“I’m not as sanguine about the speech, because he gives Communism some validity that it can somehow help the poor and oppressed. It’s a bit too SJW. Plus, he didn’t have much credibility about living the life of a good Christian. As for the clergyman who introduced a young and impressionable Hillary to Communist politics, he deserves some serious scrutiny. I absolutely believe she sold her soul to Satan for power and influence. The late Fr. Malachi Martin discussed the subject to an extent on Art Bell’s radio show back in the ‘90s (you can find them on Youtube). They are interesting and very frightening. Anyone who is a disciple of Alinsky is a disciple of Satan. As for Alveda King, she is largely ignored by the media because she isn’t a left-winger. Typical treatment for Blacks who have left the Democrat plantation, they’re either ignored or vilified.”
Regarding King and whether it’s SJW, maybe, but it’s still at least repudiating enough that he specifically concluded they can never come together at all, so he at least deserves respect for that (and either way is STILL better than Jesse Jackson’s blatant promotion of Fidel Castro, even BEFORE the whole running for office thing). And to be fair, a lot of people don’t exactly have credibility of being a good Christian, can’t even say I myself might be one. Heck, Donald Trump defends the Christian faith and Western Civilization right now, and defends Israel right now, yet I’m not entirely sure I can say he’s a good Christian if we go down to personal morals (though I’ll say this much, regardless of how he’s like, he’s got FAR better morals than the Clintons). Not saying bad about him, since like I said, he at least earned my loyalty, far more than just tolerating him enough in a failed attempt to ensure Obama or similar people never won the Presidency.
And as far as Alinsky, yeah, doesn’t help either that he actually dedicated his book to Satan. Sometimes I wish when Jesus during his three days of death just killed Satan and exterminated his followers, then robbed us of our free will, or heck, his father do that.
“That might describe a few, the total nihilists, but most want an escape plan. They’re willing to sacrifice the whole world so long as they can get away. Even Che Guevera didn’t want to be a martyr in desperately trying to cut a deal with the troops who caught him in Bolivia. Ultimately, they’re mostly egotistical cowards.”
Yeah, he did, begged for his life for a publicity trial akin to what Debres got from what I heard. Makes me feel very cynical about mercy, really... enough that if I were put in a situation where it’s life or death, I won’t beg for mercy because I don’t wish to do the same beg and backstab thing those guys do.
“The “Free-Speech” movement was a joke. It was just an attempt by Communists to get power and shut down any opposition to their tyranny. Communist totalitarians never voluntarily relinquish power or allow free speech. Since it is viewed by its adherents as absolute and right, there cannot be an “opposition.” Opposition are counter-revolutionaries, and they must be destroyed. You can see how that works on college campuses today and locales where these thugs hold power.”
Yeah, no disagreeing with you there. Heck, even Voltaire’s defense of free speech was a complete joke, considering he had zero problem lying about and censoring Christian thought, wanting it completely destroyed via mockery. And you know what that led to.
“Frankly, all the stuff surrounding JFK’s assassination has been so muddied over the years, it’s hard to figure out what is truth, what is fiction/hyperbole, etc. I don’t think Khrushchev would’ve necessarily been behind an assassination, because if it openly came out, it would’ve triggered WW3. He certainly didn’t want to start it over Cuba, either. JFK made so many enemies that it made all these conspiracies seem plausible (even the mafia angle, too, and LBJ - since the Kennedys were planning to dump him from the ticket in ‘64 and replace him with MO Sen. Stuart Symington, a more reliable toady).”
Eh, I’m pretty sure that Khrushchev had in fact been responsible for JFK’s assassination, or if not him, then certainly Fidel Castro. Certainly Markus Wolf and Ion Mihai Pacepa made very convincing arguments that it was them. And you have to admit, the Soviets would otherwise have no real reason to do a disinformation campaign deflecting blame if they truly had no involvement whatsoever (heck, barely anyone knew until the 1990s when the Archives opened up that the Soviets were responsible for Katyn and believed the Nazis were responsible, thanks to a disinformation campaign by the Soviets). Whether it was deliberate or accidental (or even both) is up for debate, however. Yes, his making enemies technically makes things plausible, but there’s also some things that nix that idea. For example, aside from the fact that LBJ could have just as easily simply leaked to the press that JFK was having an affair with an East German Spy and blackmailed them into publishing it to get the presidency (or the fact that said amendment requiring the VP to be put in the President’s place if he unexpectedly dies in office) hadn’t even been thought up yet, LBJ going by CIA memos wasn’t even AWARE that LHO was the shooter until three days after the fact. Had he been the one who got him shot, I’m pretty sure he would have known who he was. And even the Mafia would not dare try to risk America being harmed by the Soviets just to settle a grudge anyway (they probably would have waited until AFTER he was out of office). Not to mention they didn’t try to kill any president involved in the prohibition movement (Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, you name it), even when they actually would have had plenty of reasons to hate them for shutting down some of their operations.
