On this day in history!

[Isaac]

The Republican Party, forged from of a coalition of political forces to oppose the advance of slavery in the American west, was created in Ripon, Wisconsin, on this day in history, March 20, 1854.

 

[ColinEssex]

It's also the day that GWB decided to bomb Iraq and kill hundreds of innocent civilians.

Col

 

[Isaac]

Well, I'm not sure if he did the right thing or not, as I wasn't there assessing how many innocent people were being hurt by not doing anything and all the factors involved. I do know it's much easier to criticize decisions in hindsight once armed with knowledge of consequences that couldn't be fully known when the decision was made, so I try to keep that in mind in these situations.

I guess you could say the military aid we provide to Ukraine has hurt and killed people too, then again, America is usually about the only country who is willing to step in and help from a purely humanitarian perspective while other countries just sit and watch the carnage...Then a few of them will invariably criticize the people hurt from the actions, and conveniently fail to mention the people who were saved from being hurt by the actions.

It reminds me of a schoolyard fight in which a weaker person is being hurt badly, and people standing around saying "just let them fight"

 

[The_Doc_Man]

It's also the day that GWB decided to bomb Iraq and kill hundreds of innocent civilians.

Col

Welcome back, Col, even if your anti-American stance hasn't mellowed. But then again, why would it?

 

[ebs17]

Currently, the Republicans are receiving support from Russia: Calling for an uprising and preventing the arrest of the "orange" hero.

How happy about this?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

There could be a subtle game being played here, since the Democrats faked a Russian involvement in the previous election. It could be a ploy by Democrats to link Trump intimately to Russia - or it could be a ploy by Republicans to use as a reverse-psychology tool to show how desparate the Democrats have become. But then, it is ALSO possible that the Russians are just trying to sow a little extra chaos in USA elections. As if we needed any help with chaotic elections anyway.

 

[Isaac]

Currently, the Republicans are receiving support from Russia: Calling for an uprising and preventing the arrest of the "orange" hero.

How happy about this?

I'd be about as happy for that hypothetical situation as I was about Democrats openly calling for, and receiving, extreme violence and destruction over the summer of 2020 and 2021, during which dozens of people were killed and violent mobs ruled the streets, even taking over and governmental control of major sections of multiple cities.

I guess the difference between them is the thing I refer to actually happened, the thing you refer to is not.

 

[Pat Hartman]

It's also the day that GWB decided to bomb Iraq and kill hundreds of innocent civilians.

Apparently you forgot that Iraq had just invaded Kuwait and this attack was to expel them. I totally disagree with how the war turned into a regime change campaign. That was Bush the younger trying to finish what daddy should have done in the previous Gulf war. That was bad and as with all of our regime change efforts failed miserably.

Currently, the Republicans are receiving support from Russia: Calling for an uprising and preventing the arrest of the "orange" hero.

You are so gullible. No one will be attempting to prevent the arrest of Trump. That is not what the protests are about. You are sounding like @ColinEssex That would be downright IDIOTIC. The left knows they are in trouble and are trying to provoke another Jan 6th event. They have to keep Trump off the ballot in 2024. His popularity is growing and they're running out of time. Their cheating scheme has been exposed and people will be watching this election very closely. They may not be able to pull it off again. Trump himself called for the demonstration to show the people's displeasure with how Trump is being persecuted. That is probably going to backfire because the FBI will infiltrate the protest and attempt again to cause a problem and some stupid people will do something stupid. Let me summarize the situation for you.

Trump did or did not have a fling with Stormy Daniels. That is pretty irrelevant. He's a big boy and we know he is a philanderer. However, Melania made it clear when she agreed to marry him that she would not put up with it. His skirt chasing days were over. So he announces his run for president and the worms come out from the woodwork. Stormy and another women (with much more sense) went to Trump to extort him. He decided to pay off to shut them up. Mostly to keep it from Melania because he needed her on his side but also to keep it out of the news during the campaign. So they made a non-disclosure contract which she signed. There is some dispute because Trump may not have personally signed the NDA and that became the basis of the later lawsuit brought by Avenatti.

