[Granny Bear]

Well, Trump said that he would announce his choice for SCOTUS by next week and has reportedly narrowed it down to 3. Neil Gorsuch, William Pryor and Thomas Hardiman.

I was pulling for Joan Larson. Not only did she clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia, she is intelligent, served on many advisory councils and is highly experienced.

It shouldn't matter that she's a woman and practices/teaches in Michigan but those 2 facts couldn't hurt Trump's political capital should he decide to run again.

[WideRight05]

[Image: http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/just...id74118907]

[Image: http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/asso...id74118889]

[IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Sandra_Day_O'Connor.jpg/220px-Sandra_Day_O'Connor.jpg[/IMG]

[The Urban Sombrero]

Judge Gorsuch is imminently qualified to replace Justice Scalia. Before the SCOTUS became the decisive battleground in the Culture War, he would have been a near unanimous confirmee. Not any more. Nowadays, a vacancy remains for a year, and decent jurists (not perfect ones) become by turn Satan or Hitler in the now endless and cyclical sights of the Culture Warrior Crusaders.

[TheRealThing]

Judge Gorsuch is imminently qualified to replace Justice Scalia. Before the SCOTUS became the decisive battleground in the Culture War, he would have been a near unanimous confirmee. Not any more. Nowadays, a vacancy remains for a year, and decent jurists (not perfect ones) become by turn Satan or Hitler in the now endless and cyclical sights of the Culture Warrior Crusaders.

Not sure who or what group is the object of your consternation here, I know "The Washington Post" used the term Hitlarian to describe Trump. But the fight isn't about decent jurists, it is about the attempt by the left to give lifetime appointments to activist jurists, and deny same to non-activist jurists. The past administration's intent to seed the courts with activist judges, was the main reason Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option. He stopped short of SCOTUS because despite their having publicly signed the Republican Party's death certificate, there must have remained a nagging shred of doubt.

Nancy Pelosi envisions herself to be the lead majorette of identity politics. That would be the same Pelosi shamed and then laughed to scorn by Yasser Arafat, the same Pelosi recently reconfirmed by the rank and file as House Minority Leader, and the same Pelosi who thinks ObamaCare is affordable.

Question from Press: Is Obamacare a winner or loser politically?

Pelosi: "Well, you have to ask every member, but I believe that it's a winner. And, by the way, it called the 'Affordable Care Act.' It's called the 'Affordable Care Act.' I know you didn't intend any compliment or derogatory... it's called the 'Affordable Care Act.' And the Affordable Care Act... when people know what it is and see what it means to them. And that's a case we have to make. We're grownups. When Franklin Roosevelt moved forward with social security, he said, 'I'm so convinced about this, now make me do it. Everybody has to spread the word as to what this is. As the President said yesterday, 'Change is hard. It always is.'

Affordable. Affordable. There's a reason. Affordable, affordable, affordable, affordable, affordable. The reason they changed the name of it is because opponents want to get away from the word "affordable." And that's why I'm patient with some of these comments. Whatever it is, it's infinitely more affordable than the path we're on without the Affordable Care Act."

AND, the same Pelosi who was caught recently prodding Rep Andre Carson (D) IN, to say he is Muslim; http://invesbrain.com/item/nancy-pelosi-...slim-74819
So much for any hope of objectivity from House Democrats, and yet in this we see clearly how shallow and gullible Dems continue to view the mental awareness of their base.

On the Senate side Dems fare no better as we have Minority Leader Chuck Schumer who, as his inaugural address revealed, is similarly infected with the same illness of the former Speaker, and can't quite manage to rise past the level of curmudgeon status. Boycotts, bruised egos and paid civil disobedience are the true face of identity politics, and hardly a fitting political platform worthy of our noble heritage.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Not sure who or what group is the object of your consternation here, I know "The Washington Post" used the term Hitlarian to describe Trump. But the fight isn't about decent jurists, it is about the attempt by the left to give lifetime appointments to activist jurists, and deny same to non-activist jurists. The past administration's intent to seed the courts with activist judges, was the main reason Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option. He stopped short of SCOTUS because despite their having publicly signed the Republican Party's death certificate, there must have remained a nagging shred of doubt.

Nancy Pelosi envisions herself to be the lead majorette of identity politics. That would be the same Pelosi shamed and then laughed to scorn by Yasser Arafat, the same Pelosi recently reconfirmed by the rank and file as House Minority Leader, and the same Pelosi who thinks ObamaCare is affordable.

Question from Press: Is Obamacare a winner or loser politically?

Pelosi: "Well, you have to ask every member, but I believe that it's a winner. And, by the way, it called the 'Affordable Care Act.' It's called the 'Affordable Care Act.' I know you didn't intend any compliment or derogatory... it's called the 'Affordable Care Act.' And the Affordable Care Act... when people know what it is and see what it means to them. And that's a case we have to make. We're grownups. When Franklin Roosevelt moved forward with social security, he said, 'I'm so convinced about this, now make me do it. Everybody has to spread the word as to what this is. As the President said yesterday, 'Change is hard. It always is.'

Affordable. Affordable. There's a reason. Affordable, affordable, affordable, affordable, affordable. The reason they changed the name of it is because opponents want to get away from the word "affordable." And that's why I'm patient with some of these comments. Whatever it is, it's infinitely more affordable than the path we're on without the Affordable Care Act."

AND, the same Pelosi who was caught recently prodding Rep Andre Carson (D) IN, to say he is Muslim; http://invesbrain.com/item/nancy-pelosi-...slim-74819
So much for any hope of objectivity from House Democrats, and yet in this we see clearly how shallow and gullible Dems continue to view the mental awareness of their base.

