Well, I guess we all saw that coming. After all, we have a president who's entertainment career has been based on the words "you're fired". That's all he knows how to do apparently.RegisterMe wrote:Bannon fired.
Trump
Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum
-
- Posts: 8903
- Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
-
- Posts: 8903
- Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
It is clear what is going on, But he is no Connor MacLeod. And watching the movie in 3, 2, 1...RegisterMe wrote:Has he actually managed to fire more people than he's hired?
A por ellos que son pocos y cobardes
- BugMeister
- Posts: 13647
- Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
- it is time for all reasonable Americans to take concerted action in the common interests of the whole nation..
- IMPEACH DONALD TRUMP..
..please
- as soon as possible..
- we cannot stand by and watch the whole USA suffering so..
- IMPEACH DONALD TRUMP..
..please
- as soon as possible..
- we cannot stand by and watch the whole USA suffering so..
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!!
Probably more likely he will resign and declare himself the winner. I don't think he would survive being told by the nation "you're fired!".BugMeister wrote:- IMPEACH DONALD TRUMP..
Last edited by Observe on Fri, 18. Aug 17, 21:57, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 8903
- Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
If there's cause to impeach he'll be impeached. If there's not, he won't. Even if he is he will likely see out his term just because (at least in the absence of major, real, unarguably evidenced proof of real, serious wrongdoing) it will take years to go through the courts........
I can't breathe.
- George Floyd, 25th May 2020
- George Floyd, 25th May 2020
- BugMeister
- Posts: 13647
- Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
Arnie speaks out..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZhaiA237e8
- Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Republican
- Trump's inner circle has come under pressure:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLB-uHkxfyE
- good Americans must speak out..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZhaiA237e8
- Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Republican
- Trump's inner circle has come under pressure:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLB-uHkxfyE
- good Americans must speak out..
Last edited by BugMeister on Fri, 18. Aug 17, 22:32, edited 1 time in total.
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!!
Have to said it, the transitions are terrible, it is not a natural free flowing speech. The message I get is: "Arnold lets try again, you need to sound more sorrowful if you are to benefit from Trump blaming both sides for the violence in order to get some political gain"BugMeister wrote:Arnie speaks out..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZhaiA237e8
- Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Republican
Do not worry, you will be next president of the USA if you listen to me.
A por ellos que son pocos y cobardes
Lol yeah, people working ****** jobs for ****** wages should be fired on the drop of a hat, and the dumbass prez of the US can just go about his dumbass bussiness, and people go "oh he's just incompotent that's no reason to fire him"pjknibbs wrote:I don't think incompetence is a valid reason for impeachment, so he's probably safe for now.
Megatron: "You don't scare me, you mechanical throwbacks!"
GrimLock: "Good Megatron, we love stupid enemies"
GrimLock: "Good Megatron, we love stupid enemies"
-
- Posts: 8903
- Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
Well, there's the difference between appearing on The Apprentice and being the President of the USA.Grim Lock wrote:Lol yeah, people working ****** jobs for ****** wages should be fired on the drop of a hat, and the dumbass prez of the US can just go about his dumbass bussiness, and people go "oh he's just incompotent that's no reason to fire him"pjknibbs wrote:I don't think incompetence is a valid reason for impeachment, so he's probably safe for now.
Of course, one would hope that were Trump in his Apprentice role to see Trump in his President role, well, he'd fire himself. Unfortunately I doubt this will happen.
I can't breathe.
- George Floyd, 25th May 2020
- George Floyd, 25th May 2020
I just wanted to say something about this whole "racism" thing and the binoculars people like to look through when examining the past...
What we think of, today, as "racism" is a relatively new thing. It's new in that the way we define it, sort of the opposite of what we think of as "equal rights" and some broader definition of "all are created equal" is new, despite instances that people like to bring up in the ancient past where societies seemed to ignore what we would call "race", again, a somewhat modern concept.
Would it surprise anyone here if, in the formative centuries including colonization of the Americas and the forming of the US, that "slavery", a definition that has changed too, was considered a justifiable act due to a benevolent motivation? IOW -
"They're savages and can't take care of themselves. How can we save their souls if they're left to their own devices? They're ignorant and would not survive without a master to look after them." - An early Americas slave owner justifying slavery
Some of these "benevolent" excuses continued on up to and including the Civil War period and beyond.
