Warbler

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

When they are untrue, imo, it becomes valid to bring up “Not All Men”. Point #5 shows this. Point #5 basically argues that there are no “good guys”.

Well, I mean, it is true. Every human being on this Earth is susceptible to bad behavior. It’s in our DNA. It’s why we have civilization. You, me, and every man on Earth are susceptible to objectifying women and giving in to bad social constructs.

I agree no one is perfect, but there are some humans worse than others. Being susceptible is not the same as being guilty and it doesn’t mean you aren’t a “good guy”. Also women are also susceptible.

True. I’m not sure what you’re arguing against here.

The idea that there are no “good guys”

Still not seeing where someone argued this point.

point #5 seems to argue it.

Not really.

I disagree with you.

I think the author takes liberties with the phrase “good guy.” At that moment, I think that that phrase is being used rhetorically, not literally.

possibly, but that is not how it comes off to me.

Your problem. There’s more to writing than just the literal meaning of it.

Think it more than just my problem, but whatever.

Probably just how you read it.

I am willing to bet there are others that read it the same way I did.

I just don’t like the attitude in point #6. It stereotypes about the male ego and it refers to men as “privileged people” to justify putting all men into this one negative group.

Men are privileged. Men are sexually harassed less than women, and there’s a lot more men in many fields of work than women.

Did you miss it when I said “There is some truth to it, but I think the “privilege” some think white people and men have is exaggerated.”? I think some think the privilege is the same was it was back in the 1950’s. Things have changed. Privilege isn’t what it used to be.

True, but it still exists.

and I acknowledged that is still exists, I just think it is exaggerated sometimes.

When?

When did I acknowledge it? When I said “There is some truth to it”. When is it exaggerated? often. I articles and opinion pieces in the paper all the time that do so. You would think it was still the 1950s.

This isn’t about defending my damaged ego, this is about fairness. It is not fair assume guilty due to group.

I think some part of your ego is hurt. Why are you defending this so voraciously?

Maybe I just sick and tired of articles like this about sexism and racism. Maybe I am tired of being groups with men that act like assholes, just because I am one. I know I am sick and tired of being blamed for slavery and jim crow. I know I am sick and tired of being assumed that I am some sort of racist because I am white. I am sick and tired of being in the group that is blamed by some for all of society’s ills.

Yet again:

::shrug::

whatever.

*sigh*?

If you say so.

You shouldn’t feel alone in this, I’ve felt like it before. But you have to introspect and think about your actions and your words.

Maybe someone should tell the writer of the article to think about her words.

I’m not sure why you’re treating this article like it’s some offensive BS.

I don’t the whole article is wrong or offensive. But I do think some parts of it are bs.

Fine. Your problem.

*sigh*?

Also it talks about the opportunity to learn about another group’s experience, which “nobody owes them”. I am pretty writer does want men to know and understand about the experiences of women, but I and other men are mind readers. How would we learn what the writer would want us to learn without such opportunities?

Read? Listen?

I try. But maybe all groups need to do some reading and listening to the other group. Maybe some women could learn from experiences of when men were falsely accused of sexism or were victims of sexism themselves. Maybe some black people could learn from experiences of when white people were falsely accused of being racist or were victims of racism themselves.

The problems you’re pointing out here are compartively small boar to the problems minorities and women face all the time.

I think we disagree on just how bad the problems are that women and minorities face. They still face some problems, but not nearly as bad as it used to be and I think the problem they have today are exaggerated.

I disagree.

Then we will have to disagree.

TV’s Frink said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/08/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html

Two weeks after Donald J. Trump clinched the Republican presidential nomination last year, his eldest son arranged a meeting at Trump Tower in Manhattan with a Russian lawyer who has connections to the Kremlin, according to confidential government records described to The New York Times.

The previously undisclosed meeting was also attended by Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman at the time, Paul J. Manafort, as well as the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, according to interviews and the documents, which were outlined by people familiar with them.