On the Senate side Dems fare no better as we have Minority Leader Chuck Schumer who, as his inaugural address revealed, is similarly infected with the same illness of the former Speaker, and can't quite manage to rise past the level of curmudgeon status. Boycotts, bruised egos and paid civil disobedience are the true face of identity politics, and hardly a fitting political platform worthy of our noble heritage.

Politics. It's a science, an art form. Before the culture warriors invented a war, politics did not quite divide and demonize as they do now. I am saying Gorsuch is qualified to be a Justice on the SCOTUS, but now, both sides of the culture war have made the confirmation about certain issues and, as you say, identity politics. I am simply saying the test of being qualified to serve as a Justice wasn't always how one is pre-figured to decide on a handful of issues. In my view, it is possible to respect, say, Justice Scalia, though disagreeing with him in certain matters of law. Judge Garland got no vote because of factors having nothing to do with his qualifications to serve as a Justice. So it goes.

[TheRealThing]

Politics. It's a science, an art form. Before the culture warriors invented a war, politics did not quite divide and demonize as they do now. I am saying Gorsuch is qualified to be a Justice on the SCOTUS, but now, both sides of the culture war have made the confirmation about certain issues and, as you say, identity politics. I am simply saying the test of being qualified to serve as a Justice wasn't always how one is pre-figured to decide on a handful of issues. In my view, it is possible to respect, say, Justice Scalia, though disagreeing with him in certain matters of law. Judge Garland got no vote because of factors having nothing to do with his qualifications to serve as a Justice. So it goes.

I might have said the same thing but just to clarify, who exactly were the culture warriors to whom you refer?

[The Urban Sombrero]

I might have said the same thing but just to clarify, who exactly were the culture warriors to whom you refer?

Let's say a Jesse Helms and an Al Sharpton, just as prospective examples. Both rally a lot of support among targeted constituencies by villifying and demonizing and "us vs. them" inflammatory rhetoric. The representative democracy, republic government we have means that these ideas and viewpoints all compete in the marketplace of ideas and images for the hearts and minds of people, but with certain principles enshrined and protected (speech, religion, etc.).

In my view, Gorsuch should be confirmed in reasonable time by traditional process. But, he won't be. The test shouldn't be "does he/she pass certain cultural litmus tests." But, both sides demonize and villify and refuse often to accept the results of our system.

[TheRealThing]

Let's say a Jesse Helms and an Al Sharpton, just as prospective examples. Both rally a lot of support among targeted constituencies by villifying and demonizing and "us vs. them" inflammatory rhetoric. The representative democracy, republic government we have means that these ideas and viewpoints all compete in the marketplace of ideas and images for the hearts and minds of people, but with certain principles enshrined and protected (speech, religion, etc.).

In my view, Gorsuch should be confirmed in reasonable time by traditional process. But, he won't be. The test shouldn't be "does he/she pass certain cultural litmus tests." But, both sides demonize and villify and refuse often to accept the results of our system.

Or maybe a Robert C Byrd and a Malcolm X?

I have a different view. Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright and their ilk, could go about stirring up trouble all they wanted and still not make a blip on the radar screen. The past eight years however, have seen their influence greatly increase. The one and only reason for that was the Administration in power at the time. When the federal government publicly backs a cause, whether that cause be Occupy Main Street, the Trayvon Martin affair, the Michael Brown affair, Freddie Gray, opposition to business leaders, Wall Street, Banks and the rich, and then tries to tie all that controversy up in a bow and pin it on the chests of Republicans, now we have a real example of culture war.

Identity Politics is culture war, and it has been perfected to an art form true enough. Have you heard the one about the Statue of Liberty being an Arab? I mean, first they were saying Lady Liberty was black, and now they're saying she's an Arab. French sculptor Frederic-Auguste Bartholdi was her creator, and was said to have modeled the woman’s face after that of his mother.

I saw Identity Politics take over this land. There's a reason Obama always went to a university somewhere to make all of his speeches. The left has done well in indoctrinating our youth, and they should be ashamed of their actions. But not nearly as ashamed as the rest of us who did absolutely nothing to stop it. They didn't write songs like 'America the Beautiful,' because they'd seen streets filled with rabble rousers and anarchists. We were the apple of the world's eye up until the moment the liberal began to gain power. I saw the whole thing go down. News media used to mock the very ones they now adore.

After WW2 ended and prosperity swept this land, everything was going well. The US was a Super Power with a deterrent great enough to hold even a belligerent Russia at bay. Jobs were available, civil rights were affirmed for all, and optimism was the rule. Gradually the media began to change, and Eisenhower was the first notable I know of to recognize the media could have a powerful impact on public opinion, and how they perceive the two Parties. It is said that Eisenhower harbored some measure of concern should the media become politically biased. LOL, ya think?

As of 1976 the media seemed to be still on the straight and narrow, as Carter was scrutinized and reported on in an evenhanded manner. By the days of Reagan the media had become somewhat caustic but still, it was more about tone and appearances than outright negativity or contempt. The Clinton era was a media love fest which survived the impeachment proceedings, even to the point of opening up a clear divide between themselves and their beloved Dems, and the GOP. By the days of George W the media had taken to calling the President a liar and finding fault with nearly every move he made. If Clinton enjoyed a love fest, Obama's tenure was an orgy. And if W had it tough with the media, they are so far treating Trump like public enemy number one. I've seen it go from suggestion, to subversion.

