The more man meditates upon good thoughts, the better will be his world & the world at large. -Confucius

— Ancient Proverbs (@AncientProverbs) January 13, 2014

zn wrote:

– X – wrote:

If certain people *want* to continue to have the flag represent Southern Pride (or whatever non-hurtful thing they believe), they should be permitted to without being chastised about how insensitive or ignorant they are. So yeah, communication is key to all of this going forward. No one person or group should ever be allowed to dictate what another person or group should adopt as their own personal principles or beliefs. Talk about it and see if an understand can be had. And if an understand can’t be reached, then leave it alone. You tried.

This is where conflict is inevitable, though, because the thing is in itself divisive. People who believe in benign heritage of course have a right, but so do the people for whom the flag is a reminder of slavery and the anti-desegregation stuff from the 40s and 50s. We don’t get anywhere if one side or the other is silenced, right? So I guess on this, I just say, expect conflict.

Like I said elsewhere, my wife is from Texas. She’s the daughter of a good ole boy fire fighter (whom I knew…Warren. Fisherman, hunter, and also band leader on occasion, for classic jazz bands. I actually inherited Warren’s pick-up truck when he died.) My wife won’t even discuss any of this, it just automatically makes her angry. She, like virtually everyone, is not advocating banning the thing, but the states flying it? Makes her angry. I can’t get into nuanced discussions with her–I get her heavy Texas accent going “just take the damm thing down!” I know a lot of southerners like that…many of the things I post come from facebook, where I maintain contact with friends from all over, including Louisiana, Texas, and North Carolina.

So it really is a complex thing.

So complex that the way I see it, asking people who are offended by the history of the c.f. not to be offended is really no different from asking people who see it habitually as a benign pride thing to change. It really is a multi-edged sword.

It really is as deep as the real divisions between us, some of which granted are not based in malice and bad intentions.

So I just agree with Rev. Pinckney: “Across the South we have a deep appreciation of history. We haven’t always had a deep appreciation of each other’s history.”

Though I am not a southerner, even if I am no stranger to parts of the south, so I will just amend that to “in america.”

It’s a tricky business discussing all this, and, many do it better than I do. I’ve done okay sometimes. Not often enough.

Well I think for the most part we see eye-to-eye on this. You basically said what I said, in that both “sides” to the freedom of expression and/or belief quandary surrounding the flag should just live their lives believing and expressing what they want without being told they’re wrong. I know where you are on this, because I’ve read everything you posted about it. I think you’d like for everyone who has any affinity for the flag to gain a deep understanding of how hurtful it is to *some* people and let their sensitivity toward that be their guiding principle.

Well, in a perfect world I guess.

Meanwhile those people who displayed the flag as a symbol of their heritage, pride, and love of the South, are suddenly not just proud people. They’re something far, far worse. Something ugly. And I think it’s wrong to have their little piece of the universe invaded by political zealots who are taking it upon themselves to be the voice of the New Moral Order. Just as I think it’s wrong for people who are opposed to everything for which the flag stands, to be told they should just get over it.

Live and let live.

I think my point might be that not everyone
who likes the redskin label or stars and bars
is “racist”. I guess thats my point.

w
v

They’re not. Or, at least they weren’t.
NOW they are, but not because they suddenly became so.
But because they’re being told they are.

Having been more or less raised in Florida, and being around a bunch of good ole’ Country boys, I learned that the stars & bars represented (to them) Southern Pride and their aversion to ‘Yankees’, which usually referred to the New Yorkers who migrated down every winter. But it usually meant every other state that wasn’t Confederate.

Did they conveniently leave out the history and racial significance of the symbol? Sure. Were they intentionally doing so? Absolutely not. Never ever heard the ‘N’ word used in the same conversation about that flag, but that’s probably just the kind of “ranch people” I was exposed to as a young X. They all had horses and pick-ups, listened to Bocephus, drank a fair amount of beer, and were just generally good natured people who would go out of their way to help each other. Very polite too (when they weren’t drinking copious amounts of beer, that is).

But yeah. You’re correct that it doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone, and they shouldn’t have to feel ashamed about what it means to them.

Balzer: Kroenke to invest even more than expected in STL?

On Howard’s lunchtime show today, he said he spoke to a source who told him not to dismiss the possibility of Stan Kroenke not only keeping the Rams here, but investing more than $250 in the new stadium in exchange for parking and other event revenues.

Wow, two and a half C-notes?
There’s probably more than that in his couch cushions.

zn wrote:

– X – wrote:

Yeah, it’s the whole site. Apparently the site’s been suspended by the hosting service. Maybe they exceeded their allotted bandwidth or started hogging resources. I can’t imagine it’s from lack of payment, but who knows.

Just out of conversational curiosity–who owns it now? I forget his name but I remember he’s canadian.

CGI Ram

Yes, but, is he an elevator operator?
All the great ones could operator elevators.
Or elevate operators.

Something.

bnw wrote:

If the world you wish to work towards sanctions government murdering citizens without trial,
and disappearing any citizen they want without,
getting a warrant,
without informing anyone,
for as long as the government wants, including
sending the citizen to foreign nations,
to be tortured or worse,
then that world is much closer than you know.

Would a .22 take care of that problem, or should I *shoot for a higher caliber?

*pun intended.

bnw wrote:

– X – wrote:

bnw wrote:

– X – wrote:

bnw wrote:

People are just as tired losing loved ones to auto accidents. Don’t expect autos to be legislated away any time soon. The spirit in which the 2nd Amendment was written definitely includes the semi-automatic AR-15 as it does the fully automatic weapons of today. When it was written the intent was to allow the citizen to arm himself with the technology of the day. Those militias were comprised of citizens. Some of whom owned cannons and gunships.

If you wish to surrender your 2nd Amendment right that is your personal choice.

Well, yeah, except that we don’t often see a lot of mentally unstable people climbing into Chryslers or Volkswagons and indiscriminately killing a bunch of innocents with them because they had a crush on Jodi Foster. That’s the difference between gun regulation and a never-to-be-seen public outcry for car regulation.

And correct me if I’m wrong, but the intent of the Founding Fathers’ development of the 2nd amendment was based on them having just broken away from Great Britain, so they wanted to protect themselves against the possibility that the new Federal Government they were ratifying might one day become just as tyrannical. Maybe it’s just me, but I feel as though an entire Country of armed-to-the-teeth citizens still has zero chance of overthrowing (or even defending ourselves against) our Government should they turn on us. Which I don’t believe they’ll ever try to do anyway. But again, even if they did, we still have no chance to defend ourselves. No matter how many semi or fully automatic weapons we each have. They have control of THE gun and THE bullet.

So yeah, I have no problem surrendering my 2nd amendment right, because I’m not even exercising it anyway. For what? To say I can? I have more fear of some jacked up meth-head shooting my wife in the head over a parking spot at Walmart than I do of my Government turning on me. But I guess if I had a sawed-off shotgun, I could stop the latter from happening.

You giving up your 2nd Amendment right is your personal choice. We must disagree about the effect of an armed populace as history shows an armed populace is capable of making life miserable for an oppressor. That is why governments arm populations in countries they wish to overthrow by proxy. It is also why government confiscates arms in order to control opposition. You mentioned “should they turn on us”. Have you given any thought to how the “turn” will manifest? Given the assault on our liberties between the so called war on drugs and the war on terrorism the turn is being made and the radius becomes tighter each year. If you can’t see it then the myriad of distractions in popular culture and politics has worked on you. I view it as a frog contentedly sitting in a pot of water with the heat rising to boiling at which time it is too late.

None of the points raised in the above post suggests a need to heavily arm this Country. None of them. A spattering of talking points about civil liberties and a tip of the hat to George Orwell isn’t enough to convince me that I need an AK-47 hanging above my fireplace.

Of course this little side-debate was already over once the word “you” was introduced into it. And it wasn’t *me* who did that. That said, I graciously accept the offer presented to me that I’m permitted to retain my choice on this matter. I’m apparently a little too dumb (kinda like a frog) to make this decision of my own volition, but I’ll brave the consequences nonetheless.

Practically every home in Switzerland has an assault rifle. Those world famous dysfunctional Swiss, eh? Oh you’re not dumb. You’ve checked yourself out of following the erosion of personal liberties as have many people. It is easy to graciously accept my offer since it preserves your choice, something I wouldn’t work towards denying you.

Switzerland is a fairly poor example, and thankfully zn took the initiative to describe why. That aside, I don’t recall saying that another Country’s doctrines are good or bad by comparison. That’s stretching the boundaries of the core issue of this discussion. I mean, if I wanted to do that, surely I would have chosen a region or two in the Middle East to help facilitate my point about the desperate need to question a status quo built upon ancient and primitive laws. And I realize I’m not dumb. I was just illustrating the fallacy that people who don’t take a certain stance on something are being willfully ignorant or have “checked out” of someone else’s reality.

Maybe I’m just mindful of the world in which I’d like to live, and I’d rather work towards achieving THAT goal.

bnw wrote:

People are just as tired losing loved ones to auto accidents. Don’t expect autos to be legislated away any time soon. The spirit in which the 2nd Amendment was written definitely includes the semi-automatic AR-15 as it does the fully automatic weapons of today. When it was written the intent was to allow the citizen to arm himself with the technology of the day. Those militias were comprised of citizens. Some of whom owned cannons and gunships.

If you wish to surrender your 2nd Amendment right that is your personal choice.

Well, yeah, except that we don’t often see a lot of mentally unstable people climbing into Chryslers or Volkswagons and indiscriminately killing a bunch of innocents with them because they had a crush on Jodi Foster. That’s the difference between gun regulation and a never-to-be-seen public outcry for car regulation.

And correct me if I’m wrong, but the intent of the Founding Fathers’ development of the 2nd amendment was based on them having just broken away from Great Britain, so they wanted to protect themselves against the possibility that the new Federal Government they were ratifying might one day become just as tyrannical. Maybe it’s just me, but I feel as though an entire Country of armed-to-the-teeth citizens still has zero chance of overthrowing (or even defending ourselves against) our Government should they turn on us. Which I don’t believe they’ll ever try to do anyway. But again, even if they did, we still have no chance to defend ourselves. No matter how many semi or fully automatic weapons we each have. They have control of THE gun and THE bullet.

So yeah, I have no problem surrendering my 2nd amendment right, because I’m not even exercising it anyway. For what? To say I can? I have more fear of some jacked up meth-head shooting my wife in the head over a parking spot at Walmart than I do of my Government turning on me. But I guess if I had a sawed-off shotgun, I could stop the latter from happening.

I blame Elvis.

wv wrote:

– X – wrote:

That’s fine, but I have one condition.
I *don’t* want to see this anymore.

I do not understand all this gyrating
that goes on with these kids today.

Is it a sexual thing, or not?
I’m seriously naive about this.
Someone explain it to me?

w
v

He’s more or less saying, “Yeah. Uh. Uh. Uh. I just f***ed you good” as a way of taunting/celebrating.
Wanna know the underlying issue for the sexual connotation? Can’t help you there.

wv wrote:

====================
VRENTAS: In 2013 you threw 27 touchdowns and two interceptions. Before you got hurt last season, you threw 13 touchdowns and 10 interceptions. Which of those quarterbacks is the real Nick Foles?

FOLES: Both of them. Those are all me. I don’t want to turn the ball over. I want to throw touchdowns, and I want to help our offense move the ball and get the ball in the end zone. Every single rep I have ever taken, that’s always been the guy who I want to be. I am not going to sit here and tell you that 2013 is exactly [who I am as a quarterback]. I’ve grown since both of those years. I’m a better player, a better person, a better athlete. I know everybody is going to analyze [the different stat lines] until the cows come home. But I’m not worried about that. I just want to work here and be successful here
=====================

Interesting answer.

w
v

Great answer to a set-up question.

1. I’m the first guy (to which the media touts him as an egotist)
2. I’m the second guy (to which the media touts him as a defeatist)

Dude processes ramifications quickly, I’ll say that.

PS did you get your cake?

http://theramshuddle.com/topic/welcome-back-x/

I did. Thanks.
The Van Gogh cake was particularly impressive.
Light, creamy, tortured…

• This reply was modified 9 years, 9 months ago by -- X --.
• This reply was modified 9 years, 9 months ago by -- X --.

I got one, but… I… do you mean it?
Do you really think I’m pretty?

All defensive linemen.

Cannon to right of them
Cannon to left of them
Cannon in front of them