While President Trump has been dogged by revelations of undisclosed meetings between his associates and Russians, this episode at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016, is the first confirmed private meeting between a Russian national and members of Mr. Trump’s inner circle during the campaign. It is also the first time that his son Donald J. Trump Jr. is known to have been involved in such a meeting.

interesting.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Surprised nobody’s talking about Ivanka filling in for dad at the G20 table…

I didn’t know about this. not good.

yhwx said:

When they are untrue, imo, it becomes valid to bring up “Not All Men”. Point #5 shows this. Point #5 basically argues that there are no “good guys”.

Well, I mean, it is true. Every human being on this Earth is susceptible to bad behavior. It’s in our DNA. It’s why we have civilization. You, me, and every man on Earth are susceptible to objectifying women and giving in to bad social constructs.

I agree no one is perfect, but there are some humans worse than others. Being susceptible is not the same as being guilty and it doesn’t mean you aren’t a “good guy”. Also women are also susceptible.

True. I’m not sure what you’re arguing against here.

The idea that there are no “good guys”

Still not seeing where someone argued this point.

point #5 seems to argue it.

I think the author takes liberties with the phrase “good guy.” At that moment, I think that that phrase is being used rhetorically, not literally.

possibly, but that is not how it comes off to me.

Your problem. There’s more to writing than just the literal meaning of it.

Think it more than just my problem, but whatever.

I’m sure the author believes that there are good men out there, but she used the phrase “good guy” to illustrate what many men want to present themselves to the world as in these conversations.

I am sure there are plenty of men that wish to be seen one of the good guys when in reality they are not. The problem is, the way the article words point #5 comes off as attacking the real good guys along with the fake ones.

::shrug::

I think you’re reading it wrong, but there’s nothing I can really do about that.

If you say so.

I just don’t like the attitude in point #6. It stereotypes about the male ego and it refers to men as “privileged people” to justify putting all men into this one negative group.

Men are privileged. Men are sexually harassed less than women, and there’s a lot more men in many fields of work than women.

Did you miss it when I said “There is some truth to it, but I think the “privilege” some think white people and men have is exaggerated.”? I think some think the privilege is the same was it was back in the 1950’s. Things have changed. Privilege isn’t what it used to be.

True, but it still exists.

and I acknowledged that is still exists, I just think it is exaggerated sometimes.

Men should of course listen to what women have to say, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t defend ourselves when attacked.

Let’s say that men were, in some way, unprivileged in some way. Would you appreciate a woman going “well, actually” to you and undermining your points? No. In this theoretical situation, it’s the women’s place to listen, not talk.

Before I would judge something as undermining my points, I would have to know exactly what she said and how she said it. I wouldn’t necessarily take her saying “not all women are like that” as undermining what I was saying.

This isn’t about defending my damaged ego, this is about fairness. It is not fair assume guilty due to group.

I think some part of your ego is hurt. Why are you defending this so voraciously?

Maybe I just sick and tired of articles like this about sexism and racism. Maybe I am tired of being groups with men that act like assholes, just because I am one. I know I am sick and tired of being blamed for slavery and jim crow. I know I am sick and tired of being assumed that I am some sort of racist because I am white. I am sick and tired of being in the group that is blamed by some for all of society’s ills.

Yet again:

::shrug::

whatever.

You shouldn’t feel alone in this, I’ve felt like it before. But you have to introspect and think about your actions and your words.

Maybe someone should tell the writer of the article to think about her words.

I’m not sure why you’re treating this article like it’s some offensive BS.

I don’t the whole article is wrong or offensive. But I do think some parts of it are bs.

Also it talks about the opportunity to learn about another group’s experience, which “nobody owes them”. I am pretty writer does want men to know and understand about the experiences of women, but I and other men are mind readers. How would we learn what the writer would want us to learn without such opportunities?

Read? Listen?

I try. But maybe all groups need to do some reading and listening to the other group. Maybe some women could learn from experiences of when men were falsely accused of sexism or were victims of sexism themselves. Maybe some black people could learn from experiences of when white people were falsely accused of being racist or were victims of racism themselves.

The problems you’re pointing out here are compartively small boar to the problems minorities and women face all the time.

I think we disagree on just how bad the problems are that women and minorities face. They still face some problems, but not nearly as bad as it used to be and I think the problem they have today are exaggerated(but the problems do still exist).

yhwx said:

Point number #2 and point #4 are sometimes untrue.

When?

There are times we when feminists are attacking men and not just Patriarchy. There are times when it does seem like it is men vs. women.

Like… when?

Like how about when women go “men are pigs . . .”? Sorry, but I can’t think of any good examples and I am go searching. But I think it is fairly obvious that some extreme feminists attack men and not just patriarchy.

When they are untrue, imo, it becomes valid to bring up “Not All Men”. Point #5 shows this. Point #5 basically argues that there are no “good guys”.

Well, I mean, it is true. Every human being on this Earth is susceptible to bad behavior. It’s in our DNA. It’s why we have civilization. You, me, and every man on Earth are susceptible to objectifying women and giving in to bad social constructs.

I agree no one is perfect, but there are some humans worse than others. Being susceptible is not the same as being guilty and it doesn’t mean you aren’t a “good guy”. Also women are also susceptible.

True. I’m not sure what you’re arguing against here.

The idea that there are no “good guys”

I disagree with your framing that there are no “good guys,” as you put it,

I didn’t put it that way, the article did.

because there are good people in the world. There’s good men in the world. But every good person is susceptible to evil, just as all evil people are susceptible to good.

read what I wrote above.

I did.

ok.

Should it really be all that surprising that I would take that as an attack on all men and view it in a men vs. women kind of way??? The same is true for point #6. I especially can’t stand the attitude at the end of point #6, that is all about men vs. women and attacking men.

How so?

point #5 was basically looked like it was attacking all men and saying there weren’t any good ones. That sure seems like an attack on all men.

After reading the article a second time, I think I get your point now.

Thank you.

I think the author takes liberties with the phrase “good guy.” At that moment, I think that that phrase is being used rhetorically, not literally.

possibly, but that is not how it comes off to me.

I’m sure the author believes that there are good men out there, but she used the phrase “good guy” to illustrate what many men want to present themselves to the world as in these conversations.

I am sure there are plenty of men that wish to be seen one of the good guys when in reality they are not. The problem is, the way the article words point #5 comes off as attacking the real good guys along with the fake ones.

I just don’t like the attitude in point #6. It stereotypes about the male ego and it refers to men as “privileged people” to justify putting all men into this one negative group.

Men are privileged. Men are sexually harassed less than women, and there’s a lot more men in many fields of work than women.

Did you miss it when I said “There is some truth to it, but I think the “privilege” some think white people and men have is exaggerated.”? I think some think the privilege is the same was it was back in the 1950’s. Things have changed. Privilege isn’t what it used to be.

Men should of course listen to what women have to say, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t defend ourselves when attacked.

Let’s say that men were, in some way, unprivileged in some way. Would you appreciate a woman going “well, actually” to you and undermining your points? No. In this theoretical situation, it’s the women’s place to listen, not talk.

Before I would judge something as undermining my points, I would have to know exactly what she said and how she said it. I wouldn’t necessarily take her saying “not all women are like that” as undermining what I was saying.

This isn’t about defending my damaged ego, this is about fairness. It is not fair assume guilty due to group.

I think some part of your ego is hurt. Why are you defending this so voraciously?

Maybe I just sick and tired of articles like this about sexism and racism. Maybe I am tired of being groups with men that act like assholes, just because I am one. I know I am sick and tired of being blamed for slavery and jim crow. I know I am sick and tired of being assumed that I am some sort of racist because I am white. I am sick and tired of being in the group that is blamed by some for all of society’s ills.

You shouldn’t feel alone in this, I’ve felt like it before. But you have to introspect and think about your actions and your words.

Maybe someone should tell the writer of the article to think about her words.

Also it talks about the opportunity to learn about another group’s experience, which “nobody owes them”. I am pretty writer does want men to know and understand about the experiences of women, but I and other men are mind readers. How would we learn what the writer would want us to learn without such opportunities?

Read? Listen?