“I think Willard (as with McQueeg) were a toxic contribution to keeping base voters from turning out. I only voted for McQueeg in 2008 solely because I expected him to die in office early and be replaced with Sarah Palin (and she was the only reason he performed as well as he did). It’s hard to overstate how shockingly unpopular and hated these two were. Over half the party voters were negative on both. I found it absolutely astonishing how either could get nominated as the most unpopular figures running. I was hoping for both to be defeated at the convention and replaced with a more popular and unifying figure. You cannot nominate someone that unpopular and magically expect them to win a general election.”
Never said they’d actually win the general election. I was just saying that it was suspicious that, of the states that voted for Obama, all of them had been from states without Voter ID laws, while Romney actually got them. If Romney, or heck, McCain even, actually lost one of the Voter ID states, I’d probably see your point about how they were unpopular candidates.
“I considered my vote for McQueeg in 2008 to be a waste when he didn’t die earlier. I later repudiated my vote for him. In 2012, that was the final straw. I’d spent over 6 years warning people about Willard and his antics, and that his nomination was tantamount to re-coronating Zero. I wouldn’t vote for him under any circumstances and endorsed VA Congressman Virgil Goode instead as the only option for Conservative patriots. There was nothing that would’ve changed my mind on that. It wasn’t even a lesser of two evils situation, both were evil and Deep State operatives. If Willard had won by accident (he wasn’t going to, but still...) the damage he would’ve done to the Conservative movement would’ve assured the loss of Congress in 2014 and the election of Hillary in 2016. Our side would not have likely won either the Congress or Presidency again, and the loss of the Supreme Court was imminent. It was just that frightening and bad. As for Paul Ryan, he is also a Deep State Establishment hack. He was more than happy to serve Zero and hates Trump. Conservatives are VERY happy to see this fraud hit the bricks after his willfully incompetent and obstructionist tenure.”
True, but on the other hand, at least those guys had more of a chance at actually revoking Roe v. Wade than Obama at that point (at least Paul Ryan was specifically noted, by Breitbart of all groups, to be pro-life). Had Romney nominated Condoleeza Rice for the VP position, which is actually EXACTLY what I feared, I definitely would have sat out of the election, since she was pro-Choice. Eliminating Roe v. Wade has been a deal-breaker for me.
“Paul’s too nutty and too libertarian. But he’s not Deep State and would’ve run to win had he been nominated, but as with you, I had too many problems with him.”
Yeah, he wasn’t Deep State, too bad he still wasn’t much better. One thing I deeply disagreed with him on besides the who abortion angle was his inferring we should be purely isolationist. Ignoring that our attempt at isolationism during the 1930s was an abject failure that just made things worse for us, not to mention others, there’s also the fact that such would have meant abandoning our allies to the enemy, like what we did with Vietnam, and letting them be overrun.
“I misinterpreted your comment to be talking about Adlai being better regarded than JFK by Conservapedia.”
Yeah, I was meaning Ike, Eisenhower. I wasn’t even aware of Adlai until you mentioned him. Read Ike’s article, for example. There’s also the Politically Incorrect Guide to the 1960s as well, that made Eisenhower flattering, while JFK they weren’t particularly fond of by comparison. On that note, the book also made clear that NASA, heck, the entire trip to the moon, was a colossal waste of money.
“I tended to prefer Adams, anyhow. Keeping slavery enshrined in our fledgling nation was a recipe for long-term disaster. Of course, you were going to have a problem with slave colonies not going along in 1776 had it been abolished. A double-edged sword, to be sure. Then again, you have the problem with flawed individuals trying to come up with a system of governance that had the widest-possible appeal. It’s ultimately impossible to create a perfect republican system. Trying to create such a utopia on earth is foolhardy (although that doesn’t preclude us from striving to make it better an ironing out and addressing problems, either).”
