We Remember The Magic Café We Remember
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The press and the Gifford shooting (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..9~10~11~12~13..19..24..29..34..39..40~41~42 [Next]
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2011-01-18 11:55, acesover wrote:
Not saying you but it is obvious that many here just google something and then spout it off as if it is something they knew all along.


"The Fool is one who does not know what you have just found out."
I'm gonna put that in the quote game.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
To tell you the truth, acesover, I have known that President Allende and General Pinochet were Brothers in the same Masonic Lodge for a number of years. It is an intersting sidelight on history, and was reported in Masonic publications at the time of General Pinochet's death in 2006. In general, in my comments here, I rely on my memory for the knowledge of events that I think are important. However, I think it is better to look before you leap, and in a contentious discussion, I will often check my memory against published sources before making a statement. I think that is common courtesy. I think that researching your points and gathering evidence beforehand is a standard practice. In journalism it is called "fact checking." Many publications employ "fact checkers" to document every assertion an author may make in a submitted manuscript, including some of the seemingly obvious and mundane.

Woland
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Just in case anyone is still reading this thread to discuss the press coverage of the Tucson shooting, you might be interested in the comments of former New York Mayor Ed Koch:

Quote:
As I see it, in the current battle for public opinion Sarah Palin has defeated her harsh and unfair critics.

After the January 8 shooting of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the murder of six others in Tucson, Arizona, some television talking heads and members of the blogosphere denounced her and held her in part responsible for creating a climate of hatred that resulted in the mass attacks.

An example is Joe Scarborough and his crew on the "Morning Joe" show, which I watch and generally enjoy every morning at 6:30 a.m. when I rise to start the day. Because Palin designated Congresswoman Giffords and others for defeat in the November elections by the use of crosshairs on website maps of the Congressional districts, they blamed Palin for creating an atmosphere that caused Jared Loughner (whom everyone now recognizes as being mentally disturbed) to embark on the shooting and killing spree.

Then reason set in, led by President Obama in his now famous and widely-lauded speech in Tucson bringing the country together. Most commentators did an about-face, recognizing that the lack of civility in both speech and actions by politicians, particularly in Washington, were not the cause of the shootings. A friend of the shooter said he had no interest in politics or talk radio. Insanity was the cause of his vicious acts, not political rhetoric.

While the charge of responsibility against Palin was dropped, the Scarborough crew continued to assail her for defending herself on her website where she stated that she had been the subject of a blood libel. Her critics were incensed that she should use the term "blood libel." That was the description given by Jews to the charge of Christian clergy who falsely accused Jews of killing Christian children in order to make matzos (unleavened bread) during the Passover holiday. That libelous accusation was intended by those using it to cause pogroms that killed and injured thousands of Jews. It started in the early centuries A.D. and continues to date, according to Wikipedia. That same charge - blood libel - is now repeated by the media in Arab countries to stir up the anger of the Arab street against the Jews in Israel. The libel continues to do damage.

Today the phrase "blood libel" can be used to describe any monstrous defamation against any person, Jew or non-Jew. It was used by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon when he was falsely accused of permitting the Lebanese Christian militia to kill hundreds of defenseless and innocent Muslim men, women and children in Lebanese refugee camps. The killings were monstrous and indefensible revenge for earlier killings by Muslims of innocent Christian civilians.

Time Magazine published a story implying that Sharon was directly responsible for the massacres. He sued the magazine. At trial it was determined that the magazine story included false allegations, but since Sharon was a public figure, he received no monetary damages.

How dare Sarah Palin, cried the commentators, use that phrase to describe the criticism of her by those who blamed her for creating the atmosphere that set Loughner off in his murderous madness. Some took the position that it proved their ongoing charges that she is not an intelligent person and probably did not know what the phrase meant historically. In my opinion, she was right to denounce her critics and use blood libel to describe the unfair criticism that she had been subject to.

Here are excerpts from her statement:

Quote:
"Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims' families as we express our sympathy."

"Like many, I've spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event."

"Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don't like a person's vision for the country, you're free to debate that vision. If you don't like their ideas, you're free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible."

"As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, ‘We know violence isn't the answer. When we take up our arms, we're talking about our vote.' Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box - as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That's who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn't a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional."