I try. But maybe all groups need to do some reading and listening to the other group. Maybe some women could learn from experiences of when men were falsely accused of sexism or were victims of sexism themselves. Maybe some black people could learn from experiences of when white people were falsely accused of being racist or were victims of racism themselves.

Maybe you don’t owe us, but if you want us to understand the lesson, you better teach it. Deciding not to teach the lesson because “nobody owes them” benefits no one.

You’re correct, that is a little weird.

But I will admit that “Not All Men” shouldn’t be used to excuse you when you are part of the problem. Finally of course the article has to bring up privilege. There is some truth to it, but I think the “privilege” some think white people and men have is exaggerated.

You are a white man. I bet that might distort your viewpoint.

no more than being black or a women would distort your viewpoint.

Not untrue, but I think you’re missing the point.

This is a conversation about women. Their views are the main object of this discussion.

Seems to me that men and all bad stuff they do was the object of the article.

Also forgotten is the very slight minor privilege women and black people have: They don’t get blamed for the acts of a few.

I’m sure that many times, women and minorities are blamed for the acts of a few.

When they are, the blamers are called sexist and racist and their complaints are ignored as such(and probably should be).

There are still millions of people in America that have regressive viewpoints, just like there are millions of people in America that eat DiGiorno Pizza.

agreed. But not everyone eats DiGiorno Pizza. This is true and it shouldn’t be wrong to say something that is truth.

They don’t get blamed for acts that happened years before they were born. They don’t get articles like this written about them telling not bring up completely true facts like “Not All Men”.

As I said before, I’m sure these articles are being written. Maybe we just don’t read or see them, but I bet these sorts of views are held by many people.

Again, those that hold those view points about black people and women are called sexists and racists.

See above.

I responded above.

I guess I grew up with a character flaw: I don’t think people are guilty due to their sex or race. I guess I listened to MLK’s I have a dream speech too many times. I was taught that stereotyping is wrong. Sorry.

There’s no need to be sorry. I think you get the wrong point from the article.

It is how the article comes across to me.

Well, there’s not much I can do about that.

agreed.

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

EDIT: If you think that saying “Not All Men” is sexist or even problematic in any way whatsoever, then you’re absolutely crazy. You’re an absolute lunatic if you think that reminding people not to generalize and blame an entire 50% of the population for the actions of a few is something that we shouldn’t do.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/171595-6-reasons-not-all-men-misses-the-point-because-its-derailing-important-conversations

I agree with a few things the that article says, but some of it is bs. I agree “Not All Men” should never be used to silence women or to derail conversations or to justify any sexists or argue that women shouldn’t feel uncomfortable in certain situations. But it is true that not all men are sexist pigs. Not all men are rapists. There is nothing wrong with saying the truth at the right time.

I think the article is trying to say that there isn’t a right time.

If so, the article is wrong.

Point number #2 and point #4 are sometimes untrue.

When?

There are times we when feminists are attacking men and not just Patriarchy. There are times when it does seem like it is men vs. women.

When they are untrue, imo, it becomes valid to bring up “Not All Men”. Point #5 shows this. Point #5 basically argues that there are no “good guys”.

Well, I mean, it is true. Every human being on this Earth is susceptible to bad behavior. It’s in our DNA. It’s why we have civilization. You, me, and every man on Earth are susceptible to objectifying women and giving in to bad social constructs.

I agree no one is perfect, but there are some humans worse than others. Being susceptible is not the same as being guilty and it doesn’t mean you aren’t a “good guy”. Also women are also susceptible.

I disagree with your framing that there are no “good guys,” as you put it,

I didn’t put it that way, the article did.

because there are good people in the world. There’s good men in the world. But every good person is susceptible to evil, just as all evil people are susceptible to good.

read what I wrote above.

Should it really be all that surprising that I would take that as an attack on all men and view it in a men vs. women kind of way??? The same is true for point #6. I especially can’t stand the attitude at the end of point #6, that is all about men vs. women and attacking men.

How so?

point #5 was basically looked like it was attacking all men and saying there weren’t any good ones. That sure seems like an attack on all men.

