Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:23 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
The Left's Children's Crusade 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4287
Location: NC
Thanks: 1767
Thanked: 1831 times in 1386 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
Harry Marks wrote:
geo wrote:
Yes, the Second Amendment's emphasis was on the militias, not on private individuals, as many constitutional scholars have discussed over the years. Either way, there are different views on the subject. Though it's your opinion that the Second Amendment absolutely guarantees individual rights to own any gun, that's not the case in the real world.
You mean they might have left out the "militias" part if that was their intent? Not one of Scalia's most consistent moments as an originalist.

Indeed, the NRA's focus used to be on sportsmanship and hunting, but everything changed in the late 1970s when, under new leadership, the group became anti-government and all about the Second Amendment. In other words, the NRA became dogmatic and ideological. And today it's basically a political action committee, whose primary goal is to influence elections and legislation.

Today, at the NRA's headquarters in Fairfax, VA, a plague in the lobby reads: ".. the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” They left out the part about the militias so in keeping with the new narrative that the Second Amendment is all about the right of the individual. It wasn't and isn't. The deleted part says a lot about what the organization is all about today.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
Harry Marks
Sun Mar 18, 2018 9:33 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Needs a book hoarding intervention

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1939
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 66
Thanked: 707 times in 547 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
Kinda Skolarly wrote:
Clear evidence of how ill-informed the children being used as pawns are. This student thinks an AR-15 makes deer explode:

Gun advocates frequently resort to technicalities in order to distract. It does not matter that these folks just saw 17 of their friends gunned down. It does not matter that any jackwagon who uses a 30 shot capacity assault rifle to go deer hunting deserves to be ostracized by both hunting and gun rights communities.

No, according to gun advocates, what's important in this tragedy is one individual misunderstood the hydrostatic shock of a bullet entering a large animal. But even that technicality doesn't really matter: if he had misstated the trigger pull of an AR15 by 5 Lbs, the same arguments would have been unloaded against him.

These individuals are behaving perceptibly differently than a doormat in the face of the NRA and other gun advocates. That is why they must be attacked.



The following user would like to thank LanDroid for this post:
Harry Marks
Sun Mar 18, 2018 7:51 pm
Profile
Years of membership
Asleep in Reading Chair


Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 177
Location: Texas
Thanks: 7
Thanked: 64 times in 52 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
I've made my points here, the primary one being that the left is shamelessly exploiting children for a political agenda.

Marxists hate themselves and hate humanity, so disarming children fits in with that. Drug them and make sure they won't have guns when they grow up...easier to enslave them if you do that.

The left is so blinded by unfocused rage that it can't even see the NRA is a gun-grabbing organization. Every time a major gun action comes up, the president of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, either gives in outright or tells the NRA membership to stand down. He says congress or the white house would never dare follow through with threats against guns, so don't worry, stand down. That lulls the members into complacency and then the restrictive gun action goes into effect. Because the NRA membership didn't keep the government honest. So the NRA is a GOOD thing for the left. But the left can't see that. They just want somebody to scream at, so their leaders point them at the NRA.

GOA (Gun Owners of America) is a good gun organization. As is JPFO (Jews for the preservation of firearms ownership). I just checked their site and found this:

"No Guns for Negroes " exposes the racist history of American gun control laws. Every person who supports gun control laws must be shown this film or gun ownership will cease to exist in America. NEW - Read a very relevant article - "The Racist Roots of Gun Control" by Clayton E. Cramer.

http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ngn-download-view.htm

Blacks bought guns after the Civil War. Whites passed laws against it. The left now wants to make sure EVERYBODY on the Marxist plantation is disarmed.

Get a clue, people. Hitler disarmed the Jews. What happened to them then? JPFO will 'splain it to you if you go to their site.


