I think you are relying more on myth than history. The Puritans settled in Plymouth colony and their first year was dire privation under a system of socialism. They changed their ways, adopted "free market" principles, and were rewarded by a bounteous harvest, which prompted the first Thanksgiving celebration. They struggled. Those that came later had the advantage of the start that the original settlers made.
As for Spartans, they also tested the wholeness of their infants by exposing them to the elements. And generally, they followed a life that no one else wanted to follow, not then nor now. Suicide in battle is a desperation that can end two ways. It did not end well for the Nazi SS or the Imperial Japanese kamikazi pilots in World War II.
The "period of Christianity" is vague. How is it to be compared to the period of the Inquisition, fanatics all?
You are appropriating a world of non-fanatics simply because they achieved "lofty goals." You are omitting a much larger world of actual fanatics that achieve heinous goals. What kind of "extreme goal" are you thinking of that would merit fanaticism? And what do you mean by it? I think you are running off at the wit, without thinking through what you are saying.
Kind of goes so far and then makes a subscription request.
I'm not well disposed to the "Agree or you will go to hell" attitude. A viewpoint that is enforced by threats is not a viewpoint, it is a dogma. And I can't think of any case where fanaticism led to desirable results. Where there is no sense of humor, there is no sanity. We are already suffering from nationwide insanity. Why add to it?
Can't risk what you have no longer, but valid point nevertheless.
That would be a sad fate for any Christian, to forswear the truth of the Law and Gospel for the fear of oppression. Go to your grave denying Christ?
Not when it counted, e.g., Declaration of Independence. They all paid the price.
What "factual information that is irrefutable"? A lot of people posting here are content with denying irrefutable information about Moon landings, contrails, and a round Earth. Why should some invisible anonymous nobody be more credible than a somebody with a past and a track record. Nothing is easier to discredit than a mask or a pseudonym, with supposition and "logical inference." Especially cowardice...which would be a vital strike, because true.
It seems that people don't understand the way that persons like Solzhenitsyn and Peterson survive the attacks on them is that they have chosen to operate in the spotlight, where they have plenty of visibility. You want to have a lot of eyes on you, in order to avoid being defeated by stealth.
A prime example of this is Trump, who is the most conspicuous person on the planet, by a strategic choice to be so. He has done things anonymously---and no one knows about them. That is fine. But what we need him to do for us cannot be done anonymously. Thank God he is willing to stand up for truth and put his name on it. Shame on any of us who think we can stand up for truth and put a lie on it.
And your credibility is what? The most profound refutation of your idea is Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who never used a pseudonym that I am aware of, and who gained his moral stature for simply standing by the truth. He was exiled from the land he loved, but in the end was not only victorious, but also vindicated. We should learn from his example...not hide like moles from the light. When we do that we hide OUR light under a bushel.
Do you think in future that ANY of these postings will be preserved for posterity to admire or ponder? Don't kid yourself. It will simply be unplugged when it is out of date and all the data will disappear. All the handles will nonexist. All our pride will vanish with it, which is as it should be.
The first amendment says nothing about anonymity. And rights can only be asserted by identifiable individuals. The signers of the Declaration of Independence did not believe in anonymity. That is a craven view of defending liberty.
Because he recognizes that our moral struggle is with The Lie (as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn put it---one of Peterson's guidestars). Having no identity is a halfway house to falsehood, encouraging us to operate under false pretenses.
I post on Facebook under my real name. I can't say there is much difference in how I post there vs. here, aside from the fact that Facebook typically does not entertain much discussion that is the main fare here. Here, I recognize that the handles are whimsical, and take some ironic humor in the notion that the one I picked is completely truthful. Even that part of the truth bugs some people here.
I would like to know what the "Dark Tetrad" is, however. I haven't heard that before from him.
Or maybe even a quakefake, like the subsidence of New Zealand. Just requires all comms to be shut off from NZ, controlled news from Australia, faked satellite surveillance photos, warnings of a follow-up tsunami on the Pacific Coast, and possible activation of the Yellowstone supervolcano. That would overawe the country up to the Mississippi River. I don't have a mythology to cover the eastern U.S., so maybe it's not such a good story.
