- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
I am a historial and have learned from observation and many years of research that those who don't know history are bound to repeat it. We are about 19 steos down a 12 step path to totalitarianism of the worst sort. President Trum has delayed it maybe even pushed it bask a step or two but know this. If Hillary had won, we would be 1 step away from it. There would be a revocation of the 22nd amendment, and of the 1st, 2nd and 5th already with the remainder on the docket.
One of my ancestors rode with Confederate General J.E.B. Stuart, and his other three brothers served as artillerymen. Two died in Union prison camps (as brutal as any of the Confederate camps), and the surviving brother was my great great grandfather. At the war's end, my family gave their house in Appomattox to their two black house servants and resettled elsewhere. For those interested in puzzle solving, I've laid enough crumbs there for you to have a plausible chance to figure out my identity.
War is peace
Personal responsibility is bad
Freedom is slavery
Up is down
Ignorance is strength
A is not A
Editing to add that this seems to fall into the idea that if enough people aren't breaking the law, change the laws until you eventually make everyone a lawbreaker. Good way to hold people hostage, in their eyes.
That's precisely the point. You see the insidiousness in this practice is actually two-fold. On the one hand those already committing immoral acts get to "justify" themselves in committing these (and more) morally reprehensible acts while claiming that they are "legal". On the other hand, they seek to place truly moral people into the conundrum you have just described: pitting morality against legality. Those who are naturally moral and seek to be consistent then find that they can not be both moral and legal at the same time. See Hank Reardon's dilemma in Atlas Shrugged for an example.
We can see examples of these moral vs legal conundrums in today's society as well.
The second one was meh. It's nowhere in my top 100 list of substantial changes to government.
NOW, the sheriffs will NOT admit it, but they have their orders from the county level.
==
I am VERY PROUD of Ron DeSantis. Almost losing a won election OPENED his eyes, and he is getting after it! KUDOS to him!
He will NOT win re-election if he does not address these issues.