Why do I defend Palin in this case? I don't agree with her political philosophy: She is an arch conservative. I am a liberal with sanity. I know that I am setting myself up for attack when I ask, why did Emile Zola defend Dreyfus? Palin is no Dreyfus and I am certainly no Zola. But all of us have an obligation, particularly those in politics and public office, to denounce, when we can, the perpetrators of horrendous libels and stand up for those falsely charged. We should denounce unfair, false and wicked charges not only when they are made against ourselves, our friends or our political party but against those with whom we disagree. If we are to truly change the poisonous political atmosphere that we all complain of, including those who create it, we should speak up for fairness when we can.

In the 2008 presidential race when Sarah Palin's name was first offered to the public by John McCain as his running mate, I said at the time that she "scared the hell out of me." My reference was to the content of her remarks, not to her power to persuade voters.

It was McCain who lost the presidential election, not Palin. Since that time she has established that she has enormous power to persuade people. A self-made woman who rose from PTA mother to Governor of Alaska, she is one of the few speakers in public life who can fill a stadium. Her books are enormous successes. Her television program about Alaska has been a critical and economic success. When Sarah Palin addresses audiences, they rise to their feet in support and applause. She is without question a major leader of the far right faction in the Republican Party and its ally the Tea Party.

I repeat my earlier comment that she "scares the hell out of me." Nevertheless, she is entitled to fair and respectful treatment. The fools in politics today in both parties are those who think she is dumb. I've never met her, but I've always thought that she is highly intelligent but not knowledgeable in many areas and politically uninformed. I don't believe she will run for president in 2012 or that she would be elected if she did. But I do believe she is equal in ability to many of those in the Republican Party seeking that office.

Many women understand what she has done for their cause. She will not be silenced nor will she leave the heavy lifts to the men in her Party. She will not be falsely charged, remain silent, and look for others - men - to defend her. She is plucky and unafraid.

While I disagree with her and I am prepared to oppose her politically, in the spirit of longed-for civility I say, Ms. Palin you are in a certain sense an example of the American dream: You have the courage to stand up and present your vision of America to its people. Your strength and lack of fear make America stronger and are examples to be emulated by girls and boys, men and women who are themselves afraid to speak up. You provide the example that they need for self-assurance.
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Woland,

Then by your post you are agreeing with me. You are paraphrasing what I just posted. Even to the point of that you look up facts to be sure you are correct before posting.

I even went on to say and I quote:
"Not saying you but it is obvious that many here just google something and then spout it off as if it is something they knew all along."

You obviously are a history buff or have a reason for knowing the information pertient to this discussion or a googler. I feel you are either a history buff or have a reason to know this information.

Definitely better to look before one leaps. However many discussions here are about ones opinion not about historical facts. An opinion is just that, an opinion. If I give my opinion I do not need to goggle to find out why I have an opinion. I already made a decision from past life experiences and my knowledge of said subject. On the contrary I have already formed an opinion and do not need support. Most of what I say here on the Café is just that, my opinion. I am not trying to sway anyone to my side. I am just stating my opinion. So as a result I do not go looking for back up help.

In the above let me quote you here:
"Let me add a little thought experiment.

If German military officers had not waited until 1944 to try to dislodge the National-Socialist regime, but had overthrown the Fuehrer in 1934, in the process killing 2 or 3 thousand of his fanatic followers, would that have been a bad thing?

If the Russian military had been willing to guarantee Finnish sovereignty and accept Finnish aid in capturing St. Petersburg and overthrowing the Bolshevik regime in 1919, and in the process killed 2 or 3 thousand of Lenin's fanatic followers, would that have been a bad thing?

That's basically what General Pinochet did." END QUOTE

I have no idea what you are asking much less give you an intelligent answer.

You go on further to say and I quote you again:
Well, landmark, instead of debating whether or not I am a "supporter" or General Pinochet's coup, how about answering the questions posed in my "thought experiment"?

Would it have been a good thing if the OKW had deposed the National-Socialist government in 1934, even at the price of establishing a temporary military dictatorship?

Would it have been a good thing if Yudenich had secured the assistance of Mannerheim, and deposed the Bolshevik government in St. Petersburg in 1919?

How would those events been different from General Pinochet's coup d'etat?

And finally, why is it not possible to recognize General Pinochet's coup d'etat for what it was, without "supporting" it? As I mentioned to you once before, I spent a sunny day in Germany back in 1973 marching in support of a "Free, Socialist, Unaligned Chile." END QUOTE

How many people here can really debate this issue with you because of your knowledge?