So, I'm interested. What would it take for people to "buy it"? Photos? Nope. Action video? Nope. Contemporaneous presence on social media? Nope.
I mean, what do you think you are entitled to? A personal inspection of his body, extending to TSA searching? His doctor's diagnostic reports? A note from his parents? You can ask for "more proof" but you don't seem to have any idea what it could be.
People here have their heads up their ass. If anyone has evidence to prove that this was not Jamie Foxx, please step forward with it. Otherwise, it is just a bullshit demand based on a groundless doubt.
One can easily surmise that the briefing they are getting internally is that the war is indeed a strategic failure for Ukraine. This is consistent with the expectation back-pedalling that has been going on with Gen. Milley and the like. But for public consumption, they have to present the Narrative. Being away from the podium does not wear well with certain types, who simply channel what they have been told is the truth. Not a movie. Human nature.
When a psyop is in progress, its failures will be ones of simple human fallibility. Their perfidy exceeds their perfection. They have gotten used to being sloppy, on the expectations that (1) the msm will paper it over, and (2) the public will not catch on. Things like Q make them nervous, because we are watching and pointing out their nakedness.
Ironically, we did have such a strategy---only it was for China to become a manufacturing superpower. Modern magnates find more profit on the backs of a slave society. Why can't we recognize plantation owners when they are richly harvesting?
It is not just treason at issue. It is a rejection of all the principles on which our nation is founded, and an abandonment of patriotism and loyalty to ANY country. We got into it by degrees...and the entrance doors were to (e.g.) Walmart. When the American public embraces the strategy de facto, the problem is far beyond evildoers at the top. It is among ourselves and our neighbors.
Equipment for the outdoor flushing of heads.
Gives me the right feeling. I was a great fan of "Miami Vice" and their soundtracks. This song was all about something "going down."
"Classified material" is not specific. Specific classified material would be specific, but the issue is "particular," which means it must be identified "in particular," as being something and not something else. I.e., identification of specific documents. It classified documents had been turned over to Trump, where are the custody receipts? The document control authority would have a copy of the receipt for the last known custodian (e.g., Trump or the Office of the President). They wouldn't need to ransack Trump's home; they would only need to show up and present the list of particular documents. Collecting anything else is a fishing expedition. Why, therefore, would any unclassified material be scooped up (such as magazines)?
As I pointed out, the only assumption about photos is that what is concealed is really present. You do not disprove this.
If documents were unclassified, there are no controls over custody. Moreover, past precedent has established that Presidents have essentially an unrestricted right to retain documents after office (e.g., Clinton materials). Questions or disputes over this subject are supposed to be handled by negotiation or civil suit.
Cover sheets are necessary to preserve compartmentalization of need to know, so only an unclassified title would be visible (if even that), and the document control number. They are comparable to the package a purchased item comes in: an indicator of contents, but not even remotely to be considered the real thing.
As it turns out, I have read recently that the indictment does not relate to classified document control, but to supposed violations of the Espionage Act. It will be interesting to see how this fares before a real jury. Such as the background that Nauta's attorney was offered a bribe to testify for the government. This is the same FBI and DoJ that you are so scrupulously defending from any hint of misbehavior. You have an uphill battle.
"I know a guy, who knows a guy, who saw something..." Endlessly. On the one hand, I am sympathetic and curious. On the other hand, I am impatient with teasing. If this guy and his people know so much, so much that is first-hand, why don't they just publish it and get it out there?
It is difficult to converse with you because you are not following the gist of the conversation. Let me put it plainly: According to law (appropriate statutes), classified material must be handled in a particular way. This is additional to any constitutional requirements (which, in any case, were not met).
Again, I read the warrant. It basically amounted to "go there and grab anything you think could be classified material." Not PARTICULAR at all. No specificity as to where in the dwelling or the identity of the things sought.
Questions are not arguments, and certainly are not refutations of the points I am bringing forth. Just because you don't know, doesn't mean that you know otherwise.
Page was an asset of the CIA. The FISA warrant was the toe in the door to look at whomever Page was associating with. The FISA warrant I am talking about was the one that alluded to the Steele Memorandum as source material, which was clearly about Trump.
The photos do not verify their description. "This is a photo of a Chevy." The photo has some automotive shape covered by a tarpaulin. Really? You are not looking at the photo. "This is a photo of a parrot." The photo is a cage covered by a cloth. Really? Cover sheets are mere paper and have no ultimately classified significance...especially when there are no document identifiers such as numbers or titles. Show me a cover sheet and I will show you how to light a fire with it. Declassification could be implemented by a Presidential memo for record, or even verbal instruction. There is no required procedure.
You rely on supposition about what Trump's lawyers may or may not be doing. That does not address the points I am making. If they are not experts in classified document control, they may be overlooking the points I am making.
Trump, as President, had the ultimate authority over classification. Nauta et al. could have legacy clearance from Trump. Meanwhile, the DoJ is NOT treating these materials as if they are truly classified, because they are violating all the standards of custody control. For them, "classified" means "Nyaa, nyaa. We are the ultimate authority, not the President." It seems to me that the FBI agents and DoJ personnel should have obtained security clearance IN ADVANCE OF THE RAID. How would this be possible if they had no idea if or what Trump had in the way of classified material? Not only is there a clearance necessary for classification level (e.g., CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, TOP SECRET, SCI) there is also the issue of "need to know." Just because you have a level clearance doesn't mean you have a need to know. I think it is safe to say that no FBI agents had either level clearances or need to know authorizations.
I have handled classified materials up to TOP SECRET and SCI, for 40 years. The requirements for custody and transfer are rigorous. You are evidently completely ignorant of this and not interested in learning. Meanwhile, you are defending the conspicuously corrupt DoJ as faithfully as a dog, speculating and supposing rationalizations on behalf of that selfsame DoJ.
I welcome anyone to jump into this discussion.
Not per the statutory scheme of succession. Contrary to Constitution. Would constitute a coup. In any case, it would clearly be seen as such.
Big foreign powers don't need functionality in an African nation. They need access and its dependency on them for money. If an African nation is functional, it can be economically independent, and therefore politically independent, and capable of standing up to foreign suasion.
They need experiments? Rwanda? Zimbabwe? Ethiopia? Sudan? Congo? Workshops, maybe.
I was mainly working on what came before COIL, the quasi-continuous wave carbon monoxide electric discharge laser (CO-EDL). It was figured to have about 40% quantum efficiency, a number that I have not seen surpassed. But COIL operated at a shorter wavelength, and the Air Force was in love with shorter wavelengths. Now they are working with solid-state lasers. (Kind of like going full circle, considering the first lasers were ruby rods.)
Mainly, I am proud of the fact that my re-editing of the proposal won Boeing a $1billion development contract. We had a guaranteed loser before it was turned over to me.
After the system successfully shot down a boosting ballistic missile in flight in 2010, President Obama canceled the program and scrapped it. So, even if I wanted to point it at the Moon (why? nothing would happen), it is not there to do the job. It would have been a handy counter to the North Korean missile launches.
You are not reading closely. When I refer to the warrant, I am referring to the warrant, which was permission to go on a fishing expedition. I read it. You apparently did not. This is not the role of a warrant, per the Constitution ("particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"---"particularly," not "generally"). The list of "stuff they found" was nowhere specific---it was like saying they found some firearms, but did not provide make, model, or serial numbers.
You are going all-in for the Establishment by claiming the FBI did not use the falsified information to pursue FISA warrants for the purpose of conducting investigation of Trump & Co. I am surprised you are not being called out by the usual shill-intolerant people.
The photos do not verify their description. You can't tell that any classified documents are present from that photo. Unless you ASSUME that what is alleged is ipso facto true. No, allegations need to be established in court.
And if they were declassified, that would be consistent with HOW THEY WERE TREATED BY THE FBI. You simply don't understand how to handle classified documents. Nothing concerning them is "standard procedure." It is always a special procedure. I speak from experience.
Third party would not make a difference. The prohibition would be against Trump as an individual.
I guess you think your imaginary world is superior to the real world, because that is where you are. Since it could never have been a Scud (too slow, no dive angle, too large), nor an ALCM (flew too low, too large). And all these silly claims run away from the fact that it was identified by WITNESSES as being an airliner.