly, after the war Reconstruction was brutally imposed upon the South, the effects of which lingered for almost a century.

Gee whiz. Reconstruction, which ended in 1877, didn't impose Jim Crow on the South. That was something the South did to itself, as was the war, as was the legacy of slavery.

drowningpuppies: statues are neither "heroic"

Of course they are. Now you're just being silly.

#4.2.1.2.2.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-17 09:21 (Reply)

Gee whiz. Reconstruction, which ended in 1877, didn't impose Jim Crow on the South

Well, golly gee kidz, let's just show how ignorant we are and just forget that part of history and the aftermath that lingered for almost a century and erroneously claim the myth of the Lost Cause anmated the South...
.
Gee whiz, it's not like the Radical Republicans abandoned the Southern negros or Freedman after 1877 or the North imposed integration in their own states or carpetbaggers and scalawags ...

Nevermind, arguing with clueless kidz who go to Howard Zinn or Wiki for their history. It's not worth it.

#4.2.1.2.2.2.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2017-06-17 14:19 (Reply)

drowningpuppies: we are and just forget that part of history and the aftermath that lingered for almost a century

We didn't ignore it, but directly cited it, including Jim Crow.

drowningpuppies: erroneously claim the myth of the Lost Cause anmated the South...

Seriously? The myth of the Lost Cause permeated the South after Reconstruction. How many references do you require?

drowningpuppies: it's not like the Radical Republicans abandoned the Southern negros or Freedman after 1877

The Radical Republicans didn't, but the American public had grown tired of the constant turmoil and wanted a return to normalcy.

#4.2.1.2.2.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-18 09:06 (Reply)

Normalcy???
Thanks, toolz.

#4.2.1.2.2.2.1.1.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2017-06-18 10:55 (Reply)

drowningpuppies: Normalcy???

Scare-quotes may have been called for there. However, Reconstruction probably went as far as it could politically, and business interests wanted to move forward. Then came Jim Crow, and generations of continued oppression.

#4.2.1.2.2.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-06-18 11:29 (Reply)

Transgendered Track Star Proves We're All Insane

QUOTE:

That boy (who couldn't even bother to shave his mustache)

We don't see the problem. There are many different kinds of female genders, some have pencil thin 'staches, some have full beards. Almost no liberal wymyn shaves her pits. Most male gendered men have their testicles removed. Science has proven that gender has nothing to do with gender.

#5 Nutsackriel on 2017-06-15 12:10 (Reply)

'Science has proven that gender has nothing to do with gender.'

/snort/

#5.1 JM01 on 2017-06-15 15:33 (Reply)

Trying to figure out just one week after Comey revealed several NYT stories with 'sources' to be lies, that today we are right back to believing Washington Post story about Mueller & obstruction? Who is this naive? I am not.

Stop acting as if the WaPo or the NYT are doing actual real reporting with sources who tell the truth, and start realizing they are making stuff up to generate interest in their failing papers and to satisfy their readership - mostly Democrats and Trump haters.

I, for one, am not going to start speculating about the validity of such an obstruction case, when we have ONE story in a newspaper that has pumped out fake story after fake story for the last 2 years since Trump decided to run.

Please don't be so gullible.

#6 MissT on 2017-06-15 12:27 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, June 15. 2017

Thursday morning links