So having said that it would lead one to believe that many of the questions you asked are not necessairly your own but rather someone elses thoughts and questions.

Did you come up with all of these questions on your own or have they been asked over and over again by others? If all are of your own, then you are obviously very well versed in the subject matter at hand. I hope you see my point. You go far beyond just general knowledge on this subject if they are all your own.

I am just saying...
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2011-01-18 12:05, critter wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-01-18 11:55, acesover wrote:
Not saying you but it is obvious that many here just google something and then spout it off as if it is something they knew all along.


"The Fool is one who does not know what you have just found out."
I'm gonna put that in the quote game.



I very much like your quote. Great Fortune Cookie material.

But would like to add. "Unless you found out you were wrong all along."
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20661 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2011-01-18 09:24, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-01-18 09:15, Dannydoyle wrote:
Here is a thought of my very own. If the law against killing people didn't stop the guy, how the hell would a law against a gun purchase stop the guy?

What I mean is that he already was set on murder, is a gun charge going to stop him? I mean the left needs a new playbook. They have run every play from it in this situation and it is pathetic.

First club out of the bag "BLAME THE RIGHT and talk radio". Did it, blew it turns out he hated Bush. OOPS. No matter move forward because this after all is a tragedy and emotions are high so we can take this opportunity to get gun control going. Now we run that play for as much yardage as possible. Demonise the gun owners and especially the manufacturers.

I think we NEED to change the debate. Starting with this nonsense playbook that has a play entitled "you never want to let a crisis go to waste, you can do great things during a crisis". Why is it we are not talking about changing THAT side of the debate?

The bullet joke was funny. And true. I'm fine with banning ammunition.

Lots of the far right were anti-Bush. Take a look at some of the militia type literature. The sum of his videos and book list indicate if anything a strong anti-government libertarian bent.

Sorry, but this is a crisis the gun guys caused.

And absolutely the manufacturers are partly to blame. There's a long history of gun manufacturers encouraging the illegal distribution of guns.


So when do we stop blame for others when a madman does something. Lets say she was hit with a Louisville Slugger, then what do you ban? How about ran over with a car, used a lot of gas, pushed her out a window or what not? THEN WHAT? How much can you ban for your own security, and how many of my rights do you intend to trample to do it?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5044 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On 2011-01-18 11:19, Woland wrote:
Well, landmark, instead of debating whether or not I am a "supporter" or General Pinochet's coup, how about answering the questions posed in my "thought experiment"?

Would it have been a good thing if the OKW had deposed the National-Socialist government in 1934, even at the price of establishing a temporary military dictatorship?

Would it have been a good thing if Yudenich had secured the assistance of Mannerheim, and deposed the Bolshevik government in St. Petersburg in 1919?

How would those events been different from General Pinochet's coup d'etat?

And finally, why is it not possible to recognize General Pinochet's coup d'etat for what it was, without "supporting" it? As I mentioned to you once before, I spent a sunny day in Germany back in 1973 marching in support of a "Free, Socialist, Unaligned Chile."

Woland

I'm really puzzled at your coyness here. You state a position and when I ask you to clarify, you deny it is your position. When I say you are a supporter of Pinochet, I don't mean that you personally provided him with weapons. I mean that you see the advent and reign of his government as on balance a good thing. If you don't then why are we arguing?

I would submit that the 30,000 tortured under the dictator Pinochet's regime, and the families still looking in the Chilean desert, digging up sand to find their disappeared loved ones, would disagree that it was a positive reaction. We'll never know the real number as many were dumped in the Pacific Ocean by helicopter and also were burned, because the dictator Pinochet issued orders to remove the bodies. Over a million people fled the country, and 250,000 people were detained. This NEVER happened under the democratic election of Allende. People were not murdered and tortured under Allende, and you know it. Under Pinochet there was ONE PARTY rule--and even still, with the threat of torture and disappearance over them, after 8 years, Chileans risked their lives and over 30% voted NO against Pinochet's hellhole. After 16 years, Chile was about to blow, and it took Pope John Paul II to go to Pinochet to tell him to step down as president but remain as commander in chief of the army with immunization from prosecution for all crimes.

The only way your analogy would make any sense at all in the case of Chile is if we turned it upside down, and Allende had somehow overthrown the dictator Pinochet. But unfortunately that's not what happened.