I saw the civil rights unrest, the Viet Nam War protests, the fire hoses turned into instruments of crowd control, and all the rest. Never in all that time prior to 2009, did I see government take a side. Considerations for the common good guided governance, not identity political wrangling. Especially as championed by only one Party.

Sanity has been supplanted by insanity. We have always defended Freedom of Speech here in this land, but where we once recognized subversion, we now think we are bound by the Constitution to embrace it. Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito were fascist, and Stalin was a communist. If they were alive today would you say they should be afforded the privilege of roaming the land to compete in our idea marketplace? I'd hate to think how many NAZI refugees it would take to satisfy today's left that the taxpayer had done their 'fair share' to that end.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Or maybe a Robert C Byrd and a Malcolm X?

I have a different view. Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright and their ilk, could go about stirring up trouble all they wanted and still not make a blip on the radar screen. The past eight years however, have seen their influence greatly increase. The one and only reason for that was the Administration in power at the time. When the federal government publicly backs a cause, whether that cause be Occupy Main Street, the Trayvon Martin affair, the Michael Brown affair, Freddie Gray, opposition to business leaders, Wall Street, Banks and the rich, and then tries to tie all that controversy up in a bow and pin it on the chests of Republicans, now we have a real example of culture war.

Identity Politics is culture war, and it has been perfected to an art form true enough. Have you heard the one about the Statue of Liberty being an Arab? I mean, first they were saying Lady Liberty was black, and now they're saying she's an Arab. French sculptor Frederic-Auguste Bartholdi was her creator, and was said to have modeled the woman’s face after that of his mother.

I saw Identity Politics take over this land. There's a reason Obama always went to a university somewhere to make all of his speeches. The left has done well in indoctrinating our youth, and they should be ashamed of their actions. But not nearly as ashamed as the rest of us who did absolutely nothing to stop it. They didn't write songs like 'America the Beautiful,' because they'd seen streets filled with rabble rousers and anarchists. We were the apple of the world's eye up until the moment the liberal began to gain power. I saw the whole thing go down. News media used to mock the very ones they now adore.

After WW2 ended and prosperity swept this land, everything was going well. The US was a Super Power with a deterrent great enough to hold even a belligerent Russia at bay. Jobs were available, civil rights were affirmed for all, and optimism was the rule. Gradually the media began to change, and Eisenhower was the first notable I know of to recognize the media could have a powerful impact on public opinion, and how they perceive the two Parties. It is said that Eisenhower harbored some measure of concern should the media become politically biased. LOL, ya think?

As of 1976 the media seemed to be still on the straight and narrow, as Carter was scrutinized and reported on in an evenhanded manner. By the days of Reagan the media had become somewhat caustic but still, it was more about tone and appearances than outright negativity or contempt. The Clinton era was a media love fest which survived the impeachment proceedings, even to the point of opening up a clear divide between themselves and their beloved Dems, and the GOP. By the days of George W the media had taken to calling the President a liar and finding fault with nearly every move he made. If Clinton enjoyed a love fest, Obama's tenure was an orgy. And if W had it tough with the media, they are so far treating Trump like public enemy number one. I've seen it go from suggestion, to subversion.

I saw the civil rights unrest, the Viet Nam War protests, the fire hoses turned into instruments of crowd control, and all the rest. Never in all that time prior to 2009, did I see government take a side. Considerations for the common good guided governance, not identity political wrangling. Especially as championed by only one Party.

Sanity has been supplanted by insanity. We have always defended Freedom of Speech here in this land, but where we once recognized subversion, we now think we are bound by the Constitution to embrace it. Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito were fascist, and Stalin was a communist. If they were alive today would you say they should be afforded the privilege of roaming the land to compete in our idea marketplace? I'd hate to think how many NAZI refugees it would take to satisfy today's left that the taxpayer had done their 'fair share' to that end.

Advocacy of violence as a means to social change (Malcolm X until right at the end) sure ain't getting any good word from me. Robert Byrd was a politician: he was skilled at sniffing the scent of change in the wind, and his ultimate loyalty was re-election.

I think the "Hey, Mr. Nielsen, 24/7 news, above all we must have advertisers" corporate media was glimpsed by President Eisenhower, and it deeply concerned him. To me, when the Watters guy on O'Reilly goes out from time-to-time to gage the political and cultural literacy of John and Jane Q Public...it is sobering. Folks like Bob and Hoot and you and me, we can disagree, but we at least have some sense of culture and politics and history. In my mind, the culture war is manifested in trying to silence, intimidate, lampoon any and all views that conflict or oppose. The KKK can have a parade. Skin heads can throw a rally. The new Black Panthers can stage a march. They can throw ideas out there. If they advocate or employ violence, looting, etc., they are subject to the law. An example: Westboro Baptist... they have the right to speak their minds, put their ideas out there; however, in my view, the rights of veteran's families to not have to look at that or hear it on the day of a funeral of their serviceman would make a "no see, no hear" buffer zone between protester and place of funeral acceptable. I enjoyed your analysis.

[mr.fundamental]

Nuclear option! Straight up and down vote, the guy will be put into place, but not before this.

[WideRight05]

[Image: https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-65gk_C0e1AI/V...rn-dog.jpg]

[TheRealThing]

Nuclear option! Straight up and down vote, the guy will be put into place, but not before this.

The choice is simple, govern according to the people's will. Or continue to play the shrinking violet, too timid to run over the opposition exactly like Harry Reid just did and further, allow the party steeped in defeat and embarrassment to continue to define them from the sideline.