_________________


Sun Mar 18, 2018 11:05 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Has memorized The Illiad

Book Discussion Leader

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1086
Thanks: 1008
Thanked: 496 times in 411 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
KindaSkolarly wrote:
Marxists
Okay, we're in alternate reality, here, clearly.
KindaSkolarly wrote:
the NRA is a gun-grabbing organization.
As I said . . .
KindaSkolarly wrote:
"No Guns for Negroes " exposes the racist history of American gun control laws.
But then, there is also evidence that the second amendment was a racist play. Everything in American history is tainted by racism, because that's America.
KindaSkolarly wrote:
The left now wants to make sure EVERYBODY on the Marxist plantation is disarmed.

Because then we could have a peaceful society where people don't pull assault rifles on those they don't like. We could be like New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Finland, Germany, France, Britain, Ireland, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, and Canada . . . a bunch of enslaved victims controlled by Marxist overlords.



The following user would like to thank Harry Marks for this post:
DWill, geo
Mon Mar 19, 2018 2:46 am
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6069
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1658
Thanked: 1789 times in 1372 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
KindaSkolarly wrote:
Every time a major gun action comes up, the president of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, either gives in outright or tells the NRA membership to stand down.

Mr. LaPierre is such a softie, yes. Loved his performance at CPAC.

I didn't think it would be possible to long for the good old days of the NRA, but I was wrong. Not all that long ago (but it does seems like ages), the NRA held positions that were right in line with present-day reformers of gun laws. I found this summary from my favorite magazine, The Week, to be helpful.
Quote:
When was the NRA founded?
In 1871, by two Civil War veterans in New York—one of them a former New York Times reporter. They, along with the National Rifle Association’s first president, Union Gen. Ambrose Burnside, hoped to improve the dismal shooting abilities of the average Union soldier. (Yankee troops fired 1,000 rounds for every bullet that struck a Confederate soldier, according to an official study.) Their original mission focused on hunting, conservation, and marksmanship; there was no mention of protecting the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Indeed, for nearly a century, the NRA actively lobbied for gun control—​co-authoring gun restrictions with the government right up until the 1970s. “Historically,” says UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, “the leadership of the NRA was more open-minded about gun control than someone familiar with the modern NRA might imagine.”

What restrictions did they endorse?
The NRA backed the nation’s first federal gun laws after the Prohibition Era, when tommy gun–wielding gangsters warred in the streets of Chicago. The National Firearms Acts of 1934 and 1938 placed heavy taxes and regulations on machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, and silencers; prohibited felons from owning weapons; and required gun owners to register with the federal government. NRA leader Karl T. Frederick not only endorsed the legislation, he went so far as to state, “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

How long did that position last?
Right through the 1960s, when assassinations and street violence rocked the nation. When it emerged that Lee Harvey Oswald had used a rifle purchased via an NRA mail-order advertisement to assassinate President John F. Kennedy in 1963, NRA executive vice president Franklin Orth backed the banning of mail-order sales. And when members of the Black Panther Party marched on the California Capitol carrying shotguns and rifles, the NRA supported state legislation prohibiting “open carry” in public places. “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons,” said then Gov. Ronald Reagan. After gunmen assassinated Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, Congress passed the Gun Control Act of 1968. The law imposed various new restrictions, including on the shipping of guns across state lines.

When did things change?
By 1968, there were rumbles of rebellion against gun control within the NRA. Though the organization supported the Gun Control Act, it blocked attempts to include a national gun registry and a requirement for all gun carriers to hold a license. Then in 1971, federal agents shot and paralyzed longtime NRA member Kenyon Ballew during a gun raid at his home in Maryland. Anti-government sentiment surged within the ranks, and hard-liners became increasingly impatient with the leadership’s “soft” stance. Things came to a head on the night of May 21, 1977—known in NRA lore as the Revolt at Cincinnati—when gun-rights radicals stormed the group’s annual meeting in Ohio and demanded changes to the governing structure. The old guard was ousted, and new Executive Vice President Harlon Carter, who had served time for shooting dead a Mexican teenager, spelled out the new approach: “No compromise. No gun legislation.” The NRA would become an organization “so strong,” said Carter, “that no politician in America mindful of his political career would want to challenge [our] goals.”

