Venandi

I really think going there for an extended period of time is the only thing that provides the level of "understanding" which allows rational discussion. Nothing is simple there and the absence of a time machine renders historical perspectives moot. Cool.... let's turn that around because I'm interested in your solution. My first tour there was in 1977 with UNEF, I've been back multiple times (including the MFO follow on mission to UNEF) and I've thought about the "what to do" aspect of all this at some length. Trouble is, a generation of young people have grown up under Hamas and that's hugely problematic, nothing short of the destruction of Israel is acceptable to many of them now and that wasn't the case in 77. Back then I thought it was fixable, not so sure anymore. Music to my desert rat ears Herb, sounds like you have a solution that doesn't require a time machine... I'd love to hear it.

Pulling over a car isn't the same as impounding it because the driver is gay, or Christian, or black, or whatever. Requiring permits for outdoor events is OK too as long as it isn't weaponized... lost here is the idea that this can easily be abused in both directions and certainly will be if we stay the course. I predict you (and few others that agree with you) would feel completely different if the details of this situation were reversed and it applied to something like a drag queen performance with a decidedly anti-Trump flair. Would you be equally indifferent to MAGATs blocking that performance simply because they don't like it? That's what's at risk here.... in short, I'm actually advocating for you and Herb because I have no interest in attending either event. Surely that's the point, and it's not a minor one if you still believe in a healthy free society. Even though I don't support either message and consider both over the top, I still think those so inclined should be free to attend (within the bounds of legality) whether I like it or not. Good Lord, isn't that the fundamental essence of the freedoms we (as a society) previously cherished? Any political party (advocacy group or voting block) that fails this test won't like the inevitable backlash that it spawns. Stay the course and you will always be one election away from screaming Hitler at the next incarnation of MAGATs.

Just my opinion again but low level hate crimes (as opposed to true genocidal forms of racism, ethnic cleansing and the like) is more about hurt feelings than true hatred. There's a pretty clear difference between the two and it raises a few questions. If punched, why is a black man's nose more valuable than mine? If I don't like him and punch him in the nose it's a hate crime as opposed to common assault. If he does the same in reverse it's simply assault and the value of his nose is artificially inflated as a result. Here's the thing though, since the above example clearly qualifies as physical violence the Herbs of the world might be able to convince me that it's a warranted exception to equality under the law. The same can't be said about hurt feelings invoked by someone else's freedom of expression though (in the absence of inciting violence of course). Weaponizing the law to prevent hurt feelings sets a precedent that those in favour of now could easily come to regret in the future. What if fat, anti Trump, atheist Drag Queens want to sing in a private venue that supports their effort? As long as attendance isn't mandatory I would support the right of Herb and Roboduh to host them. Imagine the screams of Hitler if I changed my mind about that simply because I'm offended by it.

I'm having trouble following the logic here. Traffic rules don't exalt nation, race, correct thinking or anything else above the individual or rights of the individual. They're prescribed by regulation for the safe and orderly flow of traffic regardless of the colour of vehicle, or religious / political persuasion of the driver. If white cars were deemed to be racist and perfectly safe automobiles (driven by compliant drivers) were being forcibly removed from road by direction of an autocratic government it might be different. If all of this got stood on its head and the singer in question was devoutly atheist and decidedly anti Trump would you defend his right to perform if his venues were being restricted by those you deem to be MAGATs? If every city council of MAGATs were to weaponize the permit system against him would that be OK? It just seems that you're defending the very actions you (logically) wouldn't want to see applied to yourself in equal and opposite measure at some later date.

Quite the contrary, your wisdom is on full display. Take heart though, help is out there; vote Conservative to get the compassionate and caring treatment you clearly need.

We have your posting history. No need, you do it yourself...

Well, when you say: Most sensible people would observe that you're lying too. You need a new mirror... a little bit of pride might just spare you some embarrassment.

A concept totally lost on the Herbs, Flyers and Robos of the world. I read the OP early this morning and foolishly hoped no one would respond to it. Just consider the title for a moment, nothing but troll spoor, he crapped on the trail to make finding his dumb a$$ easy, no need to be adept at tracking either... you can follow the smell without a patrol dog. Anyone who takes the time to write: Just might be...

Like lawfare, weaponizing the permit system probably sounds like a fine idea now but I can already hear the screams of "Hitler" when the tide turns.... and the tide always turns. Speech is part of expression and if you're going to modify that concept then expect to be bludgeoned with the same club at some point in the future.

But making it the norm isn't productive over the long haul IMO. That seems to be all people are doing now... I think it leads to a see-saw effect that generates its own momentum. You might be overthinking the typo... Gota run, see ya

It's not, at least not yet... and my hope is that democratic efforts to dismantle it prove unsuccessful. So, how does knowing what you don't want translate into making "the American dream" elusive? Only short term madness with no thought of long term consequences could ever accomplish that. You could have easily convinced me to vote for (and support) more immigration, I'd have said "good idea, let's do it up right." That doesn't translate into open the floodgates like a bloody lunatic and ridicule / attack anyone who suggests a measure of moderation and caution.... a little discretion is required. Here in Canada, if you want to import the equivalent of 5 cities the size of Thunder Bay in a single year then cool, we have the land mass to do that; but let's do a few simple logistic and infrastructure assessments. Any child with a hand held calculator could have avoided the situation we and the US now find ourselves in. And as far as the current backlash goes (and there's lots about it I don't like BTW) the question really is WTF did you think was going to happen? Did you honestly think that backlash wasn't on the horizon or that lunatic progressives weren't the cause of it?