Barack Obama to the Republican leadership on Oct 25, 2010--- "Elections have consequences and I won"

[TheRealThing]

Advocacy of violence as a means to social change (Malcolm X until right at the end) sure ain't getting any good word from me. Robert Byrd was a politician: he was skilled at sniffing the scent of change in the wind, and his ultimate loyalty was re-election.

I think the "Hey, Mr. Nielsen, 24/7 news, above all we must have advertisers" corporate media was glimpsed by President Eisenhower, and it deeply concerned him. To me, when the Watters guy on O'Reilly goes out from time-to-time to gage the political and cultural literacy of John and Jane Q Public...it is sobering. Folks like Bob and Hoot and you and me, we can disagree, but we at least have some sense of culture and politics and history. In my mind, the culture war is manifested in trying to silence, intimidate, lampoon any and all views that conflict or oppose. The KKK can have a parade. Skin heads can throw a rally. The new Black Panthers can stage a march. They can throw ideas out there. If they advocate or employ violence, looting, etc., they are subject to the law. An example: Westboro Baptist... they have the right to speak their minds, put their ideas out there; however, in my view, the rights of veteran's families to not have to look at that or hear it on the day of a funeral of their serviceman would make a "no see, no hear" buffer zone between protester and place of funeral acceptable. I enjoyed your analysis.

Why thank you so much. Wars always start because of some form of encroachment upon the sovereignty of another, and the culture war is no exception. Stalin, Khrushchev and now Putin have put their ideas out there, but that is never enough for those intent upon subversion. Violence always follows. So there is always an aggressor and a victim, even if that victim is of superior capability. Guess what all those fine gents advocate for? Change.

In the case if our culture war, the bone of contention is not really one of politics. It is the same old battle of good versus evil. Democrats and liberal/progressives are so different they're not even allowed to be housed in the same zoo. Yet somehow they managed to take complete control of the Democrat Party. Disguised as Dems, the left dresses up subversion and calls it change. My question, how much change do we really need to make to the greatest free society in the last thousand years? Conservatives believe too much change will only harm the country, as recent rioting, vitriol and violence clearly demonstrate to be true. One side is always on the attack and one side is always defending itself. One side is always trying to radically change our laws and heritage, and one side is always trying to preserve our land using the already established paths of governance. Finally we see Republicans speaking up about it. And Dems incredibly have redoubled down on their attacks on traditional America.

[The Urban Sombrero]

[/B]


Why thank you so much. Wars always start because of some form of encroachment upon the sovereignty of another, and the culture war is no exception. Stalin, Khrushchev and now Putin have put their ideas out there, but that is never enough for those intent upon subversion. Violence always follows. So there is always an aggressor and a victim, even if that victim is of superior capability. Guess what all those fine gents advocate for? Change.

In the case if our culture war, the bone of contention is not really one of politics. It is the same old battle of good versus evil. Democrats and liberal/progressives are so different they're not even allowed to be housed in the same zoo. Yet somehow they managed to take complete control of the Democrat Party. Disguised as Dems, the left dresses up subversion and calls it change. My question, how much change do we really need to make to the greatest free society in the last thousand years? Conservatives believe too much change will only harm the country, as recent rioting, vitriol and violence clearly demonstrate to be true. One side is always on the attack and one side is always defending itself. One side is always trying to radically change our laws and heritage, and one side is always trying to preserve our land using the already established paths of governance. Finally we see Republicans speaking up about it. And Dems incredibly have redoubled down on their attacks on traditional America.

Eh, get a room with your fantastical notions of historic conservatism somehow being above the fray.

[TheRealThing]

Eh, get a room with your fantastical notions of historic conservatism somehow being above the fray.

Okay this is your big chance to line me up.

This country was founded on conservative values which, after several hundred years of practical application, have become known as traditionally conservative values. Thus we Americans have historically or traditionally ascribed ourselves to governance framed by that mindset.

Would it be much imposition then, for you to put up a couple examples of conservative misdeed you find to be particularly egregious?

[The Urban Sombrero]

Okay this is your big chance to line me up.

This country was founded on conservative values which, after several hundred years of practical application, have become known as traditionally conservative values. Thus we Americans have historically or traditionally ascribed ourselves to governance framed by that mindset.

Would it be much imposition then, for you to put up a couple examples of conservative misdeed you find to be particularly egregious?

Given the history of the world and its governance, I am saying to you that our Founders and their principles were not conservative.

However, I am primarily talking about tactics, about use of the culture war tactics of intimidation and obfuscation and lampoon in order to sway and woo an often all too subject to human caprice and frailty public. Both sides of the culture war engage in these tactics.

[TheRealThing]

- Given the history of the world and its governance, I am saying to you that our Founders and their principles were not conservative.

- However, I am primarily talking about tactics, about use of the culture war tactics of intimidation and obfuscation and lampoon in order to sway and woo an often all too subject to human caprice and frailty public. Both sides of the culture war engage in these tactics.

- Yes they were.

- Then you are talking specifically about Dems. A wheelchair with Granny aboard, being pushed over a cliff by a Republican who wants to take her Social Security or her Medicare. The rich, white and callous 1%. All manner of racial bias, especially charges of a criminally biased police force. Obama cheering on violent protests via the tweet. All attributable to the left.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Immigrants are the cause of economic woes? Willie Horton means white women must fear black men? Tactics, TRT. Both sides in culture war practice sketchy tactics.

[TheRealThing]

Immigrants are the cause of economic woes? Willie Horton means white women must fear black men? Tactics, TRT. Both sides in culture war practice sketchy tactics.