How did it build its power?
The NRA began grading politicians from A to F on gun-control legislation. Those with the best report cards were given campaign money; the rest earned the wrath of the NRA’s ballooning membership, which tripled following the Cincinnati revolt. Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.) complained of a “litmus test every five minutes.” The leadership adopted a new motto—“The Right of the People to Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed”—and waded deeper into the culture wars, fueled by the spread of Waco-inspired conspiracy theories about gun-confiscating government forces in black helicopters. Each piece of gun legislation was framed as the first step toward total disarmament, driving members to the ballot box. By 2000, new NRA President Charlton Heston was challenging Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore to pry Heston’s Colonial-era musket “from my cold, dead hands.” Gore lost the election; a year later, Fortune named the NRA the most powerful lobbying group in Washington.

What about recent years?
Led by Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, the NRA continues to exert huge political influence. In 2013, when support for universal background checks rose to 91 percent after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the organization blocked congressional efforts to pass background-check amendments. The activism of its 4 million members is perhaps its strongest asset. Gun-rights supporters are four times as likely to have donated money and written a politician about the issue as gun-control advocates, according to one study. Those members are unmoved by stories about their early leaders’ support for gun control. “Then was then,” said one NRA supporter recently, on Guns & Ammo’s online forum. “Now is now.”

The corporations calling the shots
The NRA used to tout its independence from gun manufacturers—branding itself as the century-old voice of average-joe hunters and sport shooters. Today, though, the organization bolsters its funds with million-dollar donations from 22 different gun makers, including Smith & Wesson and Beretta USA. The NRA received up to $52.6 million in industry donations between 2005 and 2013, according to one report—and from some gun and ammo companies, it makes $1 from every purchase. The gun manufacturers’ influence is clear: Today, the NRA’s answer to every mass shooting is more firearms—even in schools and churches. “Today’s NRA is a virtual subsidiary of the gun industry,” said Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, a gun-control organization. “While the NRA portrays itself as protecting the freedom of individual gun owners, it’s actually working to protect the freedom of the gun industry to manufacture and sell virtually any weapon or accessory.”


THE WEEK (March 23)



The following user would like to thank DWill for this post:
Harry Marks
Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:02 pm
Profile
Years of membership
Asleep in Reading Chair


Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 177
Location: Texas
Thanks: 7
Thanked: 64 times in 52 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
The anti-gun march in Washington DC this past weekend. So disgusting to see the gray-haired old communistas herding those kids around. The leftists' stances on the Second Amendment would sound absurd coming from an adult's mouth, so they have to kidnap children to say the lines. And it's all paid for by the Democratic National Committee. Leftists are using children for electoral advantage.

Image

This is a campaign of sheer emotion. The "logic" that's been put forth is that we must choose to protect either children or gun rights--we can't do both. This is similar to what we were told after the 9/11 attacks--we must give up freedom for security. But if we give up freedom, do we not get enslavement? The same with protecting children. If protecting children is the goal, can we not use guns? A security guard in Maryland used a gun to stop a school shooting the other day.

cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/great-mills-high- ... index.html

The world is turning with a vengeance on the leftists and their central banks. Without drastic measures, those groups will lose control of the Long March to global dictatorship. Brexit was a huge blow, Hillary Clinton losing the election was a huge blow. Clinton was probably assigned the task of eradicating the US Bill of Rights, but she failed to get elected. So now the Leftists are putting their agenda in the mouths of babes. Disgusting.


_________________


Thu Mar 29, 2018 6:58 pm
Profile Email
Years of membership
Asleep in Reading Chair


Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 177
Location: Texas
Thanks: 7
Thanked: 64 times in 52 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
Here's a twist on the Children's Crusade:

REFUGEE LATEST: Two-thirds of UK ‘child’ refugees quizzed are actually adults
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/94338 ... lum-seeker

So, the "children" flooding into the UK are actually military-aged men. Talk about a crusade. And London surpassed New York City last month in murders, even though the leftists are so distraught over the horrible gun culture in the US:

London Passes New York City in Murders for First Time Ever
http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... time-ever/

O, the irony.


