Ukraine - each person sees what they want to see (1 Viewer)

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Yesterday, 18:18
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
6,678
A question sincerely put to all 'sides' of the political aisle, (even including those who swear they aren't on a side!)
Isn't it interesting how every fact, every event, every era and trend.........Each is interpreted in (often) totally different ways depending on your confirmation bias! Literally person A says "See--that's just what I mean!"........meanwhile person B says "See--that's just what I mean!" - and they both actually think the exact same event speaks to two conflicting, in some cases perfectly opposite, points of view. Truly amazing.

Liberals are wailing that Joe Biden didn't take the Ukraine conflict as what they seemed to think was a "slam dunk" to "own" Republicans, because, supposedly, it calls into focus this alleged big lie about "democracy falling" and all that. Of course it doesn't really prove anything, I could just stand up and say democracy is failing any day and then point to another country where it really is failing and say "See?", and it wouldn't mean much - but nonetheless, I can appreciate the reality that currently they think it is "big" on their side.

But up until I found that out, I of course was predictably thinking the opposite. ("Predictably", i.e., I'm laughing at myself too here).
I'm thinking sheesh.......never mind that you could say Biden "allowed" this to happen, but much more significantly, won't this be a great time for the country to pause and reflect about Communism? Something only conservatives seem to "remember" and despise........something that loathing it is long out of vogue, and that radical liberals (like the Squad) almost seem to want? Socialism-going-on-communism. To me, bringing Russian Communism back into focus, re-starting the cold war, that all seems like something that would help a lot of youngsters begin to appreciate a lot more the republican point of view on the world.

But to each his own, and each can definitely be seen going straight to his own, and that's about it.

I mean, I like to think of myself as an intellectually honest person, or sincerely trying to...........So I do try to see their side of it, although I admit, I've a hard time seeing how an unprovoked attack from near-communist Russia on democratic Ukraine has much to do with voter ID, getting rid of "microwave" voting that was only needed for COVID, and general worries of democrats........But sure, I'll try .

Anyone?
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Yesterday, 20:18
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
23,153
Isaac, the tangle of events going on in the world is like a giant plate full of spaghetti swimming in thick sauce after having been stirred up and heaped on and stirred up some more. It is almost impossible to separate out the strands without getting very messy. Nothing moves independently, nothing moves quickly, and whatever you toss at the wall will probably stick and leave tracks.

I can understand why Liberal USA doesn't want to get involved. The current liberal regime doesn't DARE send troops because body bags coming home would cost them votes. They secretly admire Putin for his autocratic ability to do things like this because darn it all, democracy gets in the way of the Progressive Liberals. And they don't want to remember the lesson we learned from Greece several years ago - that socialism fails when they run out of someone else's money to spend.
 

Mike Krailo

Active member
Local time
Yesterday, 21:18
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
631
Your right Isaac, you wrote Ukraine in the thread title and I just see USA in Doc's post. Hmmmm. This first line was written after the below rant.

Liberals did not build our country, the people who built our country were extremely strong at heart and knew that they wanted to avoid what they had just escaped from. Just look at the words in the constitution.

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect UNION, establish JUSTICE, ensure domestic TRANQUILLITY, provide for the common DEFENCE, promote the general WELFARE, and secure the BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY to ourselves and our PROSTERITY, do ordain and establish this constitution for the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.

The word welfare back then did not mean what it means today. Just about every word there has been twisted to have some other meaning by liberals on the far left. This is a sick disease of the heart and sadly, they attack the foundational document that made our country so great. Look what they did at the end of Trumps term. He was out of office, done, over, that's it and they just ignored the part of the constitution they swore to uphold when they took office.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit, under the United States; but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, according to law.

In this day, it is convenient for them to twist the meaning of words (or bury the ones they don't like) to mean whatever they want them to mean but we know that it plainly says impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office. Once the libs make up a rule out of thin air to extend further than removal of office, you delve into tyrannical, dictatorial, nonsensical hatred for not just the person they subjected this to, but all the people that elected him in the first place. It's no longer about JUSTICE, it's no longer about TRANQUILLITY, and certainly not about LIBERTY to ourselves. They just changed that last part to liberty for those persons who are in power only.

It seems like cheating, redefining of words and changing the rules at the last minute seem to be the new game in town. What's going to happen when stop signs start to have a different meaning?