You did pretty well this time. You managed to make three posts before you lapsed back into mindless biases and identity politics. :Thumbs:

[The Urban Sombrero]

You did pretty well this time. You managed to make three posts before you lapsed back into mindless biases and identity politics. :Thumbs:

As for lapses, pointless arrogance is your default. Tactics, TRT. Both sides of the culture war engage in tactics that are blood sport. You know that. I could cite Trimpisms that come to mind, evidence that he plays the religious right like a fiddle, throwing bones and securing support. I don't blast him for that. It's politics. You reduce your standing on BGR when you play such ridiculous games. Constantine played the Christians in Rome. Don't be a wide-eyed sucker, TRT. I know you are exuberant to be rid of President Obama. But, strap on some Trumpian objectivity at least every month or so.

[TheRealThing]

As for lapses, pointless arrogance is your default. Tactics, TRT. Both sides of the culture war engage in tactics that are blood sport. You know that. I could cite Trimpisms that come to mind, evidence that he plays the religious right like a fiddle, throwing bones and securing support. I don't blast him for that. It's politics. You reduce your standing on BGR when you play such ridiculous games. Constantine played the Christians in Rome. Don't be a wide-eyed sucker, TRT. I know you are exuberant to be rid of President Obama. But, strap on some Trumpian objectivity at least every month or so.

Yeah, I hear that every time I put up irrefutable evidence against unsubstantiated slander. Listen, I've never said Republicans were a bunch of saints. But like it or not they do tend to govern more from the traditionally conservative mold. But not all of them, and I've called RINO's out on here on any number of issues in the past.

I've already listed several examples of wide spread affronts perpetrated on the integrity of this land at the hands of Democrats. Thus there is no need to further belabor the point. Try to get this through your head, I saw it all go down. From the days of David Brinkley and Walter Cronkite to the heyday of FOX News. I know of what I speak. There has been a clear affinity between Dems and media since the 1960's, which today has become a shamelessly public collaboration. The two entities, liberal media and liberal Democrats, have in varying degrees worked together to advance that cause.

Here is what I think is ridiculous. You are to the core it would seem, infected with special interest political rationales. You would elevate men to high standing based on nothing more than the happenstance of their ethnic heritage. I don't believe ethnic considerations should have any part of things whatever. You pointed out the pathetically uninformed state of those interviewed by Jesse Watters. But almost every one of them knows who Martin Luther King was. Probably THE most profound line from his "I have a dream" speech went as follows; "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." I'd bet big bucks none of them could quote that one. At any rate, men ought to be advanced in standing and stature based on virtue, accomplishment and reputation. It is the left who make everything about race.

But to Dr King's famous dream, what a high flying sentiment from a truly great man! And yet one that has been completely obscured by Jackson and Sharpton who remain bitterly prejudiced. Most liberals if not all, insist minorities should be ushered to the head of every line because of skin color or ethnicity. What happened to Dr King's dream that it would be the character of men that would one day be the basis on which they were judged? That's right, all men should be judged and not given a pass. God says every man should work to earn his keep and that of his family. We are to rise to answer the call to God, family and country, and it upon those virtues that we should be judged of men. Dr King's hope for looking past ethnicity to see a man's true worth is not yet. How could it be with leftist culture warriors still on the march?

I repeat, identity politics IS culture war, and I've never seen Republicans guilty of participating. But again, if you know of any glaring examples, feel free to refresh my memory. Can you name so much as 1 riot from the right?

[The Urban Sombrero]

Yeah, I hear that every time I put up irrefutable evidence against unsubstantiated slander. Listen, I've never said Republicans were a bunch of saints. But like it or not they do tend to govern more from the traditionally conservative mold. But not all of them, and I've called RINO's out on here on any number of issues in the past.

I've already listed several examples of wide spread affronts perpetrated on the integrity of this land at the hands of Democrats. Thus there is no need to further belabor the point. Try to get this through your head, I saw it all go down. From the days of David Brinkley and Walter Cronkite to the heyday of FOX News. I know of what I speak. There has been a clear affinity between Dems and media since the 1960's, which today has become a shamelessly public collaboration. The two entities, liberal media and liberal Democrats, have in varying degrees worked together to advance that cause.

Here is what I think is ridiculous. You are to the core it would seem, infected with special interest political rationales. You would elevate men to high standing based on nothing more than the happenstance of their ethnic heritage. I don't believe ethnic considerations should have any part of things whatever. You pointed out the pathetically uninformed state of those interviewed by Jesse Watters. But almost every one of them knows who Martin Luther King was. Probably THE most profound line from his "I have a dream" speech went as follows; "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." I'd bet big bucks none of them could quote that one. At any rate, men ought to be advanced in standing and stature based on virtue, accomplishment and reputation. It is the left who make everything about race.

But to Dr King's famous dream, what a high flying sentiment from a truly great man! And yet one that has been completely obscured by Jackson and Sharpton who remain bitterly prejudiced. Most liberals if not all, insist minorities should be ushered to the head of every line because of skin color or ethnicity. What happened to Dr King's dream that it would be the character of men that would one day be the basis on which they were judged? That's right, all men should be judged and not given a pass. God says every man should work to earn his keep and that of his family. We are to rise to answer the call to God, family and country, and it upon those virtues that we should be judged of men. Dr King's hope for looking past ethnicity to see a man's true worth is not yet. How could it be with leftist culture warriors still on the march?

I repeat, identity politics IS culture war, and I've never seen Republicans guilty of participating. But again, if you know of any glaring examples, feel free to refresh my memory. Can you name so much as 1 riot from the right?