Yeah, me too. Well, either him or Alexander Jackson. At least both fully recognized the folly of the French Revolution from the start. And yeah, it’s pretty much impossible, certainly doing so from scratch.
“The biggest mistake the Black community made was jettisoning the self-reliance ethos of Booker T. Washington in favor of radical leftism espoused by W. E. B. Du Bois. Following Washington would’ve seen the Black community largely assimilated into the national culture at large (much like how Southern Europeans and Irish were eventually assimilated after being seen as “non-White” in the 19th century), instead of being culturally divorced and at odds. Of course, Washington himself warned us about people that would seek to exploit Blacks to their detriment, and described the hucksters and con-men we see to this day (from Je$$e Jack$on, Al $harpton, Zero, Cory Booker, Maxine Waters & the CBC and other various media and pop culture “overseers” like the Samuel L. Jackson character in “Django Unchained” to keep the slaves from running away).”
Yeah, they really should have stuck with Booker T. Washington. Well, either him or George Washington Carver, anyway. At least he taught self-reliance, and not the crap self-reliance that Sartre promoted via “existentialism” that essentially implied that people form their own selves, or the form of self-reliance that Gaston was shown to be in Disney’s Beauty and the Beast which painted it in the WORST light since he was the main villain (that reminds me, Jeffrey Katzenberg of ALL the far-left Commie celebrities is probably the closest we’ve ever gotten to one who actually HELD political office, due to him dropping out of NYU to run for John Lindsay’s failed political campaign. And he was responsible for frankly ruining Beauty and the Beast by turning what was originally a fairly good story into a thinly-veiled gender studies textbook.).
“By not showing up, I would argue JFK was providing de facto support to the Democrat/RINO left because he didn’t DEFEND McCarthy at a pivotal moment.”
He had about four years of defending him, even while each year his so-called Democrat friends were piling additional charges and making him look bad by the day. I may personally prefer him defending him that pivotal moment, but at least he actually defended him constantly up to that point, and he had plenty of opportunities to side with the Democrats, his own Catholic voters be darned, for the sake of naked leftism.
“Well, we all make mistakes. The difference is whether we are engaged in such actions accidentally or willfully. I look to another political family I wish had never appeared on the political scene: the Bushes. Dubya (or Shrub, a nickname he has since well earned) was sworn to uphold the Constitution and keep our borders secure. Did he do that ? Nope. He allowed millions of illegals to come in (as did his predecessors and successor) and refused to do anything about it. He didn’t consider it wrong. I had one of those charming individuals for a neighbor from Central America. He should’ve been deported but he wasn’t, because this wasn’t a priority. One day, he apparently tried to kill his wife and two police officers (as I was typing away right here at my computer, got to hear the exchange out my open window). For 7 years, too, another set of neighbors of undetermined status harassed us day and night, cops were called endlessly, and nothing was done (didn’t want to appear “racist” for going after some Mexicans). Of course, these were just two examples. When I hear the lying media tell us about how these folks are just a bunch of innocents and people who want to secure our borders (Trump) are racist and evil, I want to slap them hard across the face. Rapists, murderers, thugs, drunk drivers and more ARE the people that settled into my area and others across the country. They make our communities unsafe and drain our resources. But elitists like Shrub, Pelosi, Schumer, et al, who don’t have these quality folks living feet away from them (indeed, they have security and expensive estates to keep them far, far away in my working-class neighborhood) don’t have them disturbing and threatening them 24/7. If they love them so much, they won’t mind taking them and Mohammadans, too, into their homes and open arms to sleep next to them and their children and grandchildren. Until then, they can STFU.”
Eh, to be fair to Bush, and I’m no fan of him either (he may be better than Clinton or Obama, but then again, that’s not saying much), at least he actually responded to Osama bin Laden’s terror threat by actually striking back. At least he didn’t dither indecisively at any opportunities that arose to kill him unlike Bill Clinton who did so no less than ten times and made 9/11 inevitable, nor did he even actually avoid war despite it obviously being necessary after the bombing of the USS Cole and the World Trade Center bombing of 1993. Though, yeah, I do really wish that Bush actually ATTEMPTED to enforce border security more. Heck, at least Bush wasn’t an outright draft dodger during a war or make tracts against America during anti-American rallies as well as personally leading them, while Clinton was.