Do people honestly believe that the Founders of the United States thought that, literally, "All men are created equal?" If so, then they're applying a very recent idea to a very old sentence as that's not what they believed nor is it what most Western Europeans believed, even where slavery was no longer practiced.
How many would be surprised that the icons of American "Freedom and equality" believed that "blacks" should be shipped off back to Africa or someplace else where they could not interact in "white" society?
What I'm trying to point out is that some people who yell and scream about "history" place unreasonable demands on what people may have thought at the time and then apply modern cultural ideals to their actions when very few of our ideals today were thought of at all.
The simple fact is that most historical figures in the past likely didn't share modern viewpoints concerning many sociocultural beliefs. They just didn't, plain and simple.
Are people going to go run and tear down monuments to Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin or Washington or any other icon of "Freedom?" No. Why not? These people would have scoffed at many modern interpretations of "equality." They won't because they outright refuse to acknowledge that these people did not think like we do today and they'd much rather ignore unpleasant facts in favor of artificially constructed and fanciful imagery.
But, because of how inflammatory this subject is and because of all the uses that people have put it to, barely mentioning "facts" like this causes those who's world-views are threatened to get angry... Were I to dare to speak about such things to some people, they'd call me "unpatriotic" and keep on screaming until they had finally defined me as a nazi-terrorist-baby-killer-kitten-stomper and, at that point, I'd no longer be "human" so any act they wanted to undertake in order to "defend themselves" from my words would, somehow, be justifiable.
TLDR - People pick whichever interpretation of history they can use to justify and lend some sort of false support for their own views, just like they have always done. The history of "racism" and "racist practices" is no different. Many people don't want to be inconvenienced by facts when they're really enjoying themselves being part of a group that gives them common-cause and unified righteous purpose... /sad
What we think of, today, as "racism" is a relatively new thing. It's new in that the way we define it, sort of the opposite of what we think of as "equal rights" and some broader definition of "all are created equal" is new, despite instances that people like to bring up in the ancient past where societies seemed to ignore what we would call "race", again, a somewhat modern concept.
Would it surprise anyone here if, in the formative centuries including colonization of the Americas and the forming of the US, that "slavery", a definition that has changed too, was considered a justifiable act due to a benevolent motivation? IOW -
"They're savages and can't take care of themselves. How can we save their souls if they're left to their own devices? They're ignorant and would not survive without a master to look after them." - An early Americas slave owner justifying slavery
Some of these "benevolent" excuses continued on up to and including the Civil War period and beyond.
Do people honestly believe that the Founders of the United States thought that, literally, "All men are created equal?" If so, then they're applying a very recent idea to a very old sentence as that's not what they believed nor is it what most Western Europeans believed, even where slavery was no longer practiced.
How many would be surprised that the icons of American "Freedom and equality" believed that "blacks" should be shipped off back to Africa or someplace else where they could not interact in "white" society?
What I'm trying to point out is that some people who yell and scream about "history" place unreasonable demands on what people may have thought at the time and then apply modern cultural ideals to their actions when very few of our ideals today were thought of at all.
The simple fact is that most historical figures in the past likely didn't share modern viewpoints concerning many sociocultural beliefs. They just didn't, plain and simple.
Are people going to go run and tear down monuments to Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin or Washington or any other icon of "Freedom?" No. Why not? These people would have scoffed at many modern interpretations of "equality." They won't because they outright refuse to acknowledge that these people did not think like we do today and they'd much rather ignore unpleasant facts in favor of artificially constructed and fanciful imagery.
But, because of how inflammatory this subject is and because of all the uses that people have put it to, barely mentioning "facts" like this causes those who's world-views are threatened to get angry... Were I to dare to speak about such things to some people, they'd call me "unpatriotic" and keep on screaming until they had finally defined me as a nazi-terrorist-baby-killer-kitten-stomper and, at that point, I'd no longer be "human" so any act they wanted to undertake in order to "defend themselves" from my words would, somehow, be justifiable.
