MiddleOfTheRoad

Members
  • Content count

    11,293
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

580,715 Excellent

About MiddleOfTheRoad

  • Rank
    Among the thinking people

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Converted

  • Biography
    57 year old, white, Catholic, male
  • Location
    Between the double yellow lines...
  • Gender
    male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,256 profile views
  1. I would also recommend McNamara's "In Retrospect" as a means of understanding just how confused and unethical this guy was.
  2. Lippmann was wrong about containment. The Soviets wanted security at the expense of other nations; Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, the ME. Where we went wrong is that in implementing containment in Vietnam, we forgot the first rule of war; know what kind of war you are getting into.
  3. Scratching the last line, you and I are in agreement. That doesn't happen often.
  4. The armed forces are a part of diplomacy. Clausewitz went so far as to say war is just diplomacy by other means. When we send troops into combat we need to know why and what we are looking to accomplish - after which, we get them out. We didn't know what we were doing in Vietnam ( or Iraq...or Lybia...or Syria...or Afghanistan...or...). And if you don't know why you're there, you can't possibly know when you have accomplished whatever it was you sent them there for to begin with.
  5. To those who think punching the nazi was an appropriate action, what other rights do you want to unilaterally limit, simply because you don't agree with how someone else exercises them?
  6. Technically, you're right of course; only when government action restricts free speech is there a violation of the constitution. The government does have an obligation to protect the free speech of the citizenry, a role they failed here, for a variety of legitimate reasons. How they possibly what some whack job on a bus is going to say? There is nothing here to celebrate however. Don't get me wrong. This guy is clearly not someone any reasonable person would want to associate with, but if we were set pleasantness as a measure of the one's right to free speech, many of us here would have to give up our keyboards. That guy has a right to be offensive. Unless he threw the first punch, or placed someone in fear of being harmed, the guy was a victim of assault and battery, however ludicrous that may be.
  7. The man is clearly a crude, offensive individual, and If he threw the first punch, I agree with you. There is nothing that indicates that however. Indeed, the whole article seems to be a celebration of this guy getting knocked on his arse. Free speech is intended to protect crude, offensive individuals. His speech may have warranted him getting knocked on, but his rights are supposed to protect that speech. I am becoming more and more convinced, in no small part because of some of the comments in this article, than ANTIFA poses as significant a threat to rights as does the armband wearer.
  8. Free speech rights for some, but not for all, huh EgyptKang?
  9. There will be more posts; it's still early. The video shows what most of us well know; at the end of the day, it's the people who will lead. Not the talking heads. Not the politicians. The folks who go to work everyday and just want to make things better for thier own will make the changes.
  10. It will be interesting to see if Burns draws any parallels between that quagmire and the one we find ourselves in today.
  11. Flyboy, looks like you're going to have company tomorrow. Keep your head down and stay safe.
  12. I respect you too much to get into a urinating competition with you. Have a good day.
  13. If believing that helps you make it through the night...
  14. It's my fault the classified message remained in my unsecured, unencrypted email files. It's my fault the presence of classified data on my files was not reported.
  15. I understand the FBI let her off. While I don't support the decision, it is what it is. But there is simply no way she did not know there was classified email there.