The phrase "suppress insurrections and repel invasions" is in there too. It had a very specific meaning then, but what exactly does it mean now? Clearly not what it meant back then or even what it meant not to long ago. There has been a shift in peoples hearts, and as such, there must be a cause of it. I'm going to venture to say it is pure evil, but that's nothing new, it's just taking a different form than we are used to.
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Yesterday, 20:18
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
23,153
Liberals did not build our country, the people who built our country were extremely strong at heart and knew that they wanted to avoid what they had just escaped from.

True, Mike. The current dependency on welfare would be anathema to the founding fathers. They were the rugged individualists. They looked to the community for mutual defense and got the rest of what they wanted by trading for it. Handouts were a church or philanthropist charity thing and folks who needed it long-term were considered sub-par citizens. This pendulum has swung to make the dependent ones somehow more important than the non-dependent citizens. I don't mind "equal" but I think the Libs forgot an old Roman-era sentiment: "Hunger is the best pickle." As an appetizer, it lets you swallow your pride and actually do menial work to make a living.

The people of the Ukraine will come out of this having eventually pushed out the Russian Bear from their land. I am reminded of that incredible soliloquy from Henry V, excerpted here:

Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man’s company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say ‘To-morrow is Saint Crispian:’
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say ‘These wounds I had on Crispin’s day.’
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
...
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember’d;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

from Henry V, act IV, scene III

This kind of event is what earns the "common man" the title of "hero." To the citizen soldiers of the Ukraine, there can be no higher praise than to say "I fought for the freedom of my country." They now understand - not merely with words, but with that gut-wrenching assuredness that can only be brought forth by experience - that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

The comparison of the Ukraine and the USA is interesting in many ways. The current USA still has young men who can lay down everything for a good cause. I only hope that the next time they have to do so, it isn't on USA soil.
 

Mike Krailo

Active member
Local time
Yesterday, 21:18
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
631
I don't mind "equal"
Equal what? Equal Justice, sure. Equal Opportunity, sure. Equal Application of the law by those in power, YES. Equal Ethics in business AND government, Big Yes to that. That's one that is a sore spot with me. I'm required to go through heavy training in ethical guidelines and be subject penalties if I don't but, in powerful positions like president, cabinet members, representatives, and whatever government program using our tax dollars... they are subject to nothing. The whole By the people For the People goes right out the window with them.

Equal Pay, NO, hard pass on that. If you don't do squat and you are physically and mentally able to work, you should not get a dime.

There are a lot of persons in high places that don't do squat. Milling around with other mouth flappers to see who can flap the loudest or giving favors (our hard earned tax dollars) to those that give you some kind of a hidden kickback is not only unfair, it is highly unethical and yet they do it anyways because at this point it seems no one can stop them from doing it.

Then there is the problem with free speech suddenly needing to be fact checked by those in higher places in the name of "We are going to protect you from dis-information". No, hard pass. Free speech is the whole reason our country became a great nation with United In Spirt States to back it up. If you want to get rid of that pesky free speech thing, internal division among the people must occur. Division and those that create it is are our true enemy now. You know who your are.

Let me ask a simple question: Back in the beginning of our Nation, were there 2,702 page Bills that were voted on? Just when did those in power start to pull these shenanigans on us? How is there no responsibility to do things even half ethically in the best interest of the people.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Yesterday, 21:18
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
3,832
Let me ask a simple question: Back in the beginning of our Nation, were there 2,702 page Bills that were voted on? Just when did those in power start to pull these shenanigans on us? How is there no responsibility to do things even half ethically in the best interest of the people.
No such thing as a "simple question". A complex issue that requires significant historical perspective. Let me start off with Fredrick Jackson Turner. In 1894(?) Turner declared the "frontier closed". To be as brief as possible, what this meant is that the US was "full". Prior to the US being "full" it was developed, as @The_Doc_Man wrote: "They were the rugged individualists". After 1894, the rugged individualists, became "antiquated" and had to become "civilized". By "civilized", greater government control over how each persons functions in society. As a side theme, those "disaffected" with society could no longer escape to the "wild west". As a consequence, they became wards of the state, a thematic foundation to the ever growing concept that government has a responsibility to take care of those who don't fit into society.

As a stretched example, consider the homeless. In the "old" days they could simply migrate out into the "frontier". If unwilling, the government could escort them to the "frontier" and tell them not to come back. Today that can't be done. (One reason, we have an "evolved" ethical/moral viewpoint that would not consider tossing people into the wilds to take care of themselves to be acceptable civilized behavior.)