TLDR - People pick whichever interpretation of history they can use to justify and lend some sort of false support for their own views, just like they have always done. The history of "racism" and "racist practices" is no different. Many people don't want to be inconvenienced by facts when they're really enjoying themselves being part of a group that gives them common-cause and unified righteous purpose... /sad
-
- Posts: 8903
- Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
It's probably me, tired and a bit under-the-weather...RegisterMe wrote:Mork, I've read your post above three times now. I understand every individual statement, but, and this is the first time I've ever said this, I don't understand your overall point.
Sorry, maybe I just have a dumb hat on tonight .
(Allegorical TLDR at the bottom! )
The point is that people refer to things the believe are historically supported ideals in order to try to justify their current view without really understanding the history they're using.
People want to tear down monuments that they disagree with. But, they use wrong-headed reasons for doing so. Why is it wrong-headed? Because if they applied the same reasoning they use to justify their current outrage, they'd have to agree to tear down monuments that they currently idealize.
For instance, the desire to tear down monuments isn't just because one or another figured "owned slaves." People only latch onto that because it's something they can more clearly define and quantify (Like, "Who fought for the Confederacy") rather than trying to do the hard work of researching what a particular person actually said/wrote or believed in their own day. Instead, people get uncomfortable with the idea of tearing down the Jerfferson Memorial, no matter how "racist" his views would be seen today and no matter how many slaves he owned - They'd rather not confront the fact that their views about history are terribly biased and can't be even be justified within their own narrow view.
So, they pick an icon they've decided represents what is most reprehensible to them, then they try to justify a righteous cause that makes them feel good about attacking it.
IOW - People want to justify their beliefs about everything. It's the intelligent thing to do, after all. But, as soon as they get to the point where they realize that their views regarding history are "wrong" because they ideals they believe are historically inaccurate and are really only fairly modern views, they'll get uncomfortable and stop, preferring the comfort of their modern fantasy supported by an idealistic and factually incorrect interpretation.
The only reason that logically, if any of this can be defined as logical, that the Jefferson Memorial (And many other monuments to Founding Fathers (of "Freedom") isn't currently being torn down by protestors is that Jefferson didn't fight on the side of the Confederacy during the American Civil War...
A really, really, condensed, allegorical, TLDR of my original post:
People who really like a song are sometimes uncomfortable when they find out what the lyrics really mean, so they refuse to interpret the song correctly, preferring their own imagined version and meaning because it is more valuable to them and doesn't present an uncomfortable, much more factual, idea that the song is truly based upon...
Unrelated to above post:
Was it clakclak that first mentioned the Antifa movement, in regards to the G20 summit in Germany, as being somewhat relevant here?
I just wanted to say "Thank you" to whoever, since that is fast-becoming an on-topic subject regarding protest violence and may, due to additional political fuel supplied by Trump, become even more important.
So, thanks for drawing this into the mix. I confess I only glanced at the subject, attempting to learn a little about Antifa related to that post, but didn't go further in seeking out the knowledge as it could apply to US politics. It seems that it might be more significant if protest violence continues in the US.
Was it clakclak that first mentioned the Antifa movement, in regards to the G20 summit in Germany, as being somewhat relevant here?
I just wanted to say "Thank you" to whoever, since that is fast-becoming an on-topic subject regarding protest violence and may, due to additional political fuel supplied by Trump, become even more important.
So, thanks for drawing this into the mix. I confess I only glanced at the subject, attempting to learn a little about Antifa related to that post, but didn't go further in seeking out the knowledge as it could apply to US politics. It seems that it might be more significant if protest violence continues in the US.
what else would you do ?Morkonan wrote:How many would be surprised that the icons of American "Freedom and equality" believed that "blacks" should be shipped off back to Africa or someplace else where they could not interact in "white" society?
think of it a bit: you first invade a foreign continent, you then select some of the people there, you basically kidnap them, put them into prisons near the african shores, a few months without sunlight later, you put them onto ships, ship them far far far away from home, force them to work for nothing (for years), you dont allow those people to eat with you on the same table, etc ...
then, from on day to the other, some guy decided that all slaves in the confederacy are free, what do you think is it these people want to do ?
i guess many of those traumaticed guy just wanted to GO HOME .. understandably, maybe not all, maybe not most, but many who had family back in africa ... others, maybe considered the new world as their new home, too
personally, if the day before a guy kept me in chains like a dog, i think i too could not interact with that guy in any way (at least not for a looong time!)
what the pope said in congress:
"it is difficult to judge the past by the criterias of the present"
at a time where racism was considered science, how does it make sense to apply today's moral criterias ?
To err is human. To really foul things up you need a computer.
Irren ist menschlich. Aber wenn man richtig Fehler machen will, braucht man einen Computer.
Mission Director Beispiele
Irren ist menschlich. Aber wenn man richtig Fehler machen will, braucht man einen Computer.
Mission Director Beispiele
Well that's the problem isn't it? one doesn't aply todays standard to historical figures but places them in the context of their time and most of the people we've got statues for did something in their time that often in one way or another broke the mold of that time in a positive manner, something we should take inspiration from so we do it in our time too?
Whats wierd though, i used to think it was quite un-American to blame others for the misery you're in, yet Trump and his followers seem to blame everyone for everything, but apparently consider their shit to smell like roses, if i hear Trump it's all just not his fault, the other children on the playground are bullying him. What a leader
Whats wierd though, i used to think it was quite un-American to blame others for the misery you're in, yet Trump and his followers seem to blame everyone for everything, but apparently consider their shit to smell like roses, if i hear Trump it's all just not his fault, the other children on the playground are bullying him. What a leader
Megatron: "You don't scare me, you mechanical throwbacks!"
GrimLock: "Good Megatron, we love stupid enemies"
GrimLock: "Good Megatron, we love stupid enemies"
Welcome to Liberia.JSDD wrote:what else would you do ?Morkonan wrote:How many would be surprised that the icons of American "Freedom and equality" believed that "blacks" should be shipped off back to Africa or someplace else where they could not interact in "white" society?
BUT, if you attempt to have that discussion so that the actions and beliefs of these historical figures are more accurately understood, people think you're speaking against them and then that means, since you're attacking the fundamentals of their justification for how they interpret these figures, that must mean you're a "racist" since only a racist would ever dare attempt to correct their interpretations.....what the pope said in congress:
"it is difficult to judge the past by the criterias of the present"
at a time where racism was considered science, how does it make sense to apply today's moral criterias ?
I listened to a well-known "journalist" (Has a discussion show, so not sure how much "journalism" applies, here) look straight at the camera, his audience, and proclaim that all the people promoting nationalism, racism, nazism, whatever, wanted to make him "a slave." ie: "They want to enslave me, return me to being a slave" <sic>. He has absolutely no idea what he's talking about, generalizes to a gathering of a group of people that has no generally agreed upon platform, in this case, and then led a discussion centered around that and how the South was uniquely racist, discounting every other instance of what was practically a unified belief in basic "racist" principles in the rest of the country and even in many parts of the world at the time, etc, etc, etc...
There wasn't one person on his panel that bothered to bring "reality" into the discussion where actual histocultural beliefs were brought to bear and put into perspective.
Trying to correct or at least add some perspective on such beliefs would label one an apologist attempting to justify a present-day view of racism, including the return to racially-based slavery and a slavery based agrarian labor economy with mint juleps and basset hounds hunting enslaved human beings through the woods for sport... :/
Anyone who attempts to correct certain inconsistent views or incorrect assumptions regarding anything to do with "racism" in the US is, in today's polarized and often inflammatory political environment is virtually signing their own social, or even real, death sentence. It has gotten that bad and too many people are trying to use the emotions of those involved for their own ends, which often don't have the welfare of anyone involved as a concern.
"Free soldiers, to use as you see fit, just add gasoline to the fire..."
/rant off
(Sorry. Had a discussion earlier about this and I started to feel that I was being labeled as supporting slavery and racism, or worse... very self-conscious, I suppose, but it made me uncomfortable with people I shouldn't be uncomfortable with.)