In this case, loan demand, right? Can you expound?
If she becomes too damaged, we'll have to elect Sanders. Good luck with the expedition!
You have the mark of Cain on accounta your black EYE!
I'm gonna beat you like you're a civil rights protester!
What did you say about my father? That he seemed to be a genuinely decent man, beloved by many across the ideological spectrum? As opposed to me, beeeaaach??
VMware, Microsoft Hyper-V and Bloch hypervisors are safe from Venom, because they use their own code.
Looks like even if you are virtualized, you're likely safe.
Well, so what is the stance the righties like here? The war was good? The war was built on faulty intelligence, and is therefore a colossal mistake? Why do they still have any bona fides with their voters?
Which stance disqualifies a GOP candidate to the converatards?
So he shot his "close friend" while conducting training exercises in an area that is out of his jurisdiction and there is nothing wrong here??
SOME thing is wrong, but it's not the SAME thing that is wrong.
It's amusing that believers in the benevolence of government officials exercising bureaucratic monopoly power over individuals have no difficulty envisioning slave owners abusing their power.
Uhh. Because our government is democratically elected, held accountable, consent of the governed and all that.
Slaves don't pick their masters or fire them.
Exactly. And if the government is unwilling or incapable of doing that, the people should take back political and legal power from the government, by force if necessary. To say otherwise is to say the American Revolution was not justified and our government is not legitimate.
That's what I think too. France and America, but also Haiti. How long would Black Haiti have to wait until they were treated with human dignity? 400 years? More?
I know the Right tends to believe that Lincoln's "War of Aggression" was unnecessary because slavery was going to end soon on its own accord. That doesn't do much for the countless generations that came before then (if you believe the premise) who were born, lived and died in subhuman bondage. I'd want freedom in my own lifetime, and would be willing to resort to just about anything to achieve that end.
From Gandhi's Doctrine of the Sword, "But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish, it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature. A mouse hardly forgives cat when it allows itself to be torn to pieces by her."
In other words, non-violence is only a valid tactic when it is coming from someone who has the ability to punish and refrains. Certainly not the case with the American minority population.
I'm a white liberal, and I don't believe that. Would a policy of non-violence have stopped the Nazis?
I know your definition is the historical one, but I suppose I mean what is commonly accepted as "liberal" in America. American liberals love the idealized Gandhi or MLK, because it bolsters their belief in what I can only compare to magic; the oppressor will be overwhelmed with guilt, or the public will be so outraged that the oppressor will cave and a period of peace and harmony will ensue.
I used to think we had lost our ability to have collective shame of that magnitude (due to Faux News phony outrage, ADHD, Smartphones, 24 hr news cycles, etc), but I think that it was never really as powerful as we had been led to believe. Seeing the post Kent State polls blaming the students who "got what they deserved" seems to indicate that we aren't all that moved by rights and human dignity, or the liberal democratic tradition.
I thought this was interesting: http://theredphoenixapl.org/2009/10/18/gandhi-was-wrong-nonviolence-doesnt-work/
"If the right is becoming increasingly violent, not only in its rhetoric but its actions, and there is plenty of evidence that this is true, to whom should the poor progressives appeal to?
Not exactly his point, but interesting to think that that non-violent resistors might have liberals on their side, but are "targeting" the violent with non-violence. They are trying to appeal to people who by definition don't believe in non-violence. Sounds like a fool's errand and a circle jerk.
"Far more important is the fact that those who have elevated non-violent resistance, which should be seen only as a tactic and not a strategy, to the level of a religious creed, would have progressive forces accept failure and defeat for the sake of an idea that is not shared by the other side. As alluded to before, the ruling class has no qualms about violence when it is used in its favor. It is only when they are on top that they want peace and stability."
Didn't Gandhi help to enlist Indians as combatants?
What do you think of his Doctrine of the Sword? http://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/D_sword.htm
"I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so called Zulu rebellion and the late war. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor."
There's more, of course, but he doesn't seem to be a puritan on non-violence. I suppose he viewed it as a tool, and powerful where applicable, but that it does not preclude other tools of a violent nature.
They should be homeless AND have no belongings! And that IS a fancy cooler.
and they ran away..
They shouldn't have run off because it made the white man suspicious. If they had just obeyed, the settlers would've been moved by profound guilt and the land would be theirs today. Same with the buffalo, who should've obeyed the Natives who would've left the buffalo alone, if they had just obeyed their reasonable orders.
Didn't the defense claim that Trayvon WAS armed, because the sidewalk can be a weapon?
Given that, can anyone really believe a black man would be treated the same if he were to assault and kill a white (person, cop) because they had access to the sidewalk?
He couldn't make it as a Speak-n-spell!
Leaned in too far.
Question: Why do American workers get paid more than the third world workers who do exactly the same work?
Do C-suite people in America generally get paid more than the same in Vietnam , Bangalore or Indonesia?
Special treatment = shitty unemployment numbers, even shittier unemployment benefits, and shittier jobs when you can get them.
But they certainly do get the appreciation of a grateful nation!!
I think they're in trouble on accounta they murdered that one black dude. Ya know, in Maryland.
Wasn't Fiery Cross the Ron Paul publication? Because damn if that negro didn't seem fleet-footed!
A white man gone berserk can be just as dangerous as a black man gone berserk.
Can be? Do you subscribe to the superhuman negro theory?
In Missouri, Ferguson has a black majority. The simplest and best local response is for the majority to register and vote.
Couldn't you say though, that freed slaves were given the right to vote, only to have it nullified? And then effectively re-granted after poll taxes, literacy tests, convict-lease and so on were abolished (or simply, renamed)? The Haitians ended slavery and got an Independent nation after violent revolution.
After Kent State, the majority of the public thought the kids got what THEY deserved. Non-violence helped the violent, n'est-ce pas?
Henry Luce, Clair Boothe Luce were Republicans. Time Magazine is not considered liberal by normal people.
the case with O? Or is Time Magazine just another fucked up libby rag?
Time has always been a conservative rag, I believe. Weren't the Luces hard core?
Doesn't AstraZeneca both cause cancer and maintain Breast Cancer Awareness Month (they invented it too?).
Good racket. Buy stock in those creative mother fuckers.
Says the guy who DOESN'T have any children.... Yep, you're definitely a verifiable resource for knowledgeable parenting!!
It's you that made the claim that being a parent is hard, yet anyone with a child is one. And the requirement for being in this prestigious club is to merely forgo contraception. Impressive task! Further complicated by the fact that if you promote the idea that being "a good parent" involves x, y or z, it becomes more of a statement of values than any objective claim.
If a woman is single (perhaps through no fault of her own!), and has to raise children, it is possible that "being a good parent" requires her to work a few jobs to pay the bills, keep the lights on and food on the table. Saving for college costs money and that would be an objective for someone who seeks a better life for her children.
But she will spend time away from the children in their formative years, which would make her relatively absent in the parenting department. Which choice makes her a good parent?
Brush up on your use of the dictionary. It may be dominated by intellectuals, but that doesn't mean you conservatives can't trust the dictionary, right?