Then Stormy went public anyway at the urging of her scumbag lawyer Michael Avenatti, who is now in jail for stealing money from his clients, Stormy included, among other crimes. They were asking to vacate the NDA. The Dems were hailing the scumbag lawyer as the next Democrat presidential candidate. That is how happy they were with the ruckus he was causing. He was their savior. The man was on TV three times a day for what seemed like an eternity. So now Trump defends against the suit Stormy brought to vacate the hush money contract and WINS. He gets his money back and his lawyer fees paid. But Stormy was never charged criminally with extortion - which she should have been but since she extorted the evil orange man, it was OK. No harm, no foul.

Stormy Daniels must pay $300k to Donald Trump after losing defamation case appeal

“I will go to jail before I pay a penny,” the adult film actor tweeted after an appeals court ruled against her.

www.nbcnews.com

So now, we have a prosecutor whose election campaign was simply a promise to indict Trump for something, anything. She would be a hero and FIND the crime. Does that bring back memories of Stalin's henchman? So, now we have a State's Attorney General trying to prosecure what is a federal crime. So she's settled on charging Trump with a campaign finance crime even though Trump paid Stormy with his own money. Actually his company paid as most companies do when one of their executives is extorted this way. Hell, even the Congress of the United States of America has a slush fund to make these payments AT THE EXPENSIVE OF the US taxpayers

The Grand Jury is still sitting and leaking like a sieve. ALL Grand Jury proceedings are supposed to be secret until the Jury either issues a bill of incitement or doesn't. If it doesn't, you should not even know what they were deliberating. But, the evil orange man does not deserve any privacy at all. He must be destroyed. This destruction has to happen in a very blue city in a mostly blue state because otherwise, there would be no bill and if the case went to trial, Trump would be likely to lose. Rumer in NYC is that a Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich.

Congress’ sexual harassment system, decoded

POLITICO answers some of the most pressing questions and misconceptions about how Capitol Hill handles, and settles, misconduct complaints.

www.politico.com

Keep in mind that the original crime of extortion which set all this in motion was NEVER prosecuted because here in the good ol' US of A, being a banana republic, we CHOOSE who to prosecute and we don't prosecute people/crimes "we" approve of and we do prosecute people "we" don't approve of. So, Stormy can extort Trump all she wants. That is perfectly OK with the Attorneys General of NY but if Trump jay walks, it is the crime of the century.

 

[Isaac]

It's almost funny when you think about it. There seems to be a trend, where District Attorneys / AG's from Washington DC and New York City bring all kinds of creative cases that have little to nothing to do with New York or Washington, but they know they can get away with it only because both of those cities are bizarre concentrations of some of the weirdest, most borderline-insane people in the United States, who more-than lean liberal, to a radical extent .... So they pretty much know any "jury" assembled will just be 12 crazies who will do whatever is being asked of them by the prosecutor.

They have gotten so extreme in their concentration of like-minded radicals, it should be illegal to do jury trials there. Because it is impossible for any rare, normal person who lives or is being tried in the area to interpret that as the Constitutional jury "of their peers".

I've seen this seems like 100 times in the past few years.

And here you have this D.A., who presides over an absolute TOILET of a place (NYC) which is avoided like the plague that it is by the other 99.952% of Americans who wouldn't be caught dead in it - yet instead of getting serious about prosecuting crimes, he treats criminals like victims and prosecutes a former president for a legal financial settlement that is commonly done every day by people with money and power everywhere, who are continuously approached (similar to well-heeled athletes) by women who want to jump on the bandwagon, claiming some kind of sexual assault to get $ out of them.

He's trying to prosecute a nothing-burger. Between him and Leticia, it seems like the black people in power are trying to become some kind of black panther heroes by dedicating their life to throwing something at Trump until it sticks. I guess Captain Ahab from Moby Dick pertains to a lot of people in this world!

 

[ColinEssex]

Apparently you forgot that Iraq had just invaded Kuwait. . . . .