“I think the overwhelming bulk of faithful Christians and Jews vote GOP now. The fake JINOs, Cafeteria Catholics (CINOs), and the anti-Christian SJWs (who have taken over countless Christian sects) are obviously going to vote Communist-Democrat.”
I hope you’re right about that. I do know my parish definitely is very much against Roe v. Wade, though, having each anniversary various signs of how many babies were murdered since its passage.
“I think Chief Justice Marshall set the standard for judicial tyranny with Marbury v. Madison.”
Well, I don’t know about that... A misinterpretation by Progressives about his decision might have set the standard for judicial tyranny, but not the decision itself, since the text itself indicates the exact opposite going by this: http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/16/no-marbury-v-madison-not-say-supreme-court-gets-final-say-constitutionality/
“It’s WHAT is taught that is the issue and WHO is teaching it. If you’re using it for indoctrination purposes, it is evil. Smashing the entire system to pieces and not bothering to replace it is just as bad. You neither want an ignorant populace or a brainwashed one. I believe we need a total overhaul of how we educate children. A one-size fits all approach that the corrupt teachers unions support is not working. Each child should have an education tailor-made for his/her needs. I was above average as a youngster and could read before Kindergarten, but I was placed in a subpar sausage factory (public ed) that dumbed me down, kept me disinterested and bored and ultimately crushed my spirit and put me in harm’s way. In many ways, I had to teach myself and try to separate fact from fiction. Public ed taught me that it is everything that is done wrong, and it is kept that way on purpose.”
Man, I sympathize with you there. As a kid, I actually managed to innately know numbers and colors, being able to count up to 13 at the very least, and that was back when I was a preschooler. Not to mention, because I had dysgraphia, and the teachers insisted I do book reports to prove I’ve actually read the book despite being innately capable of reading fast and understanding it very well (though I’ll admit I hadn’t quite mastered the understanding bit in second grade) pretty much killed my interest in reading. Oh, and in sixth grade, thanks to an accident on the track where I ended up having most of my hand skinned off from falling down on it, and my having the rotten luck of both having a competency test AND one of my teachers preparing to enter maternity leave at the same time, not to mention my injured status, they deemed me to have “100% regression” and had me placed into resource as if I were incompetent and/or retarded, and only learned their mistake later on when they tested me for literacy, and they did so without even consenting with my parents.
I’m not sure even a total overhaul would work. Bill Ayers did a total overhaul to the school system, and that made it very much worse. And besides, technically, that’s what the likes of Voltaire did as well. Heck, I went through a private university called Oglethorpe, and, well, let’s just say that that school alone is proof that, even if you get rid of the Department of Education and/or apply school vouchers, it wouldn’t get rid of the trash.
“Well, we’re never going to be able to fully comprehend who He is. That’s above our proverbial pay grade. We can only try to follow what He wants for us and trust it’s the best thing for us.”
Yeah, I realize that. Unfortunately, I’ve also seen far too many instances where those who are unable to be fully comprehended are in fact very evil. Like, for example, Abeloth from the Fate of the Jedi series, or Cthullu. I serve God mostly out of sheer terror, been that way since I saw the ending to Raiders of the Lost Ark, and the other sources I alluded to certainly didn’t help either.
“Too many people support those laws in those states. Even in the Dakotas, I forgot which one, they tried to enact a law to outlaw all abortions and it didn’t pass muster with the voters. Since only a small number would be performed under an exceptions clause, that’s the best route to try to take. The left-wing state voters won’t give it up for any circumstance (short of perhaps outlawing partial-birth, which is too ghoulish even for many Democrats). As for porno stuff, that genie is out of the bottle. As long as there is an interest in sex, that’s going to be around.”
I’m pretty sure there is indeed a way to outlaw most abortions at the very least (not sure about outlawing all of them, unfortunately... if it’s anything like Prohibition, that may just make the problem worse). And if science actually proves a growing baby is life, I’m pretty sure they’ll fall into line. Regarding porno, true, it might be around as long as an interest in sex is around (and let’s face it, an interest in sex is ultimately a necessary evil to live by since sex is the only thing that allows the human race to continue to exist, responsible for procreation). But on the other hand, pornography was pretty rare due to the state laws banning it during the Founding Fathers days, and was nowhere near as big as after Warren’s foolish decision, and pornography has been with us since Adam and Eve ate that apple, so if they can at the very least minimize porn back then, we can certainly do the same today.