I just don’t like the attitude in point #6. It stereotypes about the male ego and it refers to men as “privileged people” to justify putting all men into this one negative group. Men should of course listen to what women have to say, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t defend ourselves when attacked. This isn’t about defending my damaged ego, this is about fairness. It is not fair assume guilty due to group.

Also it talks about the opportunity to learn about another group’s experience, which “nobody owes them”. I am pretty writer does want men to know and understand about the experiences of women, but I and other men are mind readers. How would we learn what the writer would want us to learn without such opportunities? Maybe you don’t owe us, but if you want us to understand the lesson, you better teach it. Deciding not to teach the lesson because “nobody owes them” benefits no one.

But I will admit that “Not All Men” shouldn’t be used to excuse you when you are part of the problem. Finally of course the article has to bring up privilege. There is some truth to it, but I think the “privilege” some think white people and men have is exaggerated.

You are a white man. I bet that might distort your viewpoint.

no more than being black or a women would distort your viewpoint.

Also forgotten is the very slight minor privilege women and black people have: They don’t get blamed for the acts of a few.

I’m sure that many times, women and minorities are blamed for the acts of a few.

When they are, the blamers are called sexist and racist and their complaints are ignored as such(and probably should be).

They don’t get blamed for acts that happened years before they were born. They don’t get articles like this written about them telling not bring up completely true facts like “Not All Men”.

As I said before, I’m sure these articles are being written. Maybe we just don’t read or see them, but I bet these sorts of views are held by many people.

Again, those that hold those view points about black people and women are called sexists and racists.

I guess I grew up with a character flaw: I don’t think people are guilty due to their sex or race. I guess I listened to MLK’s I have a dream speech too many times. I was taught that stereotyping is wrong. Sorry.

There’s no need to be sorry. I think you get the wrong point from the article.

It is how the article comes across to me.

Btw, if “Not All Men” is wrong to say, doesn’t it also make it wrong to say “Not All Muslims”? I don’t think it is wrong to say “Not All Muslims”, but I think you see my point.

That’s a point I can’t really generate a response to. A better debater would probably challenge you better here, but I’ll stay out of this.

ok.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

most of it is bs.

¯\(ツ)/¯

Ok, after thinking about it, I have changed “most” to “some”. I’ve edited my previous post accordingly.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

EDIT: If you think that saying “Not All Men” is sexist or even problematic in any way whatsoever, then you’re absolutely crazy. You’re an absolute lunatic if you think that reminding people not to generalize and blame an entire 50% of the population for the actions of a few is something that we shouldn’t do.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/171595-6-reasons-not-all-men-misses-the-point-because-its-derailing-important-conversations

I agree with a few things the that article says, but some of it is bs. I agree “Not All Men” should never be used to silence women or to derail conversations or to justify any sexists or argue that women shouldn’t feel uncomfortable in certain situations. But it is true that not all men are sexist pigs. Not all men are rapists. There is nothing wrong with saying the truth at the right time. Point number #2 and point #4 are sometimes untrue. When they are untrue, imo, it becomes valid to bring up “Not All Men”. Point #5 shows this. Point #5 basically argues that there are no “good guys”. Should it really be all that surprising that I would take that as an attack on all men and view it in a men vs. women kind of way??? The same is true for point #6. I especially can’t stand the attitude at the end of point #6, that is all about men vs. women and attacking men. But I will admit that “Not All Men” shouldn’t be used to excuse you when you are part of the problem. Finally of course the article has to bring up privilege. There is some truth to it, but I think the “privilege” some think white people and men have is exaggerated. Also forgotten is the very slight minor privilege women and black people have: They don’t get blamed for the acts of a few. They don’t get blamed for acts that happened years before they were born. They don’t get articles like this written about them telling not bring up completely true facts like “Not All Men”.

I guess I grew up with a character flaw: I don’t think people are guilty due to their sex or race. I guess I listened to MLK’s I have a dream speech too many times. I was taught that stereotyping is wrong. Sorry.

Btw, if “Not All Men” is wrong to say, doesn’t it also make it wrong to say “Not All Muslims”? I don’t think it is wrong to say “Not All Muslims”, but I think you see my point.