_________________


Mon Apr 09, 2018 8:12 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membership
Intern


Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 172
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Thanks: 16
Thanked: 77 times in 61 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)
Highscores: 5

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
Your first post in this thread was mostly ok, I thought. But then you said this in your second post:

KindaSkolarly wrote:
That's a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome you have there.


That was enough to paint you into a corner. That was enough for me to see everything you write with a negative filter, to put it very politely.



Thu Apr 12, 2018 12:49 pm
Profile Email
Years of membership
Asleep in Reading Chair


Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 177
Location: Texas
Thanks: 7
Thanked: 64 times in 52 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
This truly amazes me:

Parkland Teacher Calls Survivor 'Hitler' After Student Goes To Gun Range

Parkland, FL – A teacher at the Florida School where 17 students were gunned down is being investigated for alleged comments made comparing a Jewish pro-Second Amendment student to Hitler and saying he was “dangerous.”

themaven.net/bluelivesmatter/news/parkl ... QQ/?full=1

That incident illustrates how far off the rails the Left in America has gone.


_________________


Wed May 02, 2018 10:27 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Has memorized The Illiad

Book Discussion Leader

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1086
Thanks: 1008
Thanked: 496 times in 411 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
KindaSkolarly wrote:
That incident illustrates how far off the rails the Left in America has gone.
There are certainly a lot of off-the-rails perspectives among people on the left. As there are among people on the right. I think we already knew that.

KindaSkolarly wrote:
saying he was “dangerous.”
Correct me if I misunderstood, but isn't the whole point of the defense of the Second Amendment an argument that people with guns are dangerous? I mean, they want to be dangerous, right?



Thu May 03, 2018 4:36 am
Profile Email
Years of membership
Asleep in Reading Chair


Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 177
Location: Texas
Thanks: 7
Thanked: 64 times in 52 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
Harry Marks wrote:
Correct me if I misunderstood, but isn't the whole point of the defense of the Second Amendment an argument that people with guns are dangerous? I mean, they want to be dangerous, right?

The point of the Second Amendment is to have a citizenry that's dangerous to tyrants. When the Bill of Rights was written, the US had just defeated King George and didn't want him coming back. So citizens were reminded that they could own weapons. Guns in the hands of citizens stopped England once again in the War of 1812, so gun ownership works.

But back to using children in crusades. There are so many stories regarding this in the news lately. And it seems pointless to post links to the stories because people will grouse about Fox News or CNN or whatever. It's easy as pie to search and find your own "reliable" sources now, so look up "children Mexico caravan." Chances are that you'll pull up a bunch of sentimental pieces about a mom and a handful of kids being denied their dream after traveling from Central America.

But the caravan through Mexico was an assault on America. A corridor was carved out, and Mexico allowed passage along that corridor from its southern to its northern border. Now that the route has been worked out we can expect to see a flood of people coming into the country, à la the Middle Eastern and African invasion of Europe.

Erdogan of Turkey created corridors to channel military-aged men across his country, Hillary Clinton and Obama murdered Khadaffi in order to create corridors for Africans to use through Libya, and now a corridor has been created by George Soros and the Left through Mexico.

What's going on is a worldwide resettlement program. Stalin moved millions around, and the Inca would relocate whole tribes that they conquered, so the practice of moving people in order to destroy societies has been going on for a while. But not on this scale. The people who own and run the world want to destroy the west, so they carve corridors for invaders to move along. While we're told teary-eyed stories about dreaming children. The people who write those stories and shepherd them into print are the worst kind of predators. They use kids to advance an agenda that is anti-kid. When you move millions of bodies it will be the smallest that get crushed. I hate the Left's globalization plan with a passion. America hates it too, and that's why Trump was elected.

Trump's son-in-law recently said that Trump won't receive the Nobel Peace Prize because the global elite would never allow it. It was SO GOOD to hear that kind of honest speech coming from the White House for a change. And Americans seem to be developing a taste for honest speech lately. Trump's support among black males jumped from 11% to 22% the week after Kanye West spoke about supporting Trump. The Left is in a panic about this. They MUST have the bloc of black votes to win anything nationally, and blacks are fed up with the Left's plantation mentality:

Image

Anyway, my mind fogs, myfingers fumble, and all I know is that we need to learn how to take care of ourselves before we can hope to take care of children. Any political story that leads with a mention of children is making a grab for your heart, and most of those stories should be discounted at the start.


_________________


Wed May 09, 2018 11:07 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Has memorized The Illiad

Book Discussion Leader

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1086
Thanks: 1008
Thanked: 496 times in 411 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
KindaSkolarly wrote:
The point of the Second Amendment is to have a citizenry that's dangerous to tyrants. When the Bill of Rights was written, the US had just defeated King George and didn't want him coming back. So citizens were reminded that they could own weapons.
That makes sense to me. What makes me nervous is that you freely toss around labels like "Marxist" for people like me who are liberals and believe as deeply as one can believe in democratic means to go with our democratic ends. So if you are dangerous to tyrants, and in your eyes I am a Marxist, what am I left to conclude?



The following user would like to thank Harry Marks for this post:
KindaSkolarly
Fri May 11, 2018 6:26 am
Profile Email
Years of membership
Asleep in Reading Chair


Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 177
Location: Texas
Thanks: 7
Thanked: 64 times in 52 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
Harry Marks wrote:
KindaSkolarly wrote:
The point of the Second Amendment is to have a citizenry that's dangerous to tyrants. When the Bill of Rights was written, the US had just defeated King George and didn't want him coming back. So citizens were reminded that they could own weapons.
That makes sense to me. What makes me nervous is that you freely toss around labels like "Marxist" for people like me who are liberals and believe as deeply as one can believe in democratic means to go with our democratic ends. So if you are dangerous to tyrants, and in your eyes I am a Marxist, what am I left to conclude?

You should probably conclude that a bunch of people consider you a menace. Whether you know it or not (and I'm not attempting to talk down to you), but your "liberalism" is being fed to you by Marxists. Obama and Hillary Clinton are proteges of Saul Alinsky and the Frankfurt School. One of Obama's mentors, Bill Ayers, helped author a book called Prairie Fire when his Weather Underground group disbanded in the early 70's. All of those gurus preached Marxism, and their students are now running the Left in America. And under their guidance the Left is practicing the kind of rigid control-freakism that was a hallmark of Hitler's National Socialists. The Left is banning free speech right and left but saying we have to be tolerant of the Left's speech. I mean, your "liberal" leaders are behaving like Nazis.

Image

Image

http://www.zombietime.com/prairie_fire/

What else? The term "liberal." Don't know if I've mentioned this here but Charlton Heston marched with the civil rights marchers in the 60's. His point back then was, like MLK's, that we should judge people on the content of their characters rather than the color of their skins. Judge individuals, not groups. Fast forward, decades later, and Heston was a Libertarian talking about taking his gun from his cold, dead hand. He was vilified for that, but his motivating mindset was still the same as it had been in the 60's--a reverence for individual liberty. Liberty, Liberal and Libertarian stem from the same root. So how did Liberal come to mean Collectivist? Or Democratic? Democracy is mob rule by 51%. Heston maintained a respect for individual liberty his whole life, yet at the end of his life the "tolerant liberals" in America attacked him for his beliefs.

At any rate, I know you analyze things deeply, and my superficial observations may not account for much, but maybe you can tell me how the Left became so hateful and divisive and intolerant of individual dissent. I think the answer is to be found in Alinsky's techniques (applied by Clinton and Obama), and in... Obama and The Children's Crusade. I just remembered something that's actually germane to this thread's topic.

Nikolas Cruz, the alleged shooter at the school in Parkland Florida, was born in Russia. In America he adopted the name of Cruz. So, under Obama's racist Promise Program, Cruz' disciplinary issues at school were under-reported because he was (on paper) Hispanic. Obama wanted minorities to be disciplined less, so he ordered that they be given a free pass when they acted up in school. So even though Cruz was Russian-born, probably suffers from fetal-alcohol syndrome, probably was medicated to the gills, made constant threats of violence, even though he had all of those issues going on, the school looked the other way because of his make-believe ethnicity. It could be argued that Obama's racist policies were responsible for the Parkland school shooting. I'll put some links to this topic below. I couldn't believe the media didn't scream about the Promise program when it was announced in 2011. Imagine if Trump ordered that white kids shouldn't be disciplined.

americanthinker.com/blog/2018/02/how_fe ... earms.html

washingtonexaminer.com/schools-more-dan ... l-policies

There are lots of articles about the Promise program online, as well as articles about Obama's other education-wrecking policies.


_________________


Fri May 11, 2018 11:10 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Has memorized The Illiad

Book Discussion Leader

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1086
Thanks: 1008
Thanked: 496 times in 411 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
KindaSkolarly wrote:
Harry Marks wrote:
So if you are dangerous to tyrants, and in your eyes I am a Marxist, what am I left to conclude?

You should probably conclude that a bunch of people consider you a menace.

Refreshing to correspond with someone who can recognize the obvious, but then it should be clear why a teacher in Florida referred to Second Amendment advocates as dangerous.

KindaSkolarly wrote:
Whether you know it or not (and I'm not attempting to talk down to you), but your "liberalism" is being fed to you by Marxists.
I'm not worried about being talked down to. Have at it. What worries me is the need to see invisible strings determining my views. I think things through for myself, and arrive at my own conclusions. I'm not going to argue that no one on the left takes their views from a herd mentality (or the right either) but it strikes me as spectacular when someone simply cannot fathom the idea that the other side is thinking.

KindaSkolarly wrote:
Obama and Hillary Clinton are proteges of Saul Alinsky and the Frankfurt School.
Alinsky was a genius. I don't agree with all of his thinking, but he showed that major institutions care enough about their reputation to clean up their act. Unlike our current dear leader, they know enough to be ashamed of shameful behavior.

KindaSkolarly wrote:
The Left is banning free speech right and left but saying we have to be tolerant of the Left's speech.
I have had a few arguments on line with people who want to ban hate speech. I read about the strange cases on campus that pop up now and then. It is approximately similar to the way "Christian" colleges exercise intolerance against people who disagree with them. None of it is pro-democratic, so all of it is foolish.

KindaSkolarly wrote:
I mean, your "liberal" leaders are behaving like Nazis.
Not even close. Met any Nazis?

KindaSkolarly wrote:
The term "liberal." Don't know if I've mentioned this here but Charlton Heston marched with the civil rights marchers in the 60's. His point back then was, like MLK's, that we should judge people on the content of their characters rather than the color of their skins. Judge individuals, not groups.
His courage should be saluted. Not everyone who marched in those marches survived. Their opponents freely labeled them "collectivist" and argued that violence against them was justified by the federal government "taking away freedom".

KindaSkolarly wrote:
Fast forward, decades later, and Heston was a Libertarian talking about taking his gun from his cold, dead hand. He was vilified for that, but his motivating mindset was still the same as it had been in the 60's--a reverence for individual liberty. Liberty, Liberal and Libertarian stem from the same root. So how did Liberal come to mean Collectivist? Or Democratic? Democracy is mob rule by 51%.
I think most of us get that the constitution protects people's liberty from majoritarian oppression. That's what the civil rights movement was all about. It's an important reason to hold in contempt those who treat the constitution as a personal convenience to be taken advantage of.

KindaSkolarly wrote:
Heston maintained a respect for individual liberty his whole life, yet at the end of his life the "tolerant liberals" in America attacked him for his beliefs.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. People criticizing other people for their beliefs is part of the process. Personally I only ever heard him criticized for being a dupe for the gun industry and the extremism of Wayne LaPierre.