And your conversion?
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5044 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On 2011-01-18 14:06, Dannydoyle wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-01-18 09:24, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-01-18 09:15, Dannydoyle wrote:
Here is a thought of my very own. If the law against killing people didn't stop the guy, how the hell would a law against a gun purchase stop the guy?

What I mean is that he already was set on murder, is a gun charge going to stop him? I mean the left needs a new playbook. They have run every play from it in this situation and it is pathetic.

First club out of the bag "BLAME THE RIGHT and talk radio". Did it, blew it turns out he hated Bush. OOPS. No matter move forward because this after all is a tragedy and emotions are high so we can take this opportunity to get gun control going. Now we run that play for as much yardage as possible. Demonise the gun owners and especially the manufacturers.

I think we NEED to change the debate. Starting with this nonsense playbook that has a play entitled "you never want to let a crisis go to waste, you can do great things during a crisis". Why is it we are not talking about changing THAT side of the debate?

The bullet joke was funny. And true. I'm fine with banning ammunition.

Lots of the far right were anti-Bush. Take a look at some of the militia type literature. The sum of his videos and book list indicate if anything a strong anti-government libertarian bent.

Sorry, but this is a crisis the gun guys caused.

And absolutely the manufacturers are partly to blame. There's a long history of gun manufacturers encouraging the illegal distribution of guns.


So when do we stop blame for others when a madman does something. Lets say she was hit with a Louisville Slugger, then what do you ban? How about ran over with a car, used a lot of gas, pushed her out a window or what not? THEN WHAT? How much can you ban for your own security, and how many of my rights do you intend to trample to do it?

I hear you Danny. We're going to have to agree to disagree. We're only repeating ourselves; I think guns are unnecessarily dangerous in a public situation and you don't. I will work towards my goal, you will work towards yours.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20661 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Well when you claim the problem is the blame, the hate and the rheoric only until you find out that does not further your goals and then you go right on doing EXACTLY what you said caused the problem in the first place, how serious are you to be taken? It seems as if you will say anything necessary to accomplish your goal no matter the truth of the statement.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Thanks, acesover.

Although someone may not have all the facts at their fingertips, you can always investigate the questions on your own, research the facts, and then come to your own conclusions -- which might be better than starting out with pre-formed opinions that are based on . . . . what?

Hypothetical questions about whether the world would have been better or worse if certain things that did not happen could have been made to happen are not unusual. In the examples I cited, I tried to provide enough historical detail to indicate that the situations I was imagining were in fact plausible. Based on our experiences in life, we all have different stores of knowledge. From previous exchanges with landmark, I thought that he would understand the allusions.

In the case of the Bolshevik Revolution, it is a fair assumption that the anti-Bolshevik forces around General Yudenich were almost strong enough to take St. Petersburg; if the Imperial Russian Generals had been willing to guarantee Finland's independence, the Finns under Mannerheim would have been willing to join the fight, and that would have probably carried the day. In any event, the destruction of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1919 would have enabled Russia to evolve into a constitutional monarchy, and tens of millions of lives might have been spared.

However, if that had happened, and the unspeakable horros of the Bolshevik regime had never happened, some on the left might now be complaining about the harsh tactics employed by the counter-revolutionaries, and bemoaning the unfortunate well-meaning radicals and revolutionaries killed in the overthrow of the communist regime.

Similarly, if he German High Command had realized in 1934 what the National-Socialist regime would do to Germany by 1945, they might have decisively overthrown the nascent dictatorship. And today, they would be castigated for their brutality, and the fact that in typical high-handed Prussian fashion, they so evilly overthrew the peacefully and legally elected German government. . . .

I believe that an analogous situation applies to Chile. Allende's Marxist-Leninist revolution was stopped in its tracks, at possibly the last possible moment, by a military coup d'etat. The horrors that Allende would have perpetrated -- the horrors that have been perpetrated by every Marxist-Leninist regime in history -- were averted. And so those who rescued Chile from those horrors now appear to many to have been brutal, unjust murderers and torturers.

Woland
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
What we really need to do is to re-examine how we treat and care for the mentally ill in this country. Jared exhibited many of the signs of mental illness- even his friends said so- but nothing could be done, since he didn't desire treatment, and had not exhibited any of the criteria for involuntary commitment "beyond a reasonable doubt." Well, he did, but it was only discovered in retrospect.

Interesting Newsweek article on exactly this:
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/12/could......ted.html
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5044 Posts

Profile of landmark
Woland--
So basically your argument is "We had to destroy the village in order to save the village that wasn't destroyed, but might be destroyed though there's no evidence of that."

