OK. Fair enough.
I have different views on this, but I’m not in cement about them. Most people I know would support the idea that upon due process of law, war criminals be shot.
Material for another thread.
Wait, that’s the opposite of what his study is saying, though. His study was showing that liberals are actually easier to understand and read, than conservatives. That conservatives are better at guessing what liberals are thinking than vice versa.
How many of them do you think there were? You’re using them as proxies for the entire progressive movement.
All that is true, but remember that non-violence was effective only because there were other movements that did use, or threaten, violence. The non-violent approach succeeded in part because it appeared to be the more acceptable alternative.
Gandhi’s approach did nothing to save the literally millions of deaths in India following the partition, you’ll note. The ethnic hatreds were stoked by violent leaders.
You have complained repeatedly about how people who disagree with you think they understand your reasoning, and dismiss it because they think those reasons are disreputable. But here you are actually asking someone to tell you what you think.
How about just telling us? What, to you, are the legitimate and reputable reasons for supporting these voter ID laws? Are those the reasons the majority you speak of have as well?
And why the hell haven’t you explained it to us in all the years we’ve been discussing the topic? :dubious:
Having read a cursory description of his views, I am going to say, “yes”. It appears that he considers religion to be of paramount importance to society, whereas I and one or two others here hold a contrarian position on that point. Also, what I read claimed that he advocates supporting oppressive regimes when it is in the interest of the US: we tried that in Iran and that turned out quite badly – I have heard it suggested that our actions there in the '50s~’70s furthered the rise of Islamic radicalism.
He may be your hero, or whatever, but I suspect that his views will not have much traction here.
meh
Where did you live, in a right-wing suburb on the edge of the Berkeley campus?
There were a few riots, (the Chicago police were a notable example), and there were take-overs, and a handful of idiots made bombs, (often blowing themselves up in the process). The country was deeply divided, but it was nowhere near anarchy. Your theme of “thousands” exaggerates the numbers that were involved, unless you mean that there were two thousand rioters between 1967 and 1973.
And your description carefully ignores the “thousands” of screaming people who turned out to protest school integration and the thousands of people who actually rioted in the face of orders regarding school busing. As I noted in my earlier post, the civility we displayed, as a country, tended to exist for a rather limited number of years. Looking to blame one side or the other, (particularly with risible cries of anarchy!), does not really promote a serious discussion. The majority of people in the U.S., regardless of their politics, got no closer to actual anarchy or even to riots than their TV screens.
“How many of them do you think there were? You’re using them as proxies for the entire progressive movement.”
I’m not saying that all progressives here in the U.S. are prone to violence or are sympathetic to the use of violence.
I think the progressive movement in the U.S. has, for the most part, decided that the utility of violence, at least for the time, has diminished.
I’m saying that the progressive movement grew out of the near-anarchy brought about by the anti-war movement of the 1960s and 1970s, which was, indeed, characterized by rage and hatred.
And I’m saying rage and hatred have by no means by exorcised among Americans today.
It would be interesting to see some historical support for that position.
One cannot avoid noting your pivot from “the progressive movement” to “Americans”. Yes, rage and hatred exist today, in massive amounts. But among whom?
“your description carefully ignores the “thousands” of screaming people who turned out to protest school integration”
No, it doesn’t. Did you read all my posts? I specifically mentioned Selma and Birmingham, and the white housewives wearing their bejewelled pointy-tipped sunglasses, screeching into the news cameras.
Sheesh.
What do you have to do around here to get someone to read your material?
“Where did you live, in a right-wing suburb on the edge of the Berkeley campus?”
Pretty much, for part of the time. And in the suburbs of the Nation’s Capital for some of that time.
And now I’ll ask: How old are you? (Approximately, not exactly) And in what part of the country did you live in those days?
Is your state NC? TX? PA? Didn’t think so. But it sure as hell is happening there. And if you think it doesn’t affect you, compare the popular vote to the number of seats in the House or state Houses or whatever your state calls them, and see who has the higher proportion of each.
Yes, it would.
Making those statements comes naturally to me because I lived through those times, and followed current events, opinions, read articles and watched TV news about what was happening in the world in which we lived. And discussed these matters endlessly with friends and family, as they happened.
It was simply one’s life unfolding.
Americans.
She didn’t ‘marry into’ anything. They were married, and a unit, long before he was elected President.
ETA: Still catching up here; I’m a page behind, so forgive the likely large number of answers in a row.
And yet, when you got to the post I quoted, you simply focused on “progressives” as if the other side played no part in the issues. Do you read your own posts?
Flyover country.
Northern suburbs of Detroit, although I attended college prep and college at a campus that was three blocks from the the flash point of the 1967 Detroit riot.
I am 67. At no time was the country anywhere near anarchy. I knew people who were extremely partisan on the issues of race and the Vietnam War. At no time did anyone ever talk about getting out their guns and making a point of either silencing their opponents or defending themselves from their “violent” opponents.
Write less.
I’m curious what’s so mysterious or undivinable about the naked power-plays and -grabs that Republicans are pulling these days; the either blatant racism or racism-enabling; the flat-out fantasies they try to sell the public to make their actions seem ‘acceptable;’ the ability to overlook any character flaws so long as the mighty Abortion or Gun issue will go their way; the ‘I win, you lose’ mentality that they don’t feel good enough about themselves unless it occurs; the complete disregard for anyone else if it has any impact on their pocketbooks; the operating in secret to sneak legislation by; the attempts to tear down any institution that might stand in their way (cf. the media, the FBI, the special counsel)…
And then there’s the piece of shit in the Oval Office, and two of three branches of government abetting each other to turn the place into as close to an authoritarian state as they can get.
Spare me how I ‘just don’t understand.’ But then, maybe since I’m not technically liberal, only have some liberal leanings, you didn’t mean me. Heh.
During the '68 riots, in another city, a friend recounted that entire sections of the city were up in flames. But not the _____ (unspecified ethnic) section. Those old guys brought lawn chairs out, parked themselves and their cars, blocking off the streets to just one lane, and sat up all night in the lawn chair with their rifles across their laps. In the morning, there was not one broken window, not one burned building in the ________ section of town.
Look, I’m not going to debate you on this. Your impression is that the country was not on the brink of near-anarchy. My impression was that it was on the brink of near-anarchy.
I asked my husband (a Leftie) what he thought. He said the news coverage at the time might have made an impressionable high school student believe that the country was on the brink of near-anarchy. But the “solid center” of the country (his words) was just going about their business.
So my husband agrees with you. And he’s usually right. So, I’ll have to agree, as well.
Most of my posts are responses to what other people have written to me.
Should I ignore other people’s comments and questions?
That would seem rude to me.
And when I do ignore them, people have complained and accused me of ignoring their questions.
No, Weigel isn’t “my hero.”
I think Weigel does a good job analyzing and describing many views that many conservatives hold.
I don’t agree with all his views, but he does a good job most of the time.
I get that you don’t agree with George Weigel, and other serious conservatives.
Would you propose that everyone with whom you don’t agree, has ideas based on a “sewer swamp”?
I wouldn’t agree that my husband, a Leftie, has ideas based on a “sewer swamp.” And I know he doesn’t think that about my views.
You shouldn’t feel like you have to answer everyone who comments. It’s an organic conversation; no one will fault you if you miss something, feel like you don’t have anything to add, or just get tired of saying the same thing over and over again (raises hand). Well, mostly no one will.
And feel free to ignore whoever you want. 
I read pretty much everything, but there are some posters I won’t bother to respond to, because I know there’s no point. Either someone else will say what I was going to, or it wouldn’t matter if I did with certain people.
Give it time, you’ll pick it up as you go along.
I don’t know - is there a chance? There’s certainly plenty of evidence of Republicans lying about those things. If there’s other evidence, perhaps you’d like to present it rather than continually Just Asking Questions.
Behold: another right-wing manufactured narrative about Democrats - the idea that all they care about is minority rights.
In context, what it boils down to is whether they’d rather be honest than President. Clinton told coal miners that their jobs weren’t coming back and that they needed assistance to adapt to the new economic reality. Trump told them that coal mining jobs would come flooding back. The voters went with the lie, and you appear to be advocating that the Democrats adopt the same strategy of blatantly lying and cheating in order to get elected. Or is there another approach you are proposing?
In order to poke holes in something, it must first have substance. The McCarthyites, the Birchers, the segregationists - all were virulently smearing (and occasionally physically assaulting) liberals a decade before the arbitrary line you’ve drawn.