HawkShack.com

The political violence has been elevated again. I guess Charlie Kirk, a Trump supporter was killed at the age of 31. It is not great to see this kind of violence done against someone due to political motivations. Reeks of third world nation politics.

Let's hope this doesn't set off some tit for tat political violence.

It's appropriate that his own wound up being one of those gun deaths he felt were a fair trade for 2A rights.

I find it interesting that some people rush to the podium to decry the assassination of a political figure of their own personal persuasion, but when a CEO of an insurance company is gunned down in cold blood, it's almost an attitude of he got what was coming to him. I hope they catch the assassin and hang him from the highest tree.

MSNBC fired Mathew Dowd for making insensitive comments following the assassination:

“He’s been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups,” Dowd said. “And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions. And I think that is the environment we are in.

What Dowd said wasn't at all inaccurate, but his timing was awful. Wait until the man is buried and the eulogies given before venturing into the why he was assassinated discussion. MSNBC had to fire Dowd or else conservatives would be clamoring and would have argued that if the victim was a liberal, they'd had fired him in a heartbeat.

It was a senseless tragedy. My sympathies to Kirk's family and friends.

I didn't know who this guy was until yesterday when my friend posted he was murdered. But political driven assassination is sometimes a precursor to worse things and shows a bad state of political activity in America. This with the multiple attempts on Trump's life aren't great things to see.

The same people saying "good riddance" to Charlie Kirk are the same ones that think of the guy that shot the United Health CEO as a hero.

If the left wing is building up a violent arm to go after enemies of their philosophy, that would not be great. I guess we'll see if the left deems the person that shot Charlie Kirk a hero and we see more assassinations of right wing people. If that happens, the right will likely start retaliation from the top down as they have control of the government right now. Whoever has control gets to use it to protect their own.

My main concern is I hope this does not bode for violence to becomes a means to silence your political opponent and remove them as opposition. That would be bad times.

I guess we'll see when they find the person if they find the person. For all we know the person that shot Kirk may have a list and if he's already committed to his own destruction after committing one murder, he may go after others before he is caught.

It's going to rile up the right wing for a while and create a bad environment you hope doesn't get worse.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I didn't know who this guy was until yesterday when my friend posted he was murdered. But political driven assassination is sometimes a precursor to worse things and shows a bad state of political activity in America. This with the multiple attempts on Trump's life aren't great things to see.

The same people saying "good riddance" to Charlie Kirk are the same ones that think of the guy that shot the United Health CEO as a hero.

If the left wing is building up a violent arm to go after enemies of their philosophy, that would not be great. I guess we'll see if the left deems the person that shot Charlie Kirk a hero and we see more assassinations of right wing people. If that happens, the right will likely start retaliation from the top down as they have control of the government right now. Whoever has control gets to use it to protect their own.

My main concern is I hope this does not bode for violence to becomes a means to silence your political opponent and remove them as opposition. That would be bad times.

I guess we'll see when they find the person if they find the person. For all we know the person that shot Kirk may have a list and if he's already committed to his own destruction after committing one murder, he may go after others before he is caught.

It's going to rile up the right wing for a while and create a bad environment you hope doesn't get worse.

I didn't know who Charlie Kirk was, either, and I agree 1000% with what you are saying. This is a vile, planned murder no different than the cowardly cold-blooded shooting of the CEO a few months ago. Murder is murder, period. We should be coming out against all of these kinds of acts with equal fervor. I'm seeing a lot of people on social media expressing outrage that were nonchalant about the CEO's murder, nonchalant about the attack on Nancy Pelosi, etc.

I, too, am worried about how the far right is going to handle this. Are they going to target some liberal news commentator like MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, who just commented on her blog that Trump flunked the leadership test due to his remarks following the shooting? If people like her don't tone it down, we're going to be in for more of this senseless violence.

There is a huge difference. George Floyd OD’s and animals riot and cities burn. Charlie Kirk is murdered and peaceful vigils are held honoring him…….

curmudgeon wrote:There is a huge difference. George Floyd OD’s and animals riot and cities burn. Charlie Kirk is murdered and peaceful vigils are held honoring him…….