Other considerations include the evolution of science/technology and population growth. Again, in an attempt to be brief, science/techomogy now makes it possible to have things that were unimaginable years ago. Another stretched example. Consider the mundane red light to manage traffic as a symbol of Big government. This is one aspect of BIG government reducing personal liberties in the interest of managing society. Increased number of people, results in pollution and resource depletion. Again, solutions to these problems involve growing government.
 
Last edited:

Mike Krailo

Active member
Local time
Yesterday, 21:18
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
631
I don't consider traffic rules an infringement on liberty any more than my boss telling me what they want done on any given day. It's all part of a functioning society, but defrauding the people with oversized bills that cannot be read and digested any easier than the US tax code is ridiculous. To put it in perspective, there are an average of 1,200 pages in the Bible and this latest bill they put out is over twice that. And how do they put those bills together so fast? Is there a program they have that stores every party agenda in existence and the query just pulls out all the crap agendas they want to put in, then they write up the real part of the bill and scatter it around in a way that is impossible to digest, then the representatives are not sure what is really in it. Then some other army of persons goes through it and summarizes it for them. It's all a scam. It didn't just start happening yesterday, it's been going on for a long time, but now it's getting to a tipping point and it could destroy us all. None of them would spend their own money so frivolously, why should they, its not their money. There in lies the problem, too large of government that has too much control over societies bread and butter output of productivity is not a good thing for the people.
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Yesterday, 21:18
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
36,874
then the representatives are not sure what is really in it.
Remember Pelosi's famous words about the Obamacare bill - you have to pass the bill (something about fog) to know what's in it.

Maybe if we could convince Trump to take the Speaker's job, he could pass a resolution limiting all bills to 100 pages. And then another one to say that Congress has to actually formulate the laws that will be required to implement the bill. They can't leave the details to unelected bureaucrats. And one more that says any bill that requires funding requires accountability and if it doesn't produce the desired measurable results in 2 years, it cannot be renewed. OK, one more - zero based budgeting. No more of this - last budget + 10% business that guarantees government bloat. I did an accounting system for the State of Tennessee and that was were I learned the term "encumber" as it applied to budgeting by government agencies. When a department didn't spend all of its allocated budget, they would "encumber" the remaining funds by "spending" them now on future projects so they could always justify an increase in funding. Thee was no requirement that the "encumbered" funds actually be used for what they were assigned to. They just became part of a slush fund that could be spent for anything the following year.
 
Last edited:

Mike Krailo

Active member
Local time
Yesterday, 21:18
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
631
Maybe if we could convince Trump to take the Speaker's job
That's actually not a bad idea.
he could pass a resolution limiting all bills to 100 pages.
How limiting bills to only contain things related to the title of the bill. Imagine that for a concept. It could be called the zero pork bill.
When a department didn't spend all of its allocated budget, they would "encumber" the remaining funds by "spending" them now on future projects so they could always justify an increase in funding.
Why not incentivize keeping under budget, no wait that is not possible because it's just other peoples money, who cares. That's the problem there is too much power to waste all of our hard earned tax dollars and no consequences for failing to deliver on anything important. A real business would fail and fade away, but not the government, they keep saying it's best for all of you to give more money in taxes to fail even bigger. It's like a forced investment in a tanking stock that you cannot ever sell.
 

ColinEssex

Old registered user
Local time
Today, 02:18
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
8,619
Why is that when Americans refer to the 'Constitooshun of the Eu-nighted States of America ', they always refer to the 4th, 5th or whatever amendment. Why refer to amendments? What is wrong with the original wording? Is there any original wording or has it been rewritten to suit - like the bible is totally irrelevant.
Col
 

AngelSpeaks

Active member
Local time
Yesterday, 20:18
Joined
Oct 21, 2021
Messages
285
Col, the first ten amendments are our Bill of Rights. The Constitution would not have radified without it.
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Yesterday, 18:18
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
6,678
It's just two separate parts of the Constitution that's all. One is the primary part and one is the Bill of Rights and it's really that simple.. as AB said.
The Bill of Rights happens to be a bit more focused on the individual rights of people rather than the overall structure of the government and the mechanism of the parts.

There is virtually nothing "rewritten" about it
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Yesterday, 20:18
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
23,153
Why is that when Americans refer to the 'Constitooshun of the Eu-nighted States of America ', they always refer to the 4th, 5th or whatever amendment. Why refer to amendments? What is wrong with the original wording? Is there any original wording or has it been rewritten to suit - like the bible is totally irrelevant.
Col

Col, the founding fathers of the USA defined the constitution to be dynamic rather than static. The amendments are the dynamic part, written in response to things perceived to have been omitted - or gotten wrong - in the original document. In other words, it was seen as a work in progress that would CONTINUE to be a work in progress for centuries to come.

