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.
“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.”
I’m still not sure about MLK, to be honest. Even if he WERE to lie about being a Communist, why would he fully acknowledge that Communism and Christianity are incompatible in that speech? I’ve seen plenty of so-called “Christians” who, without obviously stating they’re communists (or likely still communists in one case), nonetheless specifically indicating they are compatible, like Vladimir Putin, or Pope Francis, or, heck, the whole Liberation Theology racket that’s been going around. MLK didn’t even NEED to state that Communism and Christianity were incompatible, which is a pretty solid truth there, and if anything would destroy any chance of Communism taking his movement.
“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).”
Yeah, no kidding about that. Heck, he’s the first president to actually have his affairs be made public, which PJMedia even noted basically destroyed an entire generation’s innocence. And they say Nixon represented pure evil, even though the Watergate break-in (which was done without his knowledge) is peanuts compared to what vile stuff the Clintons have done, even BEFORE entering the White House.
“That’s not how it works, though. We’d be automatons and nothing would be gained or learned from that.”
Actually, there would be: It would ensure God fully lives by his omnipotent and omniscient abilities. An omnipotent and omniscient person, after all, cannot be restrained, and free will actually restrains someone technically more powerful than you.
“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.”
Yeah, it definitely would have been much better if Nixon were president. At least there, we wouldn’t have a Communist Cuba still acting as a thorn to our side.
“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, prohibition did expand their scope beyond what was there before, but they still wouldn’t have liked anyone who encroached on their territory and stopped any activities, regardless of whether prohibition continued or not. I know they definitely had enough hatred of the Untouchables to want them dead, even successfully killed one of them if I recall correctly. They could have easily tried to kill any of the presidents for interfering with their operations in any way, or in FDR’s case, rendering their operations useless by repealing it. But they never did. Heck, the mafia didn’t like Nazis, and I’m pretty sure they’d hate Communists even more.
Either way, it still doesn’t explain why the KGB, heck, the Central Communist Party of the USSR, even, orchestrated an entire disinformation campaign called “Operation Dragon” specifically to deflect blame onto various people barring obviously themselves, such as right-wingers, CIA, fascists, oil barons, heck, even LBJ, if they genuinely had nothing to do with the death? Only gain I’d see is if they wanted to deflect guilt.
“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.”
Ugh... dang it. Wasn’t aware of that bit when I elected him. Unfortunately, if I didn’t vote, I effectively would vote Obama back into office anyway. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Still surprised that he even bothered to put Paul Ryan as his running mate, when he could have used Condie instead, who unlike Ryan IS pro-choice.
“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.”
Well, we could wipe out the mohammadians and let the Coptic Christians have power. Besides, a large part of the problem with the Middle East had to do with Carter bungling it with Iran. And honestly, the only reason I’d consider nation-building is mostly because we made the mistake of not doing that and leaving Afghanistan to its own devices after driving out the Soviets, which let bin Laden basically take control (and no, he was never aided by us. The 9/11 commission report makes it very clear that he got his materiel independently).
“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.”
Hey, I’m just going by what the Politically Incorrect Guide to the 1960s said about it. At least symbolically, there was a pretty good argument to get to the moon. And if leftist senators were responsible for gutting any further plans, then shame on them. Heck, Obama practically gutted it to such an extent that it’s acronym is basically in name only and we were pretty much forced to piggyback off the Russians to get to space. I don’t know if Trump undid that from Obama, though.
“You mean Alexander Hamilton ?”
Yes, I meant Alexander Hamilton. Sorry for getting the name wrong.
“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.”
I’d probably call Lindsay second-worst, tied with Dinkins, to be honest. As bad as he was, at least he wasn’t an explicit Communist unlike de Blasio (I consider communists to be far worse than non-communists automatically, knowing what they’re like). And honestly, Jeffrey Katzenberg literally backed that guy, quit college to work on his campaign even when he proved to be the absolute worst you could promote as a candidate for the Democrat party short of being an explicit communist, and then as soon as Disney got an actual hit in the form of The Little Mermaid (on a side note, I’m definitely glad that the staff for that movie didn’t allow him to cut out Ariel’s Part of Your World song, because that would have been an utter disaster for the film, made those false complaints about Ariel only going for Eric a bit closer to the truth), he decided to really crank up leftism, in particular radical feminism in Beauty and the Beast, all to placate left-wing reviewers who complained about Ariel being “cloyingly sexist” despite genuinely being a badass and still wanting to actually be with a man she loves, and made BATB into an in name only adaptation, having far less commonality with its source material than TLM did for its source material (TLM at least changed the ending somewhat, while BATB is practically a completely different tale from the original, either of the two originals.), even hiring that Feminazi hack Linda Woolverton to make the movie. In other words, altered BATB all for the sake of pushing an agenda onto kids. And that’s not even getting into his later donation to American Priorities and making it clear he did so to sabotage Republican efforts in response to their being elected in 2010, or heck, his little hissy-fit when Clinton lost in 2016 about ideologues and “getting back in the game”. I’d even argue that Katzenberg is far more to blame for Disney going far left than even the likes of Michael Eisner ever was (believe it or not, Eisner actually LIKED Jim Cox’s rendition of Beauty and the Beast which was fairly close to the original tale overall, even called him to personally congratulate him and request a full-fledged screenplay. It was Katzenberg who canned that rendition. This info was in the Art and Making of Beauty and the Beast book from what I gather.).
“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.”
I guess you have a point there.
“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.”
Yeah, definitely would have been much better, overall. Don’t know about no 9/11, though. If we continued to let Osama bin Laden have his air time, we’d probably would still get it.
“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.”
There really needs to be a way to restrain them to not override their wishes unless it’s stuff that actually WOULD be a detriment (ie, if the people try to enact a law allowing for a Purge-scale holiday).
“Just lovely. I have many stories, too. None pleasant.”
Yeah, and then there’s the fact that I had a History teacher back in sophomore year by the name of Andrew Sullivan (no, he is not related to the ABC news correspondent in any way), who often tried to push his anti-Catholic, heck, anti-Christian rhetoric on us, even singing praises for the French Revolution and comparing it to the American War of Independence (ironically, the Reign of Terror he expressed disgust at, mostly because he thought Robespierre was an idiot). That whole thing nearly cost me my Confirmation. Good thing it didn’t.
“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, it’s very much a problem there. The teachers demand nothing but 100% praise and aren’t tolerant of even any valid criticism. Unfortunately, I’m not even sure if parents can even do that now, not when several generations have been brainwashed with this crap. Heck, Oppenheimer was a nuclear physicist and he managed to become a Communist during the 1930s or even 1940s.
“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.”
You probably should mention Philip Kaufman as well, since he helped write that storyline for Raiders.
“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.”
Yeah, agreed regarding destroying evil. Rand Paul, who’s a bit more reasonable than his father, did make it very clear that there is an actual provision to undoing Roe v. Wade, proving that a fetus is in fact alive, separately from the mother, so unless they wish to recuse themselves, I would suggest to those guys that they look at the evidence and vote pro-life, regardless of their personal views.
“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.”
Agreed. We can’t even hope to simply have them secede, anyway, considering that people like Bob Iger and Jeffrey Katzenberg will just move out and continue their crap at New York, or heck, having George Clooney move back to Kentucky and spew his crap there. Sure, it might prevent California-born people like George Lucas from spewing their crap, but those who moved from other states will just move back to them without issue. And that state definitely needs not just a wall, but also an actual viable Voter ID law.