“Yeah, it was headed downhill under Pat Brown, though he couldn’t extinguish it entirely. Sadly, thanks to Ike and his national demolition of the GOP in 1958, it made the election of Pat Brown possible when GOP Senate Minority Leader Bill Knowland and Gov. Goodwin Knight tried to switch jobs. It enabled the capture of the state by Democrats who effectively disenfranchised the GOP voting majority and they never recovered from that (not even Reagan was able to do so).”
Well, at least there’s still GOP/conservatives in the California wilderness. And maybe there’s a way to basically jujitsu the whole “two party vote” jungle thing the Democrats have.
The problem here is, like so many on the left (and why they're so much like Mohammadans) is that they're so well-versed in lying to advance their cause. The country was never going to jump into Socialism-Communism, but you could start turning the water up a degree at a time until it was brought to a boil. MLK could denounce these politics even as it was clear he was promoting a movement in that direction. He could've easily been using God/Christ as a vehicle to achieve that goal and just as quickly jettisoned it as soon as it was reached. Look at the lunatic "Rev." Jim Jones. He suckered them in as a Christian, kicked it to the curb and preached SJW/Marxism and then went full-on totalitarian loon and set himself up as God.
"And to be fair, a lot of people don’t exactly have credibility of being a good Christian, can’t even say I myself might be one. Heck, Donald Trump defends the Christian faith and Western Civilization right now, and defends Israel right now, yet I’m not entirely sure I can say he’s a good Christian if we go down to personal morals (though I’ll say this much, regardless of how he’s like, he’s got FAR better morals than the Clintons). Not saying bad about him, since like I said, he at least earned my loyalty, far more than just tolerating him enough in a failed attempt to ensure Obama or similar people never won the Presidency."
Well, there's no perfect people. But Trump is obviously on the side of the good. The Clintoons were just power-hungry and used people for their own ends and just as quickly discarded them. I was 18 in the 1992 election and voted for Bush, Sr. to try to stop them, because I suspected they were very bad people. It turned out even worse than I thought. I predicted, too, that he would be impeached 6 years ahead of time. It was very scary times because we had an actual lawless President and the media would cover for every horrid thing that he did (and the evil wife).
"And as far as Alinsky, yeah, doesn’t help either that he actually dedicated his book to Satan. Sometimes I wish when Jesus during his three days of death just killed Satan and exterminated his followers, then robbed us of our free will, or heck, his father do that."
That's not how it works, though. We'd be automatons and nothing would be gained or learned from that.
"Yeah, he did, begged for his life for a publicity trial akin to what Debres got from what I heard. Makes me feel very cynical about mercy, really... enough that if I were put in a situation where it’s life or death, I won’t beg for mercy because I don’t wish to do the same beg and backstab thing those guys do."
It's sad he and the Castro Bros. weren't captured and put down before 1959. A 1961-69 Pres. Nixon would've successfully overthrown the regime, restored the Cuban republic and had those psychotics publicly executed for treason and mass-murder.
"Eh, I’m pretty sure that Khrushchev had in fact been responsible for JFK’s assassination, or if not him, then certainly Fidel Castro. Certainly Markus Wolf and Ion Mihai Pacepa made very convincing arguments that it was them. And you have to admit, the Soviets would otherwise have no real reason to do a disinformation campaign deflecting blame if they truly had no involvement whatsoever (heck, barely anyone knew until the 1990s when the Archives opened up that the Soviets were responsible for Katyn and believed the Nazis were responsible, thanks to a disinformation campaign by the Soviets). Whether it was deliberate or accidental (or even both) is up for debate, however. Yes, his making enemies technically makes things plausible, but there’s also some things that nix that idea. For example, aside from the fact that LBJ could have just as easily simply leaked to the press that JFK was having an affair with an East German Spy and blackmailed them into publishing it to get the presidency (or the fact that said amendment requiring the VP to be put in the President’s place if he unexpectedly dies in office) hadn’t even been thought up yet, LBJ going by CIA memos wasn’t even AWARE that LHO was the shooter until three days after the fact. Had he been the one who got him shot, I’m pretty sure he would have known who he was. And even the Mafia would not dare try to risk America being harmed by the Soviets just to settle a grudge anyway (they probably would have waited until AFTER he was out of office). Not to mention they didn’t try to kill any president involved in the prohibition movement (Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, you name it), even when they actually would have had plenty of reasons to hate them for shutting down some of their operations."