SilverWook said:

That’s too bad. I thought there had been multiple Bens over the decades.

The one who had been doing it for a number of years passed away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Archbold

yhwx said:

DominicCobb said:

yhwx said:

I don’t like how people/autocorrect make “Leia” "“Leah.”

Agreed (wrong thread though?).

If so, is there a right thread?

On another note…

DuracellEnergizer said:

On this exact moment, I turn thirty years old today.

I think I have the perfect dirge for this momentous occasion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX6FbIkfyro

The number one song on the week of your birthday was…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Cw1ng75KP0

Where’d you calculate that?

http://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100?archive-search__input=7%2F5%2F1987

This appears to be the number one song on the week of my birthday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdo-ZiHqbls

darth_ender said:

darth_ender said:

I was recently promoted to be the interim director of the behavioral health department of my hospital! 😃

I think people missed my modification to this post when I posted it in the good news thread because all I got in response was a joke about talking to myself 😉

That said, I have a fairly small department, which means I only have a few people in key areas. A month ago, all was going well. I’d lost a lousy social worker and a good former social worker had agreed to come back to work for us. Well, since then, that social worker decided to take a job in Tucson instead, my other social worker is moving to the hospice department, and my utilization review case manager had to leave suddenly due to family issues (she made sure we got paid by insurance companies, who can deny payment if they don’t receive needed info in a timely manner). So I’ve been struggling to replace these folks because they are essential for running a behavioral health unit. It’s been very stressful.

Lesson: Create redundancy so you don’t have to rely too much on lone key people. You can bet I’m going to train multiple people to do the same job from now on!

Congrads on being made director! Sorry to hear about the difficulties you are having.

SilverWook said:

Why am I paying for bi monthly visits from the exterminator if ants are going to invade my house anyway? I’ll be lucky if anyone returns my call before the 5th.

Maybe you need to find a better exterminator.

I think the guy known for dressing up like Franklin has passed away.

SilverWook said:

I had a parchment copy of the Declaration of Independence when I was a kid. It was probably a Bicentennial thing since my family visited Philly in '76.

I have one of the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They sold those things at historic sites in Philly. The did so in the 80’s as well. For all I know, they still might.

For once, a Donald Trump tweet I kinda like.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/882061157900718081

“North Korea has just launched another missile. Does this guy have anything better to do with his life?”

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwLWNXFH2rg

Warbler said:

Not a chance in hell of that, UK!, Not a chance in hell of that!

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

A DECLARATION

By the REPRESENTATIVES of the

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

In GENERAL CONGRESS assembled

When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, the among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.  Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed  to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.  But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under abosolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.  Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.  The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Obect the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World

He has refused his Assent ot Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.

He has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their Public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.

He has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapble of Annihalation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose of obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Aprropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Officies, and the Amount and payment of their Salaries.

He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.

He has kept among us, in Times of Peace. Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of, and superiour to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foriegn to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.

He has abidicated Goverment here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our Sea, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.

He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of Death, Desolution, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethern, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare , is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes, and Conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury.  A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Trant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.

Nor have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethen.  We have warmed them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us.  We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here.  We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence.   They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity.  We must, therefore acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing ot the Sumpreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare That thees United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britian, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.  And for the support of this declaration, with firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

JOHN HANCOCK, Presdent

Attest,
CHARLES THOMSON, Secretary.

[John Adams said:]The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more

You were only off by two days, Mr. Adams.

This thread is not for discussing politics or anything anti-American DO IT IN ANOTHER THREAD!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwLWNXFH2rg

too bad.

*sigh*

NeverarGreat said:

One can still celebrate the founding principles of America without condoning its current government.

exactly.

Remember, today we are celebrating an extreme act of defiance against the then current government.

yhwx said:

Breaking news right here. President Trump has just tweeted out his Fourth of July message to the nation:

Хотелось бы пожелать всем американцам счастливого четвертого июля от сердца Владимира Путина! Сделайте Америку прекрасной.