If you are suggesting that conservatives have never used "white people anger and fear" in advertisement and policy targeted at stereotype of and villification of black folks and immigrants, your claim of "I've been watching lo these many years" falls flat.

The only test of use of identity politics is, of course, not whether there's been a riot. I refer you to the "law and order" campaigns of Richard Nixon. Look at the ads. Geez, it seems foolish to even be debating this. Yes, King's statement is marvelous. And, through use of peaceful protest, his movement applied social pressure at the level of appeal to conscience. It took legislation, and federal troops, to usher in a direction toward King's dream.

Simply because examples given don't suit your purposes, TRT, does not mean no examples were given. President Trump has equated Putin's Russia with the United States, suggesting that they have their policy of killing and brutality at the highest levels, as do we. Now, Noam Chomsky may agree with that, but I cannot believe, TRT, you accept that analysis.

[TheRealThing]

If you are suggesting that conservatives have never used "white people anger and fear" in advertisement and policy targeted at stereotype of and villification of black folks and immigrants, your claim of "I've been watching lo these many years" falls flat.

The only test of use of identity politics is, of course, not whether there's been a riot. I refer you to the "law and order" campaigns of Richard Nixon. Look at the ads. Geez, it seems foolish to even be debating this. Yes, King's statement is marvelous. And, through use of peaceful protest, his movement applied social pressure at the level of appeal to conscience. It took legislation, and federal troops, to usher in a direction toward King's dream.

Simply because examples given don't suit your purposes, TRT, does not mean no examples were given. President Trump has equated Putin's Russia with the United States, suggesting that they have their policy of killing and brutality at the highest levels, as do we. Now, Noam Chomsky may agree with that, but I cannot believe, TRT, you accept that analysis.

I'm not suggesting a thing, I's stating it outright. You bounce around off liberal rationales like ping pong balls in a lotto machine. Land on something and define it for a change. The manner in which authorities must deal with civil disobedience is never going to be Emily Post there Sombrero. But just standing back and establishing a perimeter around the property damage and anarchy hasn't done a lot to stop it now has it? We should have law and order whether in the days of Nixon or today. AFTR, it is a leftist slur to say that the non-violent civil rights marches had anything to do with left or right wing politics. But if that argument could in fact be made, all those who lined up with the party of Lincoln can say they at least have history on their side. Troops don't change men's hearts, they do however go a long way towards keeping the peace.

This is a nation established on the guarantee of safety and the common good, not just establishing a fire break for rabble rousers and student perpetrated crime. I asked for specific examples of right wing anarchy, and you can't give them because they don't exist. The best shot lefties ever managed against the Tea Party for example, was the invisible spitting incident involving Rep. Emanuel Cleaver. I've watched the video enough times to know it didn't happen as reported.

Rioting is the result of destructive rhetoric, only one side does it, and I've heard said rhetoric now for years. We've all seen countess riots played out on the news over the years, (especially the past 8) and all of them attributable to the left, ONLY. And even at that, the only way it has ever taken hold was due to the left's success in coupling racism and politics. There is no rhetoric calling for protests from the right, and there hasn't been so much as one riot. Again, if you can provide the historical evidence put it up.

I haven't been to a security briefing for a while, so I don't know what Trump was talking about. But in view of your past criticisms of US military exploits, I would have thought you'd have been right there with him. I know foreign policy requires clear minded objectives. And those objectives need to be guided by a proper understanding of Biblically based morality if we intend to be successful. Nobody wants to see other peoples be exploited for any perceived advantage to the US. God would never bless such an endeavor. This is where I hope and pray Pastor Jeffress, Southern Evangelical Seminary President Richard Land, and Dr James Dobson will be able to influence the President's thinking. And yet by contrast from a foreign policy standpoint, I believe the past 8 years have been the most destructive to the well being of this nation and of the world of any since our inception.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I'm not suggesting a thing, I's stating it outright. You bounce around off liberal rationales like ping pong balls in a lotto machine. Land on something and define it for a change. The manner in which authorities must deal with civil disobedience is never going to be Emily Post there Sombrero. But just standing back and establishing a perimeter around the property damage and anarchy hasn't done a lot to stop it now has it? We should have law and order whether in the days of Nixon or today. AFTR, it is a leftist slur to say that the non-violent civil rights marches had anything to do with left or right wing politics. But if that argument could in fact be made, all those who lined up with the party of Lincoln can say they at least have history on their side. Troops don't change men's hearts, they do however go a long way towards keeping the peace.

This is a nation established on the guarantee of safety and the common good, not just establishing a fire break for rabble rousers and student perpetrated crime. I asked for specific examples of right wing anarchy, and you can't give them because they don't exist. The best shot lefties ever managed against the Tea Party for example, was the invisible spitting incident involving Rep. Emanuel Cleaver. I've watched the video enough times to know it didn't happen as reported.

Rioting is the result of destructive rhetoric, only one side does it, and I've heard said rhetoric now for years. We've all seen countess riots played out on the news over the years, (especially the past 8) and all of them attributable to the left, ONLY. And even at that, the only way it has ever taken hold was due to the left's success in coupling racism and politics. There is no rhetoric calling for protests from the right, and there hasn't been so much as one riot. Again, if you can provide the historical evidence put it up.

I haven't been to a security briefing for a while, so I don't know what Trump was talking about. But in view of your past criticisms of US military exploits, I would have thought you'd have been right there with him. I know foreign policy requires clear minded objectives. And those objectives need to be guided by a proper understanding of Biblically based morality if we intend to be successful. Nobody wants to see other peoples be exploited for any perceived advantage to the US. God would never bless such an endeavor. This is where I hope and pray Pastor Jeffress, Southern Evangelical Seminary President Richard Land, and Dr James Dobson will be able to influence the President's thinking. And yet by contrast from a foreign policy standpoint, I believe the past 8 years have been the most destructive to the well being of this nation and of the world of any since our inception.