It might've been as simple as a lone-wolf assassin (a lot of people that hero-worship a President can't accept that a single person acting alone could bring them down) or it might've been a broader attempt. As I said before, the waters have been so muddied on this subject that we'll never know for sure. If LBJ was behind it, he's going to have to act as if he didn't know, and he certainly could not have any dealings with the person. It would've had to be layers between him and what went on. A blackmail situation to force JFK out wouldn't have worked for LBJ, either. He would've been seen as an extension of JFK and the corruption of a Democrat administration, so he'd have gone down in 1964. As for the mafia, this wasn't just a grudge, this was seen as backstabbing the very group that helped to orchestrate his election. There was no other President that earned that sort of enmity (and none that had ever engaged in such criminal collusion to that point). I absolutely believe they could've plausibly had him whacked while in office. As for taking down prior Presidents, it was Prohibition that helped to build the power of the mafia, so there was no reason to murder someone helping you build your empire. If anything, I'd have thought they'd be pissed at FDR for repeal, as that cut into their business model. Most mafia people knew the best model was keeping a low profile, though some flagrantly ignored that, to their own detriment. Whacking high government or law enforcement officials would only serve not only to bring the full power and force upon them and their "enterprises", it would also turn the public against them, too. I think many people were just indifferent to them or just simply minded their own business.
"True, but on the other hand, at least those guys had more of a chance at actually revoking Roe v. Wade than Obama at that point (at least Paul Ryan was specifically noted, by Breitbart of all groups, to be pro-life). Had Romney nominated Condoleeza Rice for the VP position, which is actually EXACTLY what I feared, I definitely would have sat out of the election, since she was pro-Choice. Eliminating Roe v. Wade has been a deal-breaker for me."
Willard wasn't a pro-lifer, despite his claims. His mother, Lenore, was one of the most militant pro-abort champions in the country even before Roe. The GOP ran her for Senator in Michigan in 1970 and she got one of the lowest %'s of the vote for their party in state history. It was obvious that scores of Republicans voted for the Democrat incumbent that year. I don't believe for a second that either he or Wimpy Paul were going to do squat to alter Roe. His record with judges in MA showed he never could be counted on to put good people on the bench.
"Yeah, he wasn’t Deep State, too bad he still wasn’t much better. One thing I deeply disagreed with him on besides the who abortion angle was his inferring we should be purely isolationist. Ignoring that our attempt at isolationism during the 1930s was an abject failure that just made things worse for us, not to mention others, there’s also the fact that such would have meant abandoning our allies to the enemy, like what we did with Vietnam, and letting them be overrun."
You can't be purely isolationist in this day and time. However, his argument did gain merit with some, especially some on the far-left, because of our neverending adventures in the Middle East. Initially, I myself was a neo-con and believed in nation-building. But the problem remained that unless said country shares similar values as ours, you're not going to be successful. Mohammadan countries especially cannot become better models of republicanism until they rid themselves of Mohammadanism. That is the cancer. Their own people in their countries are going to have to be responsible for launching revolutions to get rid of that 7th century Satanic totalitarianism. I've come to the conclusion that it isn't worth a drop of Judeo-Christian blood to interfere in these hellholes, especially when it's just going to continue to remain the same with different leaders (example: Syria. The leader there is awful. Those that we'd overthrow him for are even worse. There's no upside here to interference). These countries can't even really function without a dictatorship.
"Yeah, I was meaning Ike, Eisenhower. I wasn’t even aware of Adlai until you mentioned him. Read Ike’s article, for example. There’s also the Politically Incorrect Guide to the 1960s as well, that made Eisenhower flattering, while JFK they weren’t particularly fond of by comparison. On that note, the book also made clear that NASA, heck, the entire trip to the moon, was a colossal waste of money."
You could draw that conclusion, but for folks around at the time, it was literally a battle between good and evil as to who would reach the moon first. Had the Soviets won, it would've had an awful effect on the free world and made them look like winners and boosted their morale through the roof and legitimized them. I don't think you could put a price on what it did for our side in winning that race. It had to be fought and it had to be won. It's as simple as that. The grievous mistake was not in pushing on after that for Mars and beyond (with unhelpful left-wing Senators like William Proxmire helping to scuttle that - Proxmire being the Democrat who succeeded McCarthy on his death in 1957). Our Space Program has never recovered from that, and is about in as bad a shape as imaginable today.
