Do I have this straight?
Those marvelous white guys at their "political meeting" with guns, chains, ...why not just do this?
"Of those weapons counted so far, 118 are handguns, one is an AK-47 assault-style rifle and 157 are knives. Swanton says weapons still uncounted are clubs, knives, brass knuckles, firearms and chains with padlocks attached.

Earlier, Swanton had lowered an estimate of recovered weapons from about 1,000 to about 500."
Those are the good ol' boys... but people who are black reacting to years of abuse and a needless death at the hands of police who are then denied their RIGHT to protest are wiping out progross?
What progress is that when the disabled are targetted repeatedly?
Lie to yourself if you must, don't expect normal people to buy into those lies.

Liberalism :
a political ideology with its beginnings in western Europe that rejects authoritarian government and defends freedom of speech,association, and religion, and the right to own property.

Conservatism :
A right -of-center political philosophy based on a tendency to support gradual rather than abrupt change and to preserve the status quo.

Based on these definitions its hard to imagine Conservatives leading the revolution for American independence.

And who you callin a "little failure darkies "?

Welcome aboard, Rainah; I'm hope that your OPP ride will be more satisfying than perplexing. I love all the ancient characterizations I've read or cinematically witnessed of everything from soup-to-nuts, but I find our free-market, 21st century adaption to ancient and modern philosophies and today's circumstances, especially in politics, more vigorous and dangerous than even just yesterday. I thought late into the night last night and narrowed the free-market fields down to "ducks." Yes, you read me right, ducks. About 50% of people watching ducks walk and quack say they saw a flock of ducks walk and quack; the other 50% swear they saw and heard beautiful peacocks and eagles. I saw a flock of DUCKS.

"WE" will narrow the v****g populous in America down to two hundred living v**ers; for all practical purposes, 50% (D) and 50% (R). Of the 50% (D) which is 100 v**ers, 30 of the v**ers are "community agitators," and fully involved in all phases of the v****g process; from manually and electronically maintaining the v****g machines to sorting-out the final v****g b****ts. When all is said and done in (D) land, 115% of the 100 v**ers v**ed (D). Hummmmmm. I could get into the 85% of the (R), conservative v**es grudgingly counted, and the 0% that were concluded in some of the districts - but why. And "THAT's the most basic me in a nutshell." "WE" won't be "Grubered" again!!! And I saw a flock of "DUCKS."

Hi, I'm Rainah,

While I'm hardly what I would personally call a progressive..... it's interesting to see progressives and etc. going after both the Republicans and the Democrats. I love it!

Seems like this might be a really great place to explore solutions *together*.

For my part, I believe that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats want to address solutions in light of the t***h. That the t***h in the political sphere is best sought through the principles of natural law (but that, sadly, neither the donkeys nor the elephants apply natural law unless they are attacking their political enemies.....).

That, while the founders did not always agree on how to address the complexities of lining up today's legislative concerns with natural law, I personally really and truly believe that they were right about natural law being our best guide in our efforts to govern ourselves.

That natural law can be summed up rather simply (something I learned from Richard Maybury's writings), that:

1) there are two basic principles behind natural law
a) you what you say you will do, and
b) do not encroach.

2) that when natural law is breached, the consequences will be of the negative variety

3) therefore it is best to not breach natural law

4) however, any governmental action must necessarily breach natural law (via encroachments - not by lying about your intentions.... contrary to many opinions in D.C., lying is *not* necessary in government)

5) therefore, it is important for government to be restrained (whether that is a monarchy or a republic or etc.)

6) that a republic has the best chance of restraining the government

7) but that a republic can only do so if they understand natural law

8) therefore, any efforts at restoration within our nation must necessarily include reforms in education
a) both in how teaching is done (there is actually such a thing as educational law, which was understood back in Rome's day as per the writings of Quintillian and etc., but especially Quintillian; and more modern efforts have been made to re-establish educational law; that modern 'classical education' is not actually in line with educational law, but that modern efforts (some 100 years ago modern that is) have since been almost silenced, but resurrected thanks to the homeschooling movement, etc.) --- said principles must be implemented *because* when they are not, and the obvious outcomes arise, liberals gain more ground in their arguments to liberalize educational practice *&* content....
b) and educational content must also be revisited

........

That educational reform also offers the perfect platform by which all other concerns should and ought to be addressed:

1) freedom of speech
2) and the rest of the Bill of Rights, etc.
3) modern takes on the culture war issues, etc.
4) whether one set of beliefs should be set up *or* outsted in singularity from the public forum, etc.

and so on........

.........

That without educational reform, there is no reason to work on any other reform.

Restoration of other aspects of government concerns without restoration of a healthy educational system will simply produce more citizens who don't understood what you just pasted together with weak paste.

..........

Yeah, that's the most basic me in a nutshell.

I'm a bit more complicated than that, but that's the basic me anyway.

........

Looking forward to seeing what might be possible.........

Rainah

Every right has a corresponding obligation. For example, the right to privacy obliges one to respect another's privacy. The right to speak freely obliges one to allow others to speak their piece.

There is no problem when the government codifies citizens rights as long as it keeps them generally stated and applies them to everyone. That way, everyone gets the same rights and commensurate obligations.

There is a very big problem when the government decides to define what those rights are. For example, there can be no freedom of religion if the government defines what a religion is or what a religion must approve. That is why the First Amendment denies the state the power to establish a religious preference and forbids the state from interfering in the practice of religion.

When the state defines a right it must accept the offsetting obligation or freedom does not exist.

If the state allows the free practice of religion, it cannot intrude upon the offsetting obligation by placing an additional burden on a part of the public. The burden must be determined by the right itself and must apply to all or there can be no freedom.

When the government determines who a businessman must serve, freedom to adhere to one's religious values cannot be abridged in the guise of business regulation and claim that freedom of religion still exists.