Now see, I thought we were discussing tactics, and not riots.
You keep moving the hurdles, so why jump at your insistence?

The status quo crowd, the oppressors, have no reason to protest things as they are. If a man's coffers are full paying a poverty wage, he seldom takes to the streets to demand a living wage be paid his employees. Your entire premise is ridiculous.

[TheRealThing]

Now see, I thought we were discussing tactics, and not riots.
You keep moving the hurdles, so why jump at your insistence?

The status quo crowd, the oppressors, have no reason to protest things as they are. If a man's coffers are full paying a poverty wage, he seldom takes to the streets to demand a living wage be paid his employees. Your entire premise is ridiculous.

How can we discuss tactics effectively when you don't seem to get why they're even used? Tactics were at one time meant to generate support and ultimately votes. But the tactics used by Dems have backfired, a point which you and they seem to have missed completely. Hence the 6 year 1,000 seat Democrat slide to include the Presidency. The tactics you mention have admittedly stirred up support on liberal campuses, though as in the case of Berkeley, CA., not without the grandmotherly guidance of historic figures such as Janet Napolitano. And certainly not without the hourly wages paid to bused-in protesters and the very deep pockets of quintessential curmudgeon George Soros. And in the case of Ferguson, MO., Baltimore, MD,. Oakland, CA., and many other cities across this land, said tactics culminated in riots.

You need to take a glance at Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals" and you will recognize the rationale behind late breaking tactics. Any way you slice it, civil disobedience and riots bring about anarchy, not orderly society. And what are they demanding? The overthrow of those who have played by the rules, obeyed the law, and earned money legally? It's all a scam. For example, this whole deal about Trump showing the world his tax information is absurd if for no other reason than this one overpowering reality. His financial dealings are governed by, overseen by, scrutinized by, and last but not least audited by the people's governmental agency known as the IRS. Nobody doubts the considerable clout they wield, nor their level of efficiency.

On a hot day last summer I was out cutting grass. A very aged yet healthy looking gent was taking a walk, and sort of stopped as if he wanted to speak with me. I pulled up next to him and shut off the lawn mower. After some few minutes I learned he was a WW2 Naval Vet with a rather replete combat resume. Upon returning home as the war ended he got a job at a gas station as a mechanic who specialized mostly in doing brake jobs. Later he expanded his special skills to include front end alignments. He got good at his job, very good.

Neither of those two pursuits would generate a lot of interest in today's job marketplace, though there is more demand than ever. The point is this old guy had an illustrious service record, came home where he found a job, got married and raised a family in the home he bought working on brakes. Not only did he manage, he somehow sent three kids to college without crying about the pressure, and is presently living out his golden years, a self sufficient and self made man. That my friend is a life of honor. And there is no less the opportunity out there than there ever was. What's the difference between him and the guy sitting around waiting for "Publisher's Clearing House" to come in and just hand him 5,000 dollars a week for life? Attitude. One guy having endured great sacrifice, was thankful for the prospect of a life lived in freedom and opportunity. Others sit around feeling deprived, and there is no shortage of talking heads to tell them they're justified.

It is beyond taxing to read the baloney you love to post on here about those in poverty. The following describes how the Lord has ordained that men should attain their substance;
Genesis 3:19 (KJV)
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Many are in poverty, and America has bent over backward in order to help. We have 50 million on food assistance, the which has seen a black market based on fraud and abuse become a billion dollar a year industry. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013...rket-rise/

If folks need help we ought to help. But while bleeding hearts cry about hungry children, they're also demanding that welfare recipients should be allowed to buy cigarettes and beer. In fact, one Colorado Pot Shop "Rite Greens," has already taken the steps to officially accept EBT. In the best of possible scenarios, the fact that many children go to bed hungry, victims of parents who could care less about them but who nonetheless are on the SNAP rolls, is the awful reality. Now, call me stupid but are hungry children and the satisfaction of personal vices not two mutually exclusive lines of thought? We taxpayers pay too much for the privilege of playing the left's idea of the consummate sucker, and lefties like yourself protest too much in demanding for even more. Which is easier, run a proper government program or just keep raising the budget? The more it becomes socially accepted and the easier we make government give-away programs, the longer the line will get.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆

A person working for minimum wage has a job. A "financial specialist" working for Goldman Sachs has a job. If you are equating the two in terms of vulnerability, power, satisfaction with things as they are, get back on your mower and whistle into the wind.

[TheRealThing]

⬆

A person working for minimum wage has a job. A "financial specialist" working for Goldman Sachs has a job. If you are equating the two in terms of vulnerability, power, satisfaction with things as they are, get back on your mower and whistle into the wind.

So though the Lord says the love of money is the root of all evil, the Sombrero says money is everything, that about right? Every man can't be a king, but every man can live a life of honor. There is nothing oppressive or lowly about working with one's hands for a living, especially in this country, where the most basic existence is regal in comparison to other lands. The Lord was a carpenter as I recall, and didn't even have a place to lay His head at night; Matthew 8:20 (KJV)
20 "And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." And He said; 'the poor you will always have.'

Here is what I say. The ladder of success is a hard climb, whether for the farmer or the financier. That is the natural way of things. But the liberal, now there is an enigma for you. The liberal would circumvent the rungs of that ladder and merely build (using taxpayer dollars) an escalator so everybody who didn't feel like working could just ride to the top. You're in the Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren wing of the party?