"Yeah, me too. Well, either him or Alexander Jackson. At least both fully recognized the folly of the French Revolution from the start. And yeah, it’s pretty much impossible, certainly doing so from scratch."
You mean Alexander Hamilton ?
"Yeah, they really should have stuck with Booker T. Washington. Well, either him or George Washington Carver, anyway. At least he taught self-reliance, and not the crap self-reliance that Sartre promoted via “existentialism” that essentially implied that people form their own selves, or the form of self-reliance that Gaston was shown to be in Disney’s Beauty and the Beast which painted it in the WORST light since he was the main villain (that reminds me, Jeffrey Katzenberg of ALL the far-left Commie celebrities is probably the closest we’ve ever gotten to one who actually HELD political office, due to him dropping out of NYU to run for John Lindsay’s failed political campaign. And he was responsible for frankly ruining Beauty and the Beast by turning what was originally a fairly good story into a thinly-veiled gender studies textbook.)."
Lindsay was the worst Mayor in NYC history. Dinkins and De Blasio are tied for 2nd worst. He was so typical of those "handsome" left wingers the media loves to promote for high office that are predictable disasters. He was riddled with STDs (so was JFK). Florence Henderson had a "date" with him before 'The Brady Bunch' premiered and he gave her an STD. What a guy. He gave NYC an STD and almost a million people left the city thanks to his leadership. No city before or since has had that many people flee in that short a period as it did under him. Even Detroit took 4 decades to lose that many people. NYC did it in 1 decade.
"He had about four years of defending him, even while each year his so-called Democrat friends were piling additional charges and making him look bad by the day. I may personally prefer him defending him that pivotal moment, but at least he actually defended him constantly up to that point, and he had plenty of opportunities to side with the Democrats, his own Catholic voters be darned, for the sake of naked leftism."
JFK only took office as Senator in 1953, and this vote was in 1954, so he'd barely served that long with him as a colleague. Virtually the same amount of time since Trump took office last year to right now. Hardly anything at all.
"Eh, to be fair to Bush, and I’m no fan of him either (he may be better than Clinton or Obama, but then again, that’s not saying much), at least he actually responded to Osama bin Laden’s terror threat by actually striking back. At least he didn’t dither indecisively at any opportunities that arose to kill him unlike Bill Clinton who did so no less than ten times and made 9/11 inevitable, nor did he even actually avoid war despite it obviously being necessary after the bombing of the USS Cole and the World Trade Center bombing of 1993. Though, yeah, I do really wish that Bush actually ATTEMPTED to enforce border security more. Heck, at least Bush wasn’t an outright draft dodger during a war or make tracts against America during anti-American rallies as well as personally leading them, while Clinton was."
I think it was Reagan's greatest mistake in choosing Bush, Sr. over fellow Conservative & Westerner Paul Laxalt for VP. Laxalt would've continued Reagan's policies as President and never would've set the stage for the Bush-Clintoon-Bush-Zero horror show this country had to endure for 28 years running. Imagine how much better this country would've been with none of those horrors as President. No left-wing SCOTUS to shove their diseased edicts down our throats. Roe perhaps overturned, no Obergefell horror. Secure borders, no millions of illegals. Quite probably no 9/11, either. It's just all gone off the tracks and Trump is having to clean up a mess that should never have happened in the first place.
"Well, I don’t know about that... A misinterpretation by Progressives about his decision might have set the standard for judicial tyranny, but not the decision itself, since the text itself indicates the exact opposite going by this: http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/16/no-marbury-v-madison-not-say-supreme-court-gets-final-say-constitutionality/"
I'm just saying that set the standard for judicial overreach. I think it should've been up to the legislatures/Congress and the people themselves to decide if a law was inappropriate, and vote against it or vote out the people supporting it and remove said law at the next session. In many ways, I think SCOTUS should do little more than offer an opinion. It is not their job or right to legislate, period. That goes all the way down to the lowest judge. Now we have nothing but a proliferation of black-robed tyrants who think they're dictators with the last word. This must end. The left has used the judiciary to our detriment in overriding the wishes of the people for years. Any attempts to overrule them at the ballot box via initiatives, they merely strike down. CA people voted on banning fake (same-sex) marriage, opponents find a judge to toss it. Abortion forced on the nation by judicial fiat, etc, etc. Abolition of school prayer... Obergefell. You see where I'm going.