Yup, my sentiment exactly. Even though I disagree with a fair bit of "Trump stuff" he's still the least bad option by far. It's breathtaking in a way though, all the Democrats had to do was NOT be bat sh%$ crazy, it should have been an easy win for them. Sometimes knowing what you absolutely don't want is more valuable (in the long run) than chasing an elusive version of what you do.

Implicit in your question is the standard version of "oh YA, well what about this" fallacy. You aren't asking because you want to know, you're simply making a pronouncement you think will stump everyone. Most of the time people who actually do know the answer recognize the fallacy for what it is and just let you run with it. That's what I'll be doing in about 2 minutes BTW. The bible is actually consistent in both testaments about homosexuality being a sin. The difference is that the New Testament offers the hope of redemption and salvation through the redeeming power of Jesus. Simple eh? Even if your only reason for reading the Bible is to trip up Christians and receive applause from the likes of Herb and Flyer, I'd still say it's a good thing, maybe you'll learn something. I'm guessing it won't be humility though...

Like many blanket pronouncements here it must be fun cherrypicking versus of the Bible out of context and thinking everyone just accepts it all face value. This particular quote comes at the end of the parable of 10 minas. In the context you've chosen, It refers to the rejection of Jesus by the Jews of the day and inserts a young noble into the story line in his stead. The parable has multiple facets but in addition to the obvious, it was also addressed to those Jews who seemed devout on the surface but whose devotion was to religious doctrine and not to God... he did it in the form of a parable that would make sense to the people of the time and place. The last portion of it reflects a common outcome (of the time) when a conquering king was defied by the population (or parts of it) that he came to rule over. It was analogous (for the times) as opposed to being the call to arms that (I perceive) you are trying to make it sound like. For those so inclined, cherry picking versus out of the Koran is far more entertaining... but my guess is that you, Herb and Flyer won't be doing that anytime soon.

Ok big guy... if nuking the entire region sounds reasonable to you then I'll stand as unabashedly unhinged.

And your opinion is patently unhinged by virtually any definition of the word. Interestingly enough though I'm actually willing to defend your right to it, see how that sh&^ works herb? Peaceful solutions are messy, as is democracy itself and I'd submit that nuking an entire region because you're tired of them doesn't sound too liberal to me. Hold on a second, now that I think about it....

Well, let's think about it for moment. Other than raving progressives shouting out the window of their safe spaces, what group of people would share the sentiments expressed below? I get the fact that you included the entire region in your target package but that just makes you sound more unhinged than either of the antagonistic groups

A reflection of fundamentalist Islamic sentiment in the area which is a Michelin Chef's recipe for more of what ya already got. One things for sure, when you're that hungry for more there's always seconds to be had and no shortage of servers willing to dish up a helping with your own words engraved on the bowl. I was on the fence before but now it's a hard YES to compelled military service and two foreign deployments.

Including your esteemed presence in theatre smart a$$.

Virtually all of the current strife comes from people trying to force their beliefs, values and agendas on those who don't share them, and likely never will. We already have an app for that and there's no need to invent another one. The only caveat is not breaking the law or hurting other people... it also includes weaponizing the law to deny or limit existing freedoms without compelling reason. IMO, the worst thing you can do (for purely selfish reasons) is allow threats of violence to impinge on the rights of others... meaning those you don't agree with. This works both ways and failing to acknowledge that as a reality means that it automatically works against you at some point in the future. The great see-saw of political reality will certainly come knocking and it will be your turn to ask for the same consideration you seek to deny others of. It should be motivational but never is. Those who hold a magnifying glass over ants of a different colour should remember that the sun shines on them too.

You don't need a permit to hold a religious service or evening of Christian music in a church. In addition (and IMO of course), cancelling virtually any peaceful assembly to appease wild eyed slobbering extremists of any stripe (that's any stripe Herb) is and should be an affront to any sensible person who subscribes to any set of values / freedoms worth defending. Violence or the threat of it should be dealt with head on... I'm left wondering how we got to a point in this country where that needs to be articulated. Must have been a deployment I missed...

Agreed, always seemed to me that people were clamouring for a "contact list" without the slightest consideration of context or culpability. I'm guessing the list is huge and any response to it would be highly(meaning HIGHLY) partisan in nature Any exhaustive list would surely include victims, perpetrators and an abundance of casual contacts with no connection to any wrong doing what so ever. In my brief tenure here I've come to believe that the Robos and Herbs of the world are utterly lacking in the discretion it takes to recognize the difference between them. For them it's as simple as my guy good, your guy bad. In their hands any list becomes a bludgeon for doxing MAGATs and harassing their children on the way to school. I'm now of the opinion that keeping the list under wraps and prosecuting the bad guys individually is the best case scenario. Here's the fun part of that opinion though, for good or ill I wouldn't have thought about it in those terms prior to joining this forum. The thread title itself only serves to amplify my concern.

A few years ago I wouldn't have thought it possible to garner enough support for complete and total madness to form a quorum. It was nothing more than an interesting theory... I was always the one saying noooooo, stop it, they'll never fall for it. Looking back, I failed to acknowledge the power of a unified government, security force, and media cooperative and I'm glad I never made any bets on it. The other thing I failed to acknowledge was the level of investment (in a theory) people will maintain over time. Once fully invested, they rarely admit they were wrong. You can see that right here on the forum... and it doesn't matter a bit what side of the issue you're on either. It's on full display. I never expected that open discussion between peers in an environment of easy access to information would create impenetrable stove pipes; or that those stove pipes could generate as much name calling and hatred as they are clearly capable of doing. Personally, the NS wolf hoax was a turning point for me and anyone unfamiliar with it should google it.... a small scale effort, completely accidental release and shutdown almost immediately, but it had exponentially larger effects than anyone could have anticipated.... funny and sad at the same time. Sort of like a Monty Python skit. I still laugh at the thought of it, especially the email stream that starts with "please tell me this wasn't you guys." I can't see history being kind when future generations study the collective thought process behind efforts like defunding police or clawing shotguns out of the hands of rural duck hunters thinking it will curb drug fuelled ethnic gang violence in Toronto. Show people (meaning true believers) government statistics and they will still maintain course to Crazy Island, absolutely convinced that it's the place to be. Even those whose resolve has flagged a bit will say things like: "well, we had to do something." My fav though is that even knowing that a leaky lab in China was doing GOF research on the self same virus that caused a global pandemic, and that several (four I think) lab workers were hospitalized with covid just prior to a massive spread, that people refused to see the connection and were convinced it was a species jump. Not just persuaded, but utterly supportive of de-platforming, firing and harassing renowned virologists for suggesting we should pause and just think about it for a second. Nope.... LOL, it was a Raccoon Dog from a wet market two blocks away. Almost as funny as the wolf hoax IMO. My goodness, if anyone with a time machine had offered me a bet i(n advance of the pandemic happening), I'd have lost the farm and then some. As a PS, here's a link to the CBC report on the wolf thingy. I couldn't resist reading it again. Some of the comments at the end are worth a glance too: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/leaked-wolf-letter-nova-scotia-1.7093141

And more to the point.... the sort of people who REALLY don't like him but don't believe the "Russian plant / agent" thing for a single second. My only frame of reference here is people who have actually spent lots of time pouring over intelligence assessments as a matter of course. There's a disconnect here between those folks (and they dislike Trump as much a Roboduh does) and the garden variety TDS species found on political forums. The latter group is rabidly inclined to jump on anything that screams orange man bad without actually sniffing it first. This entire effort was sloppily done, like one of those cheater recipes for the "special sauce" at your favourite restaurant. One taste and you know it's not even close... it only fools people who have never eaten at the restaurant and are unwilling to actually drive there and see for themselves. Hand the list of ingredients to a chef and he'll laugh... just like intelligence chefs did at the Hunter Biden laptop memo signed by 51 retired analysts. I even laughed as I typed that because (to me) it's like a lime green Harley Road King... my question is "was it like that when you bought it or did someone vandalize your bike?" I might follow you (out of curiosity) for a bit to see if you drop it at the next light but that's about the extent of my interest. If you're wearing a lime green jacket and matching helmet though I'll probably follow a little bit further out of a sense of "shock and awe." This is that... Sorry, it's the best analogy I can come up with before coffee.

The definition was modified in order to capture it... Answers to biology based questions were Phd level but the questions themselves certainly weren't. Spike protein toxicity was an issue early on and the presence of lipid nanoparticles begged questions about the distribution and inflammation effects that we now know were well worth asking about in advance. People either get that or they don't and it's a good place to start any discussion... if they don't get it at that level I move on and let them think what they want. Here's another one: The definition of domestic terrorism doesn't cover the convoy actions, they actually had military officers (retired I think) to assist with CCC and they did that for good reason... it worked brilliantly. If people are unable or unwilling to compare observed actions with legal definitions I move on. The government campaign was an easily anticipated information management exercise and the Nazi flag is case study in point. People citing that should review the details: things like viewing time, position and angle for the pictures taken, who it was that actually took the picture and who it was that demanded the flag be removed. Some casual acquaintances (whose opinions I ignore) where fond of telling me exactly what was going on in the locations I was deployed to... those sentiments were about as valuable as many of the ones being expressed here. It used to bug me a bit but mostly I just nod sagely and let them enjoy the moment now. Doing that gets easier with practice... then again there would be little in the way of entertainment here if everybody adopted that as an SOP.