KindaSkolarly wrote:
maybe you can tell me how the Left became so hateful and divisive and intolerant of individual dissent.
I think a certain part of the left is naturally intolerant, as with many other views on the spectrum. There is an institutionalized intolerance in Marxism/Leninism (the real thing, not the imaginations of people about Obama or the Clintons) that was originally a reaction against the secret police of Europe in the 19th century. The aristocracy was trying to defend its position against Revolution, the overturning of aristocratic privilege that started with the French (or maybe with the British and Dutch even earlier). They oppressed freely, so the Leninists felt that only fools refuse to be ruthless.

If you are talking about intolerance of conservative opinions, my observation is that it isn't conservative opinions per se that generate intolerant reactions. (I googled "David Brooks shouted down" just to be sure I hadn't missed some incident.) But people who freely justify aggressive behavior against others, or freely justify spreading lies in the name of freedom, or freely justify trashing constitutional protection of individuals, tend to arouse the same kind of paranoia that you are exhibiting. So these leftists seem to conclude that hate speech, to pick an example, is too much of a threat to be tolerated. I can remember when lots of kinds of speech were considered too much of a threat to be tolerated. It seems to be a common conclusion that people come to. That's one of many reasons why rule of law is important.

KindaSkolarly wrote:
So, under Obama's racist Promise Program, Cruz' disciplinary issues at school were under-reported because he was (on paper) Hispanic. Obama wanted minorities to be disciplined less, so he ordered that they be given a free pass when they acted up in school.
I haven't studied up on it enough to claim any expertise, but my understanding was that the Promise Program was an effort to be conscious and intentional about discipline, to offset the bias that causes minority kids to be treated worse for the same kind of behavior. I think the goal was a reasonable one, even though it is difficult to oppose these unconscious biases without infringing on liberties. In principle that's all Affirmative Action is, and so far the courts have been pretty scrupulous about keeping it that way.
KindaSkolarly wrote:
So even though Cruz was Russian-born, probably suffers from fetal-alcohol syndrome, probably was medicated to the gills, made constant threats of violence, even though he had all of those issues going on, the school looked the other way because of his make-believe ethnicity.
My understanding is that this was one of several factors contributing to the warnings being insufficiently heeded. If it was the only incident of school shootings or mass shootings then the personal factors in that case should be the predominant ones to be considered. But nobody alleges racially biased coddling caused Las Vegas, or Sandy Hook, or Columbine, or any of the others in a long list. Fine, if the Promise Program is systematically causing problems, let's investigate it and fix it or scrap it, as appropriate. But I guarantee you that won't stop school shootings.

KindaSkolarly wrote:
I couldn't believe the media didn't scream about the Promise program when it was announced in 2011. Imagine if Trump ordered that white kids shouldn't be disciplined.

There are lots of articles about the Promise program online, as well as articles about Obama's other education-wrecking policies.

I've read a few of these kinds of articles. It astonishes me that people take seriously this kind of ideological polemic. Sweeping generalizations ("ordered that minorities shouldn't be disciplined", "education-wrecking") are built on a few anecdotes and often a hefty dose of misinformation. This is Rush Limbaugh's stock in trade. Do you ever think about holding these people accountable? Checking on their record of accuracy, for example?



Sat May 12, 2018 2:57 am
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6069
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1658
Thanked: 1789 times in 1372 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
Harry Marks wrote:
KindaSkolarly wrote:
The point of the Second Amendment is to have a citizenry that's dangerous to tyrants. When the Bill of Rights was written, the US had just defeated King George and didn't want him coming back. So citizens were reminded that they could own weapons.
That makes sense to me. What makes me nervous is that you freely toss around labels like "Marxist" for people like me who are liberals and believe as deeply as one can believe in democratic means to go with our democratic ends. So if you are dangerous to tyrants, and in your eyes I am a Marxist, what am I left to conclude?

It doesn't make sense to me. It is the Constitution itself that provides the means to prevent tyranny. The militias were for national defense. To think that so much about militias was tucked into the Constitution because the framers were concerned that their founding blueprint wouldn't work is frankly a bit ridiculous.



The following user would like to thank DWill for this post:
Harry Marks
Sat May 12, 2018 5:31 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2018. All rights reserved.


seo for beginners