My statement referred only to today being the anniversary of a war.

You are so gullible. No one will be attempting to prevent the arrest of Trump. That is not what the protests are about. You are sounding like @ColinEssex That would be downright IDIOTIC.

I thought after a break, we may be able to get along. Thats why i havent posted for weeks. But I see you don't want that. OK, the gloves are off if that's what you want.

Col

 

[Pat Hartman]

My statement referred only to today being the anniversary of a war.

You could have said that. But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. You choose to make the most negative, accusatory statement you could possibly make. Innocent people always die in wars and Iraq was no different. Captain Kirk made that point very clearly in one of Star Trek's early morality plays. I suppose you think it was OK for Iraq to invade Kuwait because that was what the retaliation was all about. I will not justify this war. It was moral at the start but it turned into yet another regime change which made it immoral.

You must be a Putin fanboy though since you never made such a remark about Putin deliberately killing Ukrainian civilians which BTW Biden is trying to convince the American public to allow him to turn into yet another regime change war with Ukrainians paying the price because they're the ones getting slaughtered every day. Trump would NEVER do this. He also believes that the US fostering regime change is evil. How about that.

Colin, we are never going to get along as long as all of your comments include purple words intended to inflame a response.

 

[ColinEssex]

Colin, we are never going to get along as long as all of your comments include purple words intended to inflame a response.

That's a shame as I respect your knowledge of code and Access. I hoped relations may improve after my self enforced break, but no. However, you are entitled (as we all are) to interpret comments as you see fit.

Col

 

[Isaac]

My statement referred only to today being the anniversary of a war.

kill hundreds of innocent civilians

Hmm.

Well we agree on one thing - "interpretation" is a funny thing!

 

[ebs17]

Does that bring back memories of Stalin's henchman?

Stalin did not need prosecutors and judges. He had handwritten lists of quotas to be liquidated as enemies of the state. To liquidate meant to kill or to send to the GULAG, and that was in the order of tens of thousands.

And if you make the comparison: The liqidated also included the closest companions, i.e. the Bolshevik leadership of the first hours, further large parts of the intelligentsia, more than 90 percent of the generals (one reason why Hitler's Germany could celebrate such huge successes in the invasion at the beginning).

Apart from that: I read a lot of hatred between the lines. The hatred is not reduced, but cultivated and fomented. Hatred generates counter-hatred. Each new confrontation creates a new wound, which can be a step towards further escalation.
In view of the many weapons available, accidents with weapons and crime with weapons will soon become less important than the growing hatred between people.
You don't need Russians, Chinese or Islamists to make life difficult for you. You yourselves are completely sufficient for this.

 

[Isaac]

Stalin did not need prosecutors and judges. He had handwritten lists of quotas to be liquidated as enemies of the state. To liquidate meant to kill or to send to the GULAG, and that was in the order of tens of thousands.

And if you make the comparison: The liqidated also included the closest companions, i.e. the Bolshevik leadership of the first hours, further large parts of the intelligentsia, more than 90 percent of the generals (one reason why Hitler's Germany could celebrate such huge successes in the invasion at the beginning).

Apart from that: I read a lot of hatred between the lines. The hatred is not reduced, but cultivated and fomented. Hatred generates counter-hatred. Each new confrontation creates a new wound, which can be a step towards further escalation.
In view of the many weapons available, accidents with weapons and crime with weapons will soon become less important than the growing hatred between people.
You don't need Russians, Chinese or Islamists to make life difficult for you. You yourselves are completely sufficient for this.

I take that comment thoughtfully, because if true, it's worth listening to.

It seems to me that the priority of Peace (the result of understanding and tolerating) is pretty high, but I'm not a person who confuses "high" with "top".

There have been, of course, numerous instances throughout mankind's history where the people decided that peace would need to come second priority to something/things else, which were even more valuable to preserve.

You are free to judge each of those instances for yourself, as we all are, but I doubt that almost anyone concludes that 0% of those instances were justified. And, I'm fairly sure that in very many of those instances there was a school of thought, supported by some, which advised peace above all else, and opposed whatever happened.