Those who you *think* (based on no evidence at all) "rescued" Chile did not appear to have been brutal, unjust murderers and torturers, they were brutal unjust murderers and torturers. The evidence is clear and copious. The National Reconciliation commissions in Chile established that. But I guess you're happy that it was only for their own good.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20661 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
What we need to do is re examine exactly what we can do something about and what we can't do anything about. An angry lone nut is something that no matter HOW MANY laws and restrictions and how big you make the government, can not be stopped.

Too bad blame the right and IT WAS SARAH PALIN didn't work huh?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Danny, did I blame anyone in my last post?
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
kcg5
View Profile
Inner circle
who wants four fried chickens and a coke
1875 Posts

Profile of kcg5
Quote:
On 2011-01-17 16:28, Tom Bartlett wrote:
Defending our selves from criminals is only one reason to keep and bear arms. The main reason is to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government.


Good to see you back Tom!

Are you a tea party member? Your last sentence seems to be a common idea with those dudes.
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!!!!!



"History will be kind to me, as I intend to write it"- Sir Winston Churchill
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Well, landmark, it was the communist playwright Jean-Paul Sartre who observed that history was made with "dirty hands." Chile was not a destroyed village by any stretch.

But since you mention it, the military action of the United States in Viet Nam was (as President Reagan said) a noble cause. And the war had been effectively and successfully turned over to the ARVN when the last American combat soldier left in 1973. It wasn't until 2 years later, when the Democratic-Party-controlled U.S. Congress turned off the funding that the Republic of South Viet Nam fell to the communists, leading to among other things 2 or 3 million refugees setting off on the high seas and across hostile borderlands . . . not to mention decades of enduring poverty for those who stayed behind . . .

Sometimes a village does have to be destroyed -- sometimes an entire city has to be destroyed -- in order to save the rest of the country.

Woland
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5044 Posts

Profile of landmark
Woland--
Hmm I guess if Reagan said it was a noble cause, it must have been. Over two million Vietnamese murdered; more bombs dropped by the US on the tiny nation than the total amount of tonnage dropped in all of WW2 by all parties combined; the decimation of the agricultural countryside by Agent Orange and other deadly herbicides; a corrupt ruling elite who siphoned off money; the horrors of napalm--the burning jelly that sticks to your skin and burns you to death--falling everyday from the sky; . . . and you speak about the enduring poverty. Enduring poverty exacerbated and extended by colonial and US invasion.

And you think that the ARVN had this war won when the US left? An invading force doesn't leave on its own unless it's already roundly defeated. And the US was roundly defeated. Its own army had ceased to function.

Well I've posted this twice already, but as long as we're going to get into Vietnam, I'll post it again: MLK's speech, Beyond Vietnam.

Quote:
The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1954 — in 1945 rather — after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination and a government that had been established not by China — for whom the Vietnamese have no great love — but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.

For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam. Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.

After the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva Agreement. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords, and refused even to discuss reunification with the North. The peasants watched as all of this was presided over by United States influence and then by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem’s methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictators seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace.

The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be destroyed by our bombs.

So they go, primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one Vietcong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them, mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
Ease up on Chile. What happened happened and Chile is a great place. One thing, Venezuala is also a wonderful country with great people and watch it because you are seeing how socialist destroy a people and a country.
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
Hey, gun guys, I have a question for you and I'll try to phrase it so it is understood. On cop shows they often use a semi automatic pistol that when the clip is out the sides of the barrel slide forward (it looks like) on both sides with the main barrel static and then they put the clip in, do something, and it slides back into place and looks like one expects it to look like. What type of gun is that?

I watched Hawaii Five Oh last night (Grace Park...ohhhhh yeah) and they used Glocks! See....I'm learning.
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
MagaicSanta,

If I understand what you are asking I believe you are confusing the slide with the barrel. The slide covers the barrel. The barrel is static but the slide moves rearward upon firing then back into battery chambering a round.

What I believe you are referring to as "doing something" is the slide lock lever being depressed, which releases the slide from its rearward position chambering a round. When it (slide lock lever) is depressed the slide moves forward chambering a round from a newly inserted magazine.

Jopoe this is what you meant. Hope it clears it up a little.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The press and the Gifford shooting (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..9~10~11~12~13..19..24..29..34..39..40~41~42 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.38 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL