100+ dead in France

[see4]

Irrelevant. I wasn't checking your Likes. I was commenting directly on your swipe at words. You know exactly to whom you were pandering with that.

Actually, I have no idea what you are talking about.

No. I brought particulars, but you dismissed them with "cool story bro". They were a pair of links that spoke about Sotomayor's stated opinions. My anecdote is not a particular. I never labeled it such ... I think.

I was being light hearted there, hence the "Ha" and "lol". Right leaning blogs are not a definition of fact. You will have to be more substantive than that.

I am indeed inconsistent. I may say No tomorrow to something to which I previously said Yes. The question is: am I avoiding Mencken's "foolish consistency" or am I being a loose cannon?

No, I think you're neither. Like me, you're a rational human being who is subject to having emotion behind their rationale. Nothing wrong with that, as long as it's not "too irrational". So far, I'm not getting the "irrational" vibe from you.

Bottom line, I see the system as broken and trying to look not broken.

I would agree that the system needs fixing, it is indeed damaged. It is not tyrannical nor is it beyond repair. But I can concede to a few missing nuts and bolts.

 

[see4]

Irrelevant. I wasn't checking your Likes. I was commenting directly on your swipe at words. You know exactly to whom you were pandering with that. Did I say completely? I didn't imply it. No. I brought particulars, but you dismissed them with "cool story bro". They were a pair of links that spoke about Sotomayor's stated opinions. My anecdote is not a particular. I never labeled it such ... I think.

I am indeed inconsistent. I may say No tomorrow to something to which I previously said Yes. The question is: am I avoiding Mencken's "foolish consistency" or am I being a loose cannon?



Bottom line, I see the system as broken and trying to look not broken.

Damnit man! I heard you the first time! lol

 

[abandonconflict]

There are legitimate studies of human social behavior beyond the bounds of Social Anthropology.

Actually, if you are studying human social behavior, by DEFINITION, you are conducting social anthropology research. That is per the etymological value of the term derived from Greek and also, modern vernacular.

The only reason there are more than one term in use is that many universities have deliberately distanced themselves from the term anthroposociology because it has been in the titles of so many racial textbooks dating to times when such things were considered scientific. The funny thing is, in your desperate attempt to locate an example of the study of human social behavior that does not fall under social anthropology, you point to a Marxist scholar who used the term sociology and never the term social anthropology. The problem is, Durkheim is required reading for all social anthropology majors and he would NEVER agree with your views on human nature and the whole "guns make society more civilized" line.

 

[see4]

As for Sotomayor, I strongly disagree with her opinion that the 2nd does not articulate an individual right. The state in which i live has arbitrary and punitive gun laws. She thinks that is no business of the Federal government, a stance I find confusing since the Constitution should apply to all US citizens and institutions. That may be naive; I don't know.

Are you in favor of states' rights?

 

[see4]

There was all sorts of skulduggery surrounding the Hanging Chads.

That's what she said.

And let me tell ya', it's both bulbous and purple in color.

 

[Padawanbater2]

You sound like a character who was given intelligence by the wizard of oz.

"The essence of water is wetness"

 

[Flaming Pie]

I'm okay with snooty, but what i see is dishonest. I am not ok with that if it is the case. Due process has led to prohibition for over 80 years. That is dysfunction of the sort that dismisses majority opinion. Our economic base has shifted from manufacturing to the welfare and law enforcement/corrections industry. Very powerful commercial interests promoted and benefit from that; where is the media discussion? Oh do not get me started on the media; major tangent Sotomayor's expressed jurisprudential opinion tells me we are way down that slope. I have zero confidence Hillary will restore the rights i had here 15 years ago, e.g. legal open carry. I see this as the political center in legislative bodies these days, not the words and deeds of outliers.

Here is from the NY Times: Sotomayor on states' freedom to ignore the 2nd Amendment

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/05/26/us/0526-scotus.html?_r=0

This is from RealClearPolitics, a "right-leaning" site but haven't found it on the more moderate sites. I wonder why we have to have specialist news services in order to get all the news.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/12/sotomayor_and_the_second_amendment_97420.html

RKBA is "not an individual right" and "the States are not subjected to it". I don't see how these conclusions are not in contradiction of the amendment itself. Why is this not being more vigorously discussed in state and federal Congress? Cui bono?