Take that how you will, but surely they cannot all be wrong.

Hatred for people is different than hatred for other things and other outcomes. In fact, hatred for evil is a necessary ingredient to avoid the "The only thing needed for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing" --Edmund Burke.

Your reminder that hatred can cause many bad outcomes is well taken. However, I reject the viewpoint (of many, not sure if you or not) that our primary goal should always be peace above all else.

There are things worth fighting for. If we belong to a generation and age where some of those things are threatened with extinction, we should try to rationally and calmly assess the options, refusing to surrender to either the temptation to blindly hate nor the temptation to avoid confrontation at the cost of anything else. Both are wrong, and both have caused massive suffering in human history.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Stalin did not need prosecutors and judges.

I was referring to the "Show me the person and I'll show you the crime" quote which has a direct corolorary with the Attorney General of New York's campaign promises. Her campaign was totally based on Finding a Crime to charge Trump with. You probably don't see much reporting of local political races and so would be unaware of the background of this particular case against Trump.

 

[ColinEssex]

Hmm.

Well we agree on one thing - "interpretation" is a funny thing!

Yes I agree.
Actually, I was quoting what was said on the BBC TV breakfast news this morning. No mention of Kuwait, just the Americans and British attacking Iraq in the Shock and Awe exercise, but focusing more on the American **** up and how Bush got it all wrong. Then how the attack was finishing GB senior weak efforts.

Col

 

[Isaac]

I have noted with some interest how those who are most interested in demonstrating what they feel was a terrible and bad thing (invading Iraq), tend to focus almost exclusively on the weapons-of-mass-destruction belief, which turned out not to be true.

However, In all fairness, that's not the full picture. That is just one single element. Those who feel that the decision (at the time) was a bit more reasonable would point to other justifications for the war.

Those who want to paint the picture as 100% bad and wrong generally always refer to, and only refer to, the WMD claim--in order to make the decision look 100% wrong, they have to ignore the other basis for the war.

I'm not defending the decision to war, I'm just trying to remember it objectively, rather than emphasizing just one point to make it look a certain way

 

[ColinEssex]

Sometimes war is justified, most times not.
War is often like two fleas fighting over who owns the dog.

Col

 

[Isaac]

Sometimes war is justified, most times not

I've been thinking, and pursuing some kind of settled conclusion in my mind, on that question my entire life.

Each time I think I have it more settled, doubts creep in. I imagine how much I probably underestimate the suffering war causes, then I question that support of it. Other times I find it persuasive the idea that because extreme violence is always very disturbing, the 'avoidance' of it will always be the easier conclusion, and I imagine the suffering that could be caused by failure to act decisively enough, at just the right times, throughout history.

I hope at some point it seems clearer to me.

One possible perspective - that war imposed on others is the worst, whereas war imposed by its own citizens may be more justified, as they choose their destiny. (?)

I do find it interesting that many of the same people in USA society/politics/media, who are most critical of past US wars such as Iraq, also are the most supportive of our proxy war in Ukraine.

I find it to be very, very likely that to some degree, everyone fools themselves at times, based on how a certain Leader has a skill at marketing themselves in a certain way. We think of Putin one way, and Zelensky a different way. But do we really know?? What if Zelensky is just a lot more successful in curating his image in a way that he knows appeals to Westerners?
Are we certain that we know who the good guys are in Ukraine/Russia, any more than we did in Iraq?
And if not, do we justify our involvement in Ukraine to some extent because we aren't actually doing it, just funding it? Does it make any difference to the people when a bullet strikes them?

The whole world stood by while people on the African continent slaughtered each other some years ago. Many innocent children killed.
Any major country might have stopped it. For that, we are all guilty, I think.

Is it morally OK to walk by a small child being bullied in the schoolyard by someone else? Because "its not our fight" ?

These are tough questions, but worth thinking about. Inaction is generally comfortable, but I'm not sure having peace about something means much, when our peace comes from being distant from others' pain.