Chaos in USA

[boing]

I do have great respect for our various opponents, in fact I get an odd satisfaction that we occasionally got our backsides kicked by them. Too much pride and confidence is a bad thing and it does not hurt to be humbled. Due consideration for the poor soldiers involved in the battles of course.

You do however aid my case that good fighters are not necessarily of high education.
.

[TheGreenGoblin]

I do have great respect for our various opponents, in fact I get an odd satisfaction that we occasionally got our backsides kicked by them. Too much pride and confidence is a bad thing and it does not hurt to be humbled. Due consideration for the poor soldiers involved in the battles of course.

You do however aid my case that good fighters are not necessarily of high education.
.

Well perhaps in a sense the majority will not be highly educated, but all this begs the question about what high education is, and I would argue that it all depends on context, and the required task? For example, it is all very well having a PhD in physics, but when you are tracking an enemy in the Kalahari desert, and are short of water, you turn to a Khoi tracker who has no formal education at all, to track your enemy and lead you to water. In that context the PhD is ephemeral unless of course, the holder has been tutored by the Khoi. Genius sits unannounced in the most interesting of contexts sometimes, and does not necessarily conform to traditional Western norms. Cometh the hour, cometh the man.

[k3k3]

Well said Gob!

[ian16th]

1967 - the Constitution does not say the government is not allowed to mandate DOT bars on trucks.
1982 - the Constitution does not say the government is not allowed to mandate packaging on Tylenol bottles.
1995 - the Constitution does not say the government is not allowed to mandate restrictions on purchases of fertilizer.
2001 - the Constitution does not say the government is not allowed to force people to take their shoes off before boarding.
for over 250 years the Constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed" by the government.

Once you people understand how the US Constitution works (it does not grant rights, it limits what rights the government has) you will understand why the things like trucks, pill bottles, fertilizer, and shoes can be mucked with, but arms cannot.

The US Constitution does not, and never has said, that the people have the right to bear arms.

The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution, December 15, 1791 says this.

The fact that the US Constitution allows amendments, is a tacit admission that it is not infallible and circumstances may occur, that require amendments.

A future amendment may remove this right to bear arms.

Wrong again. Nobody can remove a right. What future amendments may attempt is to allow the government to infringe the right to bear arms, but the chances of it passing are somewhere between 0 and nil. Until then "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed" by the government.

Don't kid yourself, if they want to do it they will!

Just like they found a way round the habeas corpus laws with Guantanamo Bay.

[boing]

Exactly GG, I agree entirely which is why I would be cautious to rate a movement based on published photos of its supporters. I am actually cautious of believing any video unless it's a live broadcast.

Here is a video my son sent to me. I purports to show a tough Texan who is now praising certain Democrats. Don't bother with the first 3m50s unless you like whiny voices but start at 3m50s and you will see a strange circular inset of the fellow drinking from a jam-jar appears on the left of the screen. The inset seems totally pointless but slightly following the appearance of the inset the fellow turns slightly to his left exposing the badge on his right shoulder. If you slow down the motion you see that the badge says "PRESS". The appearance of the circular inset was intended to hide the "PRESS" badge but it does not entirely work. At 4m6s the "PRESS" badge is clearly readable. So much for our tough, independent, Texan.



.

[TheGreenGoblin]

Exactly GG, I agree entirely which is why I would be cautious to rate a movement based on published photos of its supporters. I am actually cautious of believing any video unless it's a live broadcast.

So much for our tough, independent, Texan.



.

Toughness is a state of mind methinks, and is often found in the most unlikely of bodies, clad in very "untough" outfits, and is an attribute that is to be found in both males and females.

[ian16th]

Listen very carefully to his accent. He could be a Brit putting on the Texan accent!

The other 'Anglophile' oddity is the patch that reads 'Rule .303'.

Just the right size for a Lee-Enfield!

[boing]

The "Rule 303" refers to the famous incident with "Breaker" Morant in the Boer War. It is a synonym for "Kangaroo Court" wherein the 303 dispensed "justice".

I was very surprised by the 303 badge and wondered if he knew what it meant. Apparently some viewer explained it to him later. I think he was trying to make the point that he is really a tough guy taking a "reasonable" position.

Ian, you are right about the accent. Can't quite place it but it certainly isn't country boy Texan as he would like us to believe.

The whole display is a PR department attempt to create a "tough guy converted to Democrat" image. Note the ammunition cases and survival gear behind him, even a military helmet for God's sake. Basically the background is a display of what the East Coast PR department imagines is real Texan normality.


.

[4mastacker]

You get a half-decent view of the 'PRESS' badge at about 2:52 as well.

[ian16th]

Ian, you are right about the accent. Can't quite place it but it certainly isn't country boy Texan as he would like us to believe.

Go and listen to the very beginning again. In the 1st sentence, to me he seems to be sort of 'tuning in'.

[Dushan]

The US Constitution does not, and never has said, that the people have the right to bear arms.

The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution, December 15, 1791 says this.

The fact that the US Constitution allows amendments, is a tacit admission that it is not infallible and circumstances may occur, that require amendments.

A future amendment may remove this right to bear arms.

Wrong again. Nobody can remove a right. What future amendments may attempt is to allow the government to infringe the right to bear arms, but the chances of it passing are somewhere between 0 and nil. Until then "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed" by the government.

Don't kid yourself, if they want to do it they will!

Just like they found a way round the habeas corpus laws with Guantanamo Bay.

It’s one thing to find loopholes in order to water board a bunch of rag heads; it’s another to try to eff with 300 million armed citizens.

[John Hill]

It’s one thing to find loopholes in order to water board a bunch of rag heads; it’s another to try to eff with 300 million armed citizens.

All those armed citizens couldn't even keep Trump in the Oval Office.

[llondel]

The way you "fix" the 2nd Amendment is to redefine "arms". You're already not allowed various types of munitions, so clearly they're not considered "arms", and so we deduce there is a line to be drawn somewhere. There is a school of thought that says that weapons should be restricted to those available at the time the amendment was written, which might be interesting to watch if the government ever tried it.

[John Hill]

The 2nd could be fixed by banning gun possession by certain races.

[OFSO]

And now Tiger Woods. What next?

[k3k3]

Tiger Woods accident investigators found no signs of braking or swerving, so was he asleep or texting?

[llondel]

Apparently they asked his caddy, who confirmed that the driver was still in the bag.

[PHXPhlyer]

He was late for a video shoot.
At least he is not "The Late Tiger Woods".

PP

[TheGreenGoblin]

One wonders if this will, sadly, bring his career to an end? Apparently his leg injury has necessitated surgery and the use of rods and screws to put it all back together again.

[1DC]

Both legs I believe