The 2017 General Salma Hayek discussion thread...Part 3!!!

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Hawkeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 25, 2010
    5,409
    113
    Warsaw
    You know the last thread was getting kind of interesting at the end. For example, we found out that Kut is into tiny feet and toes... :)
     

    indiucky

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    OMG....She is not only beautiful, my age, and built like brick house but she is a General as well....Awesome...

    1236536836_salma-hayek.gif
     

    SheepDog4Life

    Natural Gray Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    May 14, 2016
    5,286
    113
    SW IN
    Couldn't quote from the previous thread, but Kut asked:

    Question. Was the impeachment of Clinton justified? I'm curious of what people think concerning this.

    Short answer, no. I think what he did was despicable because:

    1. He abused a position of power (no pun intended) over a subordinate for sexual gratification. (no different than any other workplace, which even then, would likely result in firing)
    2. He took advantage of an ingenue with a huge age and experience discrepancy. IIRC, she was 19 at the beginning, barely out of high school age... huge "creep factor" by any measure.
    3. He did the some of the despicable deeds in the oval office of all places. No doubt the Resolute desk was desecrated.
    4. He lied about it.
    5. He lied about it under oath when being deposed in a sexual harassment/sexual assault case.

    The first four were gross, creepy and I hope the oval office was fumigated prior to the following occupant, W.

    The 5th was illegal, perjury and the disbarment he suffered was the least adequate punishment.

    I distinctly remember being with a large group of co-workers, in the middle of all of this, when an outsider asked whether he should be impeached or not. One by one, almost evenly divided, there were yes'es and no'es. I was last and wasn't going to answer. Then my co-workers prodded me. My answer:

    "Neither. He should resign because his actions disgraced the office of the President of the US. But he won't. People knew he was sleazy when they elected him and he's proven it."

    I think instructive in the age of Trump... Slick Willie set the sleaze bar pretty high.
     

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    Kut said:

    She has long feet, and worse long toes. Not that I'm suggesting she have her feet bound, but she better be tall with those skis. The rest stellar.

    Dave and his #15 foundation approve of her ground-engaging appendages!

    Kut also said:

    Welp, John Kelly isn't going to win any "Historian of the Year" awards.
    “the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War.”
    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...-the-civil-war

    As he apparently forgot about these:
    -3/5 Compromise
    -Missouri Compromise
    -Kansas-Nebraska Act

    Even with being so ill-informed, you think he'd be tactful enough to avoid the gotcha question that would be sure only to divide more.

    The linked article starts with:

    Among the many oddities to be found in Donald Trump’s response to the violent neo-Confederate protests in Charlottesville in August was his complaint that protesters who wished to remove the statue of Robert E. Lee at the University of Virginia would not stop until they’d removed statues of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, too.

    Well, that's already happened. Strike one!

    In a more normal time, it would have been jarring to observe a politician born and raised in New York City place Robert E. Lee, a Virginian who attempted to overthrow the United States government, in the same category as Washington and Jefferson, who’d built that government in the first place.

    The southern states had not intention of nor made any attempt to overthrow the United States government. Departure and overthrow are two entirely different things. Strike 2!

    He went on to argue that “the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War.” It would be tempting to see this as the Trump Administration inching closer to Orwellian Ministry of Truth fabrications about the past, but this mythology predates Trump’s arrival in the White House and remains widespread a century and a half after the end of the war.

    All of the compromises at best preserved the existing balance. The critical lack of compromise was on tariffs, which the north could shove through by virtue of a majority in the HR and an even split in the Senate. If the president were a southerner, it was gridlock. If a northerner were president, the south lost. This allowed for the situation in which the tariff laws were written for the benefit of northern industries at the expense of consumers, particularly the southerners who had money to spend but lacked means of production aside from crops. Strike 3!

    One is his tolerance for the idea that someone’s state loyalties could reasonably supersede national ones, though he works in an Administration that is obsessed with the possibility of Muslim citizens placing their religious loyalties above their American ones.

    The author is apparently ignorant of federalism as it existed before the war. Sorry to break it to him, but the balance of power was originally in the hands of the states and the people, not the swamp.

    Southern values did not call for destroying the republic and replacing it with a theocracy. The author fails again!

    The argument that Lee was moved to take up arms in defense of slavery according to the abstract principle of “states’ rights” is belied by Virginia’s 1861 Ordinance of Secession, which clearly states that its grievance lies with “the Federal Government having perverted [its] powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding states.”

    Just because the issue was included in the Virginia Ordinance, that doesn't make it Lee's personal issue. The fact that he had freed the slaves he inherited well before the war and personally supported an end to slavery would seem to show this up for the horsesh*t that it is.

    These arguments—prominently, unabashedly presented at the time—are nearly absent from current popular discussion of the South. It is this absence that allows space for people to believe that the men who fought for the Confederacy were “honorable” and warrant the monuments and memorials dedicated to them, both in and beyond the South.

    While this concludes truthful commentary, the author signally fails to comprehend that accepting members of other people groups as equal is a phenomenon virtually unheard of in the entirety of human history until recently.

    It erases the moral culpability of slaveholders. It excuses contemporary white Americans from feelings of guilt that this nation was nearly torn in half because of a debate over whether black people are human beings.

    Once again, how is this argument valid on the way to a conclusion which was on the cutting edge of history? Why is self-flagellation needed on the part of nonparticipants who are now living but were not living then?

    Southerners, aware that history would judge them for fighting to their last for the right to buy, sell, rape, breed, and exploit human beings, retreated into a fantasy that the war was due to the vagaries of federalism.

    Once again, the author, who obviously wants to use this issue for political gain, is laser-focusing on one and only one of several issues presented in the harshest terms possible in order to use the past as a stick to beat members of the present who, once again, had exactly zero participation in the event in order to provide political capital to other members of the present who have suffered exactly zero grievance from any of this.

    Were states’ rights the primary cause of the conflict, the states should have exploded into open warfare following the Supreme Court’s McCulloch v. Maryland decision, which drastically diminished state powers of taxation while increasing those of the federal government.

    The author is apparently too damned stupid to understand that just because there isn't an immediate reaction that doesn't make it all peachy. If we had a SHTF from a .gov power grab, say, seizing all private property, which stood as the final straw before a revolution, would history say that 2A rights had absolutely nothing to do with it because we didn't storm Washington in 1934 and kill every damned congressweasel who voted for the NFA?

    Trump’s self-declared goal of making America great again is also a marketing campaign to make white people feel good again, even if doing so requires parting company with annoyances like facts, data, evidence, and, currently, the historical record.

    No, dumbass, you are simply insisting on discussing the points of history that you prefer to cherry pick while simultaneously demanding self-flagellation on the parts of anyone who happens to be white for the 'offense' of being white in spite of a complete lack of culpability in the past and strictly for the purpose of furthering your political goals as a beneficiary of being perpetually offended.

    The more fundamental point, the one that Trump unwittingly articulated two months ago and Kelly confirmed on Monday night, is that, while April, 1865, marked the end of the war, the end of the hostilities is another matter entirely.

    Well Jelani, you are right about this one, and you have made it obvious that you are not looking for a society in which all can coexist as equals before the law but rather a new era of 'separate but (un)equal' with the roles reversed.
     

    hoosierdoc

    Freed prisoner
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Apr 27, 2011
    25,987
    149
    Galt's Gulch
    KLB, to answer your question I can't quote easily with a new thread:

    if you opposed obama you were racist and awful, non-patriotic. If you wish trump dead and make "art" about it you are celebrated. Just highlighting, again, the horrible double standard
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top Bottom