The original constitution is still there. We know the original wording. Most of the original part talks about the structure of the government, with three branches - executive, legislative, judicial - and the structures of each of those parts. The first ten amendments clarified omissions not covered by the original draft. In the last 240 years, counting the first ten amendments, we have had less than 30 amendments altogether - and two of them don't count since the 18th amendment (prohibition of alcohol) was repealed by another amendment. So we have 25 substantive amendments, only slight more than once per decade.

We refer to specific amendments because the original constitutional convention worked their way through "sticking points" one at a time. One that really was necessary in order to get agreement was the ninth amendment. Basically, that one says that the rights not enumerated by the constitution automatically belong to the people. The tenth further clarifies that the federal government has ONLY those powers granted to it by the constitution, and all other powers belong to the individual states or to the people. The two in combination serve to prevent power grabs, though there have been some interesting arguments on that topic.
 

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Yesterday, 18:18
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
4,763
The way he phrased this sentence tells me everything I need to know, he's just Yankee yanking probably bored.

'Constitooshun of the Eu-nighted States of America '
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Yesterday, 18:18
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
6,678
The way he phrased this sentence tells me everything I need to know, he's just Yankee yanking probably bored.

'Constitooshun of the Eu-nighted States of America '

And let's keep in mind the time difference. 🍺

Let's just put it this way. I have a sister who sends texts on a family thread and the text that she sends after a certain point in the late afternoon and early evening are quite a bit different than the ones that come in during the day. If ya know what I mean.

Anyway and another point to make is that this idea that the constitution should be constantly evolving and changing is definitely one with its own continuum of sub- ideologies too.

Some people really emphasize that to the extreme, and would if they had their druthers give very little deference to the majority or to any of the original principles. These people essentially see the constitution on par with any other piece of legislation, rather than the founding father and underpinning of, (and Not), all legislation. They see it as something to be changed at any time by any majority for any reason.

Others, would be a little bit further toward the other end of the spectrum, and that's where I am..
Some would give a man no flavor for his fair, and some would have us all on a straight pepper diet. Okay I'm just having fun now and it doesn't even make sense anymore.
 

ColinEssex

Old registered user
Local time
Today, 02:18
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
8,619
I wrote the phrase in the style that American Presidents say the oath. Or rather that's the way it sounds to a non American.
Thanks for the explanation Doc, clear as mud! Why do Americans complicate things? The word 'tap' is obviously complicated to Americans so they change it to a simple word like 'faucet '. I could list many examples, but it'll only upset AB and he'll get all huffy.
Col
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Yesterday, 20:18
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
23,153
There are UK-isms that cause us some confusion as well, Col. For instance, "poofter" to mean homosexual. From where did THAT term originate?

But then again, English contains SO MANY cognates from other languages. We still talk about "tap" in the context of "tapping a keg" (of beer or ale). We use faucet more for things you find in a sink as opposed to things that use a valve to control flow in other locations.

I live in south Louisiana, USA, near New Orleans so I have the heritage of eight different flags that have flown over our fair city including both the French "Bourbon" (royal) flag and the French tri-color (republic) flag. Plus Spanish, British, Confederate, USA, and state flags. And of course the city's flag - and that makes eight. We picked up linguistic variants because of immigration from Ireland (right after the 19th century potato famine), German, los Islenos (from the Canary Islands), and let's not forget the indigenous people from the Choctaw nation. Come on over to my home town and try to figure out the names. But I digress....

Why do the UK folks complicate things by having a head of state who has no power but a huge budget? Not that I disrespect HRH Elizabeth, she has tried hard to maintain decorum in trying times. (My condolences to her on the loss of Prince Philip.) But I'm seeing some evidence in the USA tabloids that there is growing disaffection for the royals. Perhaps Meghan lifted the curtain a bit too much and let people see some execrable behavior? Not to mention Prince Andrew's inexcusable habits.
 

ColinEssex

Old registered user
Local time
Today, 02:18
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
8,619
She is actually 'Her Majesty The Queen '.
Also,we are all delighted you have your half breed back as she is a total idiot z rated actress.
Poofter is an extension of 'poof', you can also use 'woofter', and about a dozen other words for these weird people.
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Yesterday, 20:18
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
23,153
Well, I asked, so I can't fault you in this case. But homosexuality is not something I would call weird. "Unfortunate" comes to mind, because I don't believe that they have a choice. I've explained this before so I'll skip it for now.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom