Log in ·
"It wasn't the White House, it wasn't the State Department, it wasn't father LaVar's so-called people on the ground in China that got his son out of a long term prison sentence - it was me," Trump tweeted early Wednesday.
Leonard Pitts says Trump acts "...puerile, infantile, juvenile."
Pity the deluded followers of "Dear Leader," who loyally attack anyone who dares speak truth about their hero. Their hero undercuts them (again) when he himself shows what he truly is, by the next puerile, infantile, juvenile words he says, and says, and says, and...
There's a pattern here, followers: in your "Dear Leader's" character...and in his treatment of you. Wake up.
Posted 22 November 2017, 11:19 a.m.
Zach, thanks for linking The Pitch' story.
Sounds like Kansas has their own Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Lucky us.
Posted 19 November 2017, 4:22 a.m.
To paraphrase Porfirio Diaz, former President of Mexico:
"Poor Kansas !! So far from God, and so close to the Republicans."
Diaz was President just before the Mexican Revolution.
If Republican were smart, they would take note.
Guess we know how that will turn out, right ?
Posted 18 November 2017, 6:50 p.m.
Amen, sister !
Following the Kansas City Star's investigation of our current Kansas government's penchant for secrecy, I suggest we change the state motto to "homines magis tenebras quam lucem erant enim eorum mala opera."
The Vulgate's Latin translation of John 3:19 seems to get the "conservatives' " political philosophy exactly right: "men loved darkness because their deeds were evil."
Posted 18 November 2017, 6:31 p.m.
(Shhhhh...it's between the lines. LOL.)
Posted 18 November 2017, 12:49 p.m.
Consider the possibility, Bob, that light is like "truth" (denotes speaking about a specific word itself) in the "X-Files" (title of TV show) tag line: "the truth is out there" (direct quotation).
Maybe the light is out there.
Maybe you just have to open your eyes.
Posted 18 November 2017, 9:23 a.m.
It could be interesting when heavily-armed protesters with a "gun-rights" chip on their shoulder need to be dispersed by capitol police if they won't pay $500 to publicly assert their "rights."
Posted 18 November 2017, 8:52 a.m.
Well, Richard, that's a normative part of the process of writing "the first draft of history," isn't it ?
News-events don't come whole and complete. The media reports that sources in law-enforcement said 5 people were known dead at a mass-shooting: then later reports that the sheriff's press-spokesman said 2 more bodies were found under the floor of the shooter's house. The media is doing its job: citing its sources, and correcting itself when it gets the facts wrong.
Citing sources, and correcting yourself is what you do when your criteria is fact, truth, reality.The jw, cnn, pbs, and other REAL news-media do that: which tells us their criteria is to accurately report facts, and that they are honest enough to admit it when they miss that mark.
Honest people agree that truth is the right "agenda" for the media: and not evidence of "media bias."
I appreciate that you cited a REAL media source (the New York Times) on CNN's errors. Trustworthy sources are where factuality has to start. And as you know, many JW commenters find the professional liars of "conservative media" (Breitbart, Limbaugh, InfoWars, Faux News) trustworthy...which tells us how much those commenters value truth.
People also show they love truth when they're willing to admit being wrong. That's a function of humility, only evidenced by those who acknowledge truth is greater than themselves.
But those who believe truth is whatever THEY say it is, are their own sufficient and highest source: they never need self-examine, or self-correct. How often, for example, do we hear the "conservative" disinformation-media, the current president...or JW commenters we all know...admit to being wrong ?
There's a larger question that's very relevant here. Who is it wise for honest people to trust: fellow fallible human beings who will admit it when they're wrong, or those who will not ?
Posted 18 November 2017, 8:37 a.m.
So how is regulation of who can possess firearms, or what firearms can legally be in individuals' possession "take away" your "right"...unless you hold that every individual has the absolute "right" to possess any firearm s/he wishes ?Are any of the other "rights" of the Bill of Rights absolute, and unlimited ?
A famous Supreme Court justice observed that the First Amendment confers no "right" to "falsely shout 'fire' in a crowded theater." Did his ruling "take away" the "right" of free-speech: or simply state the commonsense that that freedom of speech is not absolute and unlimited ?
Posted 17 November 2017, 12:44 p.m.
Sure thing. And mainly I recommend it for its well-documented and well-written history of that critical period, of which the militia question is only a part.
On further thinking about the militia question specifically, and covered in that book: the Whiskey Rebellion would seem to give the lie to Mason's assertion that the militia is "the whole people." That President Washington and the other Founding Fathers raised troops to supress the Whiskey rebels clearly shows they did not consider every armed grouping of "the whole people" were what the Constitution meant by "militia."
Cliven Bundy and members of other current self-proclaimed "militias" should read more history, and less N.R.A. propaganda.
Posted 17 November 2017, 12:11 p.m.
Full LJWorld.com site
© 2017 LJWorld.com