"Man, I sympathize with you there. As a kid, I actually managed to innately know numbers and colors, being able to count up to 13 at the very least, and that was back when I was a preschooler. Not to mention, because I had dysgraphia, and the teachers insisted I do book reports to prove I’ve actually read the book despite being innately capable of reading fast and understanding it very well (though I’ll admit I hadn’t quite mastered the understanding bit in second grade) pretty much killed my interest in reading. Oh, and in sixth grade, thanks to an accident on the track where I ended up having most of my hand skinned off from falling down on it, and my having the rotten luck of both having a competency test AND one of my teachers preparing to enter maternity leave at the same time, not to mention my injured status, they deemed me to have “100% regression” and had me placed into resource as if I were incompetent and/or retarded, and only learned their mistake later on when they tested me for literacy, and they did so without even consenting with my parents."
Just lovely. I have many stories, too. None pleasant.
"I’m not sure even a total overhaul would work. Bill Ayers did a total overhaul to the school system, and that made it very much worse. And besides, technically, that’s what the likes of Voltaire did as well. Heck, I went through a private university called Oglethorpe, and, well, let’s just say that that school alone is proof that, even if you get rid of the Department of Education and/or apply school vouchers, it wouldn’t get rid of the trash."
Working on the publicly-funded ones first should be paramount. There isn't enough parental involvement, either. Teachers complain about that, but with a caveat: They want parents to affirm everything they do, but without complaint or criticism. When parents start to scrutinize the materials and agenda and criticize, they are asked to "butt out." I knew one lady involved with PTA or some-such similar named group. When she would raise questions about what was being taught, they kicked her out. Parents need to take the lead in how and what their children are being taught.
"Yeah, I realize that. Unfortunately, I’ve also seen far too many instances where those who are unable to be fully comprehended are in fact very evil. Like, for example, Abeloth from the Fate of the Jedi series, or Cthullu. I serve God mostly out of sheer terror, been that way since I saw the ending to Raiders of the Lost Ark, and the other sources I alluded to certainly didn’t help either."
He's not that bad ! Sheer terror would be a horror. Love and respect is better. I think even the usage of the word "fear" is too negative a connotation. Of course, since the Bible wasn't originally in English, translation of some words from another language doesn't necessarily mean the precise thing in another. The word might be closer to "awe", as in be in awe of Him. I'm not a biblical scholar, so I would yield to them, though I'm sure they'd agree that sheer terror of Him isn't what He wants for us. Probably not the best thing to take your cues from Spielberg or Lucas on the Lord, especially when their views and lifestyles are not what He wants.
"I’m pretty sure there is indeed a way to outlaw most abortions at the very least (not sure about outlawing all of them, unfortunately... if it’s anything like Prohibition, that may just make the problem worse). And if science actually proves a growing baby is life, I’m pretty sure they’ll fall into line."
The problem is now that science doesn't matter (look at the more than 2 genders crap being pushed by the moonbats). Abortion is a high holy sacrament for the left as sacrifice to Ba'al. You can't persuade deranged people to stop doing/supporting something evil when it's their entire mission in life. Some real sickos think it's even funny to kill a fetus. This is Satanic evil. You can't reason with evil, only destroy it.
"Regarding porno, true, it might be around as long as an interest in sex is around (and let’s face it, an interest in sex is ultimately a necessary evil to live by since sex is the only thing that allows the human race to continue to exist, responsible for procreation). But on the other hand, pornography was pretty rare due to the state laws banning it during the Founding Fathers days, and was nowhere near as big as after Warren’s foolish decision, and pornography has been with us since Adam and Eve ate that apple, so if they can at the very least minimize porn back then, we can certainly do the same today."
The issues regarding that ruling don't even much matter now (sending obscene materials through the mail, such as books/magazines). Magazines won't even exist in the coming decades. People can make it themselves on their phones. Teens do that stuff. Short of getting rid of the technology, it's going to be impossible to reign it in, short of personally convincing individuals to knock it off.
"Well, at least there’s still GOP/conservatives in the California wilderness. And maybe there’s a way to basically jujitsu the whole “two party vote” jungle thing the Democrats have."
That top two thing needs to go, it hasn't worked for the GOP at all. There just aren't enough responsible and sane voters in the state to overcome the brainwashed vote and the added corruption that keeps the left there in power. If the rest of the country turns into California, we'll definitely have to have another civil war to overthrow that evil.