I asked you to give me the exact quote where I said "I personally believed" that in the 60's, if a female enlisted in the military, that she was a dyke. You didn't provide that. All you did was assert that's what I "meant" from my general comment about the stereotypes of that time, ergo, putting words in my mouth. Please don't try to psycho-analyze my comments, or tell me what I really meant by them. By doing so, you come across as rigid, obsessive and controlling.
“Home-grown” means Americans in America"
You might want to tell the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. That's not the definition they provide. They don't even use the terms America or Americans, so it looks like you're putting words in their mouth too.
Home grown:
1. grown or produced at home or in a particular local area, ie., homegrown vegetables; homegrown films
2. native to or characteristic of a particular area
The U.S. government is enabling foreign enemies to come here unfettered, and unvetted, so they can repeatedly violate our national security, build illegal labs, steal technology and top secret information unencumbered. If they weren't enabling, it wouldn't keep happening. They would have tightened up security to prevent it from happening over and over.
I consider the fact that the U.S. government's failure, or deliberate failure to control the influx of these people is providing conditions for these individuals to organize, and become "home grown" here. Once they are here in America, any untoward criminal acts they participate in throughout the country, are "home grown," specifically directed to doing damage to this country, in whatever particular region they choose to establish themselves. They plant themselves in a certain part of the country, and then blossom from there. Thus, they become "home grown" Chi-com networks running throughout the country.
As far as history goes, the study of it, whether one should be emotional about it, or not, is something we're never going to agree on. Obviously, you are in no position to judge me one way or another. You don't even know me, or my work, and you are no expert on the subject, like you are no expert on what you claim I meant in my comments.
“I asked you to give me the exact quote where I said “I personally believed” that in the 60’s, if a female enlisted in the military, that she was a dyke. You didn’t provide that.”
Nice try. That is an old tactic of the left: Change the wording and make your opponent respond to that change. AKA strawman.
In any event, I showed you where you libeled women in the military.
“You might want to tell the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. That’s not the definition they provide. They don’t even use the terms America or Americans, so it looks like you’re putting words in their mouth too.”
Good grief, but you are childish. We were talking about threats and the Chinese lab in California that was just recently discovered. That is in America. It is not a home-grown threat because it was a Chinese-operated lab, with no mention of Americans being involved. It was originated by and operated by Chinese nationals. Thus, it was not “home-grown.” And, why, for Pete’s sake, would Merriam-Webster define “home-grown” as having a specific connection to America or Americans? What a ridiculous implication on your part. And, of course, we are not talking about vegetables that are commonly grown in California’s Central Valley. But, at least your cited definition does include the definition “native to or characteristic of a particular area.” Which clearly eliminates the Chinese-operated lab as home-grown. Neither the lab nor the operators are native to or characteristic of Reedley, CA.
You go on to say that our lack of border control makes the Chinese lab in California and similar dangerous operations home-grown. That is simply not accurate. If some foreign actor sneaks across the US border and plants a time bomb in a building in New York and then hauls ass and the bomb detonates, that is NOT home-grown. But, an American citizen from, say, Rochester, NY, doing that very same thing WOULD be home-grown.
“As far as history goes, the study of it, whether one should be emotional about it, or not, is something we’re never going to agree on. Obviously, you are in no position to judge me one way or another. You don’t even know me, or my work, and you are no expert on the subject, like you are no expert on what you claim I meant in my comments.”
I know enough about history and scholarship to conclude that you’d be a failure as a historian.
You’d be better served to forego history, and take up reading romance novels, or fantasies, or poetry, or some other such literature that would be dependent on emotion.