Here is what I have to say to that:

yhwx said:

It’s Independence Day. A lot of people don’t like the direction the country is going. If you feel this way, is it appropriate to celebrate this holiday and feel proud of America?

Discuss.

You do what you feel you must. I certainly view the celebrating of the 4th of July to be quite different than stating agreement with the current administration. One of the things this country was founded on, was the right to disagree with those in power. I think you can celebrate this day and still not like the current people in power. I for one will not let Trump stop me from celebrating the 4th as I always have.

There is also this:

yhwx said:

Here’s a quote from some dead guy:

Loyalty to the Nation all the time, loyalty to the Government when it deserves it.

moviefreakedmind said:

I’m guessing that I was referring to the 2011 revision of the NIV when I typed that.

no worries. Yeah, the 2011 NIV has received a lot of criticism. Many think it has been politically corrected.

That order makes a little more sense now. Aren’t at least 70 or so of the Psalms specifically attributed to David? I know two are Solomon’s.

possibly. Just to be clear I am not saying the pamphlet I am using is necessarily the best or most correct order of reading the Bible. I’ve just this pamphlet for a while and just wanted to read the Bible in the order it suggested. Maybe at some point I will read the Bible again using a different order.

Anchorhead said:

As has been my July 4th tradition for more years than I can count, I’ll be settling in for this in 3…2…

As has been my July 4th tradtion for more years than I can count, I’ll be settling for a much more appropriate movie:

unfortunately, I will have to watch it without my father for the 1st time. 😦

TV’s Frink said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwLWNXFH2rg

Warbler said:

Not a chance in hell of that, UK!, Not a chance in hell of that!

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

A DECLARATION

By the REPRESENTATIVES of the

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

In GENERAL CONGRESS assembled

When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, the among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.  Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed  to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.  But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under abosolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.  Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.  The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Obect the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World

He has refused his Assent ot Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.

He has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their Public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.

He has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapble of Annihalation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose of obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Aprropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Officies, and the Amount and payment of their Salaries.

He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.

He has kept among us, in Times of Peace. Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of, and superiour to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foriegn to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.

He has abidicated Goverment here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our Sea, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.

He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of Death, Desolution, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethern, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare , is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes, and Conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury.  A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Trant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.

Nor have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethen.  We have warmed them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us.  We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here.  We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence.   They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity.  We must, therefore acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing ot the Sumpreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare That thees United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britian, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.  And for the support of this declaration, with firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

JOHN HANCOCK, Presdent

Attest,
CHARLES THOMSON, Secretary.

[John Adams said:]The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more

You were only off by two days, Mr. Adams.

This thread is not for discussing politics or anything anti-American DO IT IN ANOTHER THREAD!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwLWNXFH2rg

too bad.

DuracellEnergizer said:

What sorcery is this? It’s still the 3rd in my pocket universe.

It is the 4th in my timezone. It has been for an hour and 45 minutes and it was the 4th in my timezone when I created the thread.

Not a chance in hell of that, UK!, Not a chance in hell of that!

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

A DECLARATION

By the REPRESENTATIVES of the

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

In GENERAL CONGRESS assembled

When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, the among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.  Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed  to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.  But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under abosolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.  Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.  The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Obect the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World

He has refused his Assent ot Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.

He has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their Public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.

He has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapble of Annihalation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose of obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Aprropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Officies, and the Amount and payment of their Salaries.

He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.

He has kept among us, in Times of Peace. Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of, and superiour to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foriegn to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.

He has abidicated Goverment here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our Sea, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.

He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of Death, Desolution, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethern, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare , is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes, and Conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury.  A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Trant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.

Nor have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethen.  We have warmed them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us.  We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here.  We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence.   They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity.  We must, therefore acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing ot the Sumpreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare That thees United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britian, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.  And for the support of this declaration, with firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

JOHN HANCOCK, Presdent

Attest,
CHARLES THOMSON, Secretary.

[John Adams said:]The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more

You were only off by two days, Mr. Adams.

This thread is not for discussing politics or anything anti-American DO IT IN ANOTHER THREAD!

deleted.