[mr.fundamental]

So though the Lord says the love of money is the root of all evil, the Sombrero says money is everything, that about right? Every man can't be a king, but every man can live a life of honor. There is nothing oppressive or lowly about working with one's hands for a living, especially in this country, where the most basic existence is regal in comparison to other lands. The Lord was a carpenter as I recall, and didn't even have a place to lay His head at night; Matthew 8:20 (KJV)
20 "And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." And He said; 'the poor you will always have.'

Here is what I say. The ladder of success is a hard climb, whether for the farmer or the financier. That is the natural way of things. But the liberal, now there is an enigma for you. The liberal would circumvent the rungs of that ladder and merely build (using taxpayer dollars) an escalator so everybody who didn't feel like working could just ride to the top. You're in the Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren wing of the party?

Didn't Jesus say "sell all of your possessions and follow me". Jesus spent more time talking about wealth than any other subject, including but not limited to Heaven or Hell. Sounds a lot like Bernie to me! Of course, in some versions of the Bible or people who quote the Bible for their own prosperity Jesus just spoke about homosexuals, coal jobs, and abortions and that is about it. Here is the challenge, bet you a diet pepsi, you count the times Jesus talks about wealth compared to the above subjects, and list the number of times Jesus talked about them and I will say that wealth is mentioned more... any takers?

[The Urban Sombrero]

So though the Lord says the love of money is the root of all evil, the Sombrero says money is everything, that about right? Every man can't be a king, but every man can live a life of honor. There is nothing oppressive or lowly about working with one's hands for a living, especially in this country, where the most basic existence is regal in comparison to other lands. The Lord was a carpenter as I recall, and didn't even have a place to lay His head at night; Matthew 8:20 (KJV)
20 "And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." And He said; 'the poor you will always have.'

Here is what I say. The ladder of success is a hard climb, whether for the farmer or the financier. That is the natural way of things. But the liberal, now there is an enigma for you. The liberal would circumvent the rungs of that ladder and merely build (using taxpayer dollars) an escalator so everybody who didn't feel like working could just ride to the top. You're in the Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren wing of the party?

"Whatever is is right" is an odd place for you to argue from, but when it comes to economic Darwinism that's the vine from which you swing. A minimum wage that is not a living wage might well qualify as the "dishonest scales" of Amos.

Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump may well be on a collision course. Basically, I am suggesting that workers picking strawberries without proper paperwork in oppressive conditions are more apt to protest with some Chavez than an investment banker with Goldman Sachs. From there, you used an insulation blower to spread straw.

[TheRealThing]

Didn't Jesus say "sell all of your possessions and follow me". Jesus spent more time talking about wealth than any other subject, including but not limited to Heaven or Hell. Sounds a lot like Bernie to me! Of course, in some versions of the Bible or people who quote the Bible for their own prosperity Jesus just spoke about homosexuals, coal jobs, and abortions and that is about it. Here is the challenge, bet you a diet pepsi, you count the times Jesus talks about wealth compared to the above subjects, and list the number of times Jesus talked about them and I will say that wealth is mentioned more... any takers?

Men have always deluded themselves with the misbegotten notion that somehow, they will inherit eternal life based on their own works, or goodness. And the Judgment supposedly, is a place where people who are considered to be good, are contrasted against people who are considered to be bad. Not true, all men will be contrasted against the perfect character of God. No way to win that one short of a Savior Who fortunately for us, gave His own life for men who would accept it. That's the gift of salvation and it cannot be earned. It is given only to those who repent in faith before Him, believing in the death, burial and resurrection of His Son as payment for our sin.

The guy mentioned in Scripture of which you speak had just asked what he had to do to go to heaven. When the Lord told him to keep all God's commandments, he proudly announced to the Lord that he had kept them all since he was but a child. The Lord's first response was the lead-in by which He could reveal to the young man his personal short fall.
Mark 10:21-23 (KJV)
21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

In other words, people who are rich trust money. That's where their faith most often lies. The young ruler knew at that point that he could never give up his money in order to gain heaven. But then, his question wasn't how he could live forever, it was what must he do in order to earn eternal life. Nobody is good, and nobody makes it on works. That's why the Lord chided him in the preceding verses when he called Jesus good;
Mark 10:17-18 (KJV)
17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Only by the blood of Christ and faith in Him, can a man's sins be washed away and he then has eternal life. But the Lord gives a very important conclusion to the ruler's need to sell and give all to the poor. As verse 21 points out, after giving away all that he had, he was then to follow Christ sacrificially. That's the big deal that always gets glossed over.

Your scenario was a unique Scriptural accounting of how men by their nature trust in things or deeds, and miss the point. It is only through Christ and a personal relationship with Him that a man is saved. But so many people take away the wrong idea here. I hear over and over that God asks His own to sell everything and give the proceeds to the poor. All I can tell you is that is not Biblical for a couple of reasons. First is the fact that the Lord expects able bodied men to get off their beds of sloth and get out there and work for their substance, where He can then bless their efforts. Second, what is my family supposed to do after I give my life's work away, live in a washer box? Third, God has ordained that His Own are to give to the Lord's work of their substance, so as they are blessed on the first day of the week. That's where the money is supposed to come from.

Now, if one believes God is like Robin Hood, prying people loose from their money through taxes imposed by government and giving it to the poor, then the Bernie show is for you. If you'd actually read the post I put up and you went to the trouble of quoting, you'd likely noticed I wasn't the one extolling the virtues of wealth.