Good place to read their dissentions and comments on cases. Thought you might appreciate.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/

 

[curious2garden]

......snip......
Who are the people that have used nuclear weapons to end a war that was already won? ......snip....

I lost three uncles in that war, two died in the Pacific. The war was not won. We would have had to prosecute a ground war in Japan. We saved millions of Japanese lives by dropping those bombs.

All Japan had to do was to surrender and the second bomb would not have been dropped. They did not. If you can not extrapolate to what a ground campaign would have looked like with that type of resolve then I guess you've actually earned your nickname around here.

@cannabineer don't call me here LOL I'll have nightmares now.

 

[abandonconflict]

I lost three uncles in that war, two died in the Pacific. The war was not won. We would have had to prosecute a ground war in Japan. We saved millions of Japanese lives by dropping those bombs.

All Japan had to do was to surrender and the second bomb would not have been dropped. They did not. If you can not extrapolate to what a ground campaign would have looked like with that type of resolve then I guess you've actually earned your nickname around here.

@cannabineer don't call me here LOL I'll have nightmares now.

Except that's complete horseshit.

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..." ~ Dwight Eisenhower

 

[abandonconflict]

I lost three uncles in that war, two died in the Pacific. The war was not won. We would have had to prosecute a ground war in Japan. We saved millions of Japanese lives by dropping those bombs.

All Japan had to do was to surrender and the second bomb would not have been dropped. They did not. If you can not extrapolate to what a ground campaign would have looked like with that type of resolve then I guess you've actually earned your nickname around here.

More quotes to show that you're wrong ...

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." ~ Admiral William Leahy

 

[Grandpapy]

More quotes to show that you're full of shit...

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." ~ Admiral William Leahy

Isis has nothing on Japan.

 

[abandonconflict]

I lost three uncles in that war, two died in the Pacific. The war was not won. We would have had to prosecute a ground war in Japan. We saved millions of Japanese lives by dropping those bombs.

All Japan had to do was to surrender and the second bomb would not have been dropped. They did not. If you can not extrapolate to what a ground campaign would have looked like with that type of resolve then I guess you've actually earned your nickname around here.

@cannabineer don't call me here LOL I'll have nightmares now.

Yet more... Just to show you that you're 100% full of the shit that was stuffed into you by US imperialist propaganda.

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan." ~Chester W. Nimitz

 

[curious2garden]

Isis has nothing on Japan.

He obviously never heard of the rape of Nanking typical lacking education yet they parrot on sigh.....

 

[abandonconflict]

Isis has nothing on Japan.

Have you been to Japan? Do you speak Japanese? Have you spent your life studying a Japanese martial art? Can you truly say with certainty that two cities full of civilians deserved irradiation just because they wanted to keep their emperor?

By the way, they did keep their emperor anyway.

 

[Grandpapy]

My opinion is a bit bias from stories my Grandfather told me when he was a pow in Burma.

 

[abandonconflict]

"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before." ~Admiral Halsey

 

[abandonconflict]

My opinion is a bit bias from stories my Grandfather told me when he was a pow in Burma.

Well I won't tell you any biased stories about Afghanis or Iraqis. I certainly won't use subjective accounts or xenophobia to justify massacre which was objectively unnecessary. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were retaliation and a show of force to scare the Russians.

 

[testiclees]

@StevieBevie 's butt F buddy from klan comedy camp?

 

[abandonconflict]

rape of Nanking

deciphering...

"The Japanese are inferior subhuman creatures who deserve to be wiped out in the millions because I hate them and white people are superior and more civilized."


That's exactly what you meant.

 

[Grandpapy]

Well I won't tell you any biased stories about Afghanis or Iraqis. I certainly won't use subjective accounts or xenophobia to justify massacre which was objectively unnecessary. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were retaliation and a show of force to scare the Russians.

One of the coolest stories, was when they found out the war had been over for weeks. Only then did they have the resolve to revolt.
Not sure why Mr. Eisenhower thought they where ready give up.