Not a good analogy. George Floyd was murdered by a cop making an arrest for a misdemeanor crime of which the cop was tried, convicted, and is serving two concurrent 20+ year sentences. It wasn't an overdose that killed Floyd. It was the over-the-top and unconventional manner in which the cop restrained him that was the primary cause of death.

Also, we have yet to see what the reactions to Kirk's murder are going to be. It's been barely 24 hours, and no suspect has been arrested let alone a motive established. Let's give it some time before we start lauding the far right as this peaceful law-abiding lot.

Please. Read Floyd’s autopsy report.

curmudgeon wrote:Please. Read Floyd’s autopsy report.

I have. Maybe you should do the same:

Medical examiner who ruled George Floyd's death a homicide blames police pressure for his death

"My opinion remains unchanged," said Dr. Andrew Baker, who ruled George Floyd's death a homicide. "It's what I put on the death certificate last June."

The medical examiner who ruled George Floyd's death a homicide testified Friday that Floyd's heart disease and drug use contributed to his death, but police officers' restraint of his body and compression of his neck were the primary causes.


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/me ... s-n1263670

How in the heck could Derek Chauvin get convicted of murder by a jury of his peers on a 12-0 vote then sentenced to 20+ years in prison if Floyd overdosed as you claim?

Floyd's treatment was inhumane. Chauvin not only took himself down, but took down a bunch of officers that likely did not deserve to be taken down. One guy stuck on Floyd's legs and the other guy asked if he should call emergency services and Chauvin rebuked him. I did not care for that part of the case.

Chauvin had reached a point where he got what he deserved. His behavior was inhumane and set a terrible example for the other officers.

The aftermath of the Chauvin incident with the riots and "Defund the police" rubbish was more harmful to the Democrats than the Republicans. I watched first hand in Seattle the Seattle Democrats completely roll over while the city was torn apart, six city blocks including a police station were taken over, and all allowed until someone was murdered. Then they sent the police in to disperse it. The Capitol Hill criminals engaged in the "Summer of Love" as the Seattle mayor called it denied entry to emergency services, stopped people from charging for their goods and services, and took over six city blocks of an American city for weeks.

Yet the left pretends that January 6th was worse and we can ignore what the left wing did in various cities around America after George Floyd was murdered by Chauvin. It wasn't worse in my mind. It was just much, much harder to hide than hiding what was going on in Seattle and Portland that the Dems swept under the rug, lied about, and allowed to happen while feigning outrage for January 6th. If it had been a Democratic president, they would have been making excuses like they did for all the other inappropriate behavior in Dem run cities.

I really can't stand either of these political parties right now. I did not grow up with this crap. I don't know why Americans have chosen to go to looney land when they have it so good here in America compared to much of the world. I can only surmise this is what happens when you lose external enemies and the political establishment starts looking internally for enemies to fuel their political power.

And most of the protests in Seattle were peaceful, until the lunatics showed up. Mostly stuck at home college kids and other protesters wanting improved police behavior in such incidents. But the handful lunatics with agendas other than what Floyd inspired showed up to attach themselves like parasites to the current cause and try to turn it into an attack on capitalism and "the man" so they could push socialism and other crap while acting as socialists do: violently and forcefully to get their way. The "cause" justifies their actions as it does every lunatic who pushes a cause they think justifies extreme acts.

I'm pretty much with ASF with regards to the George Floyd killing and aftermath. Chauvin had his knee on Floyd's neck for 9.5 minute until he lay motionless. No attempt was made to revive him. It wasn't a cold-blooded first-degree murder as was the assassination of Kirk and the CEO as it wasn't intentional, but it was murder none the less. Chauvin was directly responsible for the death of another human being and got what he deserved: Sentenced to prison for a good portion of his adult life.

The aftermath of the Floyd murder was despicable, and the liberal mayors and governors that didn't intervene during them should have been removed from office and had civil charges filed against them by the property owners whose property was destroyed and/or damaged. Then the Dems/libs have the gall to embrace this defund the police movement for purely political reasons when they should have been doing the exact opposite: Put more funding into recruiting, training, and compensating police so they could wean out the bad cops like Chauvin. Did they honestly think they could get better police work by cutting their funding and increasing their workload?

Like ASF, I'm done with both political parties. I have no one to represent my ideology. I am a fiscal conservative and social moderate, and neither of these two parties have a tent big enough to include people like me. I find myself voting against the candidates I don't like vs. voting for the ones I like.

Whether the left Democrats want to own it or not, they have allowed the police to be branded as subhuman to their followers and elevated criminals as victims while turning police into oppressors. That should have never happened and would have never happened with the old working class Democratic Party. Neither political party should turn the police into societal enemies when the police serve a very useful, protective purpose for society and have rules to follow versus criminals who do whatever they want whenever they want and are a far more dangerous element in human groups than the police.

curmudgeon wrote:There is a huge difference. George Floyd OD’s and animals riot and cities burn. Charlie Kirk is murdered and peaceful vigils are held honoring him…….

Since you seem hell bent to blow smoke up MAGA's arse falsly claiming that they are a peaceful, God fearing lot, how do you explain these actions:

Minnesota Democratic House Speaker Melissa and her husband Mark were at their home in their Brooklyn Park home on June 14, 2025, when a gunman entered their home while posing as a police officer, according to ABC News. He killed Mark and Melissa, also turning his gun on the family dog, Gilbert. Gilbert survived initially but was later euthanized to end his suffering, per Huffpost.

Their murders followed the shooting of Minnesota Democratic State Senator John Hoffman and his wife in their home nearby. Those two survived after devastating injuries.

However, he (Trump) did not order the White House flag lowered to half mast, in contrast with his orders on Sept. 10, 2025 (via Fox News), to lower the flags in response to the killing of political activist Charlie Kirk.

The difference in outrage was palpable.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/gove ... ngNewsSerp

Not only did the MAGA supporter shoot and kill the Democratic Senator's husband, they shot their dog, too.

River Dog wrote:Since you seem hell bent to blow smoke up MAGA's arse falsly claiming that they are a peaceful, God fearing lot, how do you explain these actions:

Minnesota Democratic House Speaker Melissa and her husband Mark were at their home in their Brooklyn Park home on June 14, 2025, when a gunman entered their home while posing as a police officer, according to ABC News. He killed Mark and Melissa, also turning his gun on the family dog, Gilbert. Gilbert survived initially but was later euthanized to end his suffering, per Huffpost.

Their murders followed the shooting of Minnesota Democratic State Senator John Hoffman and his wife in their home nearby. Those two survived after devastating injuries.

However, he (Trump) did not order the White House flag lowered to half mast, in contrast with his orders on Sept. 10, 2025 (via Fox News), to lower the flags in response to the killing of political activist Charlie Kirk.

The difference in outrage was palpable.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/gove ... ngNewsSerp

Not only did the MAGA supporter shoot and kill the Democratic Senator's husband, they shot their dog, too.

MAGA followers don't care. They only care about the narratgive that fits their bias. curmudgeon obviously thinks that way as well.

I still remember the far right militias like Timothy McVeigh, a far right activity, that killed numerous people including children. This is part of the reason why you don't like seeing politically motivated violence as it can lead to some worse act. Then the governmen has to act strongly to elminate threats often going overboard.

Aseahawkfan wrote:MAGA followers don't care. They only care about the narratgive that fits their bias. curmudgeon obviously thinks that way as well.

I still remember the far right militias like Timothy McVeigh, a far right activity, that killed numerous people including children. This is part of the reason why you don't like seeing politically motivated violence as it can lead to some worse act. Then the governmen has to act strongly to elminate threats often going overboard.

Yeah, I don't expect Curmudgeon to come back in here and defend himself. He's a hit and run type of poster.

Trump announced that he's going to attend Charlie Kirk's funeral, which is fine by me. Kirk was one of his biggest supporters, so I can certainly understand it. It's the lowering of the White House flag that went over the top, doing it for Kirk but not for the Democratic MN Senator that was brutally murdered that highlights his hypocrisy. That's the part that bothers me, that there are people, including the POTUS, that will express all this outrage over the assassination of Kirk but don't so much as blink an eye when a liberal or company CEO is murdered in cold blood.

River Dog wrote:Yeah, I don't expect Curmudgeon to come back in here and defend himself. He's a hit and run type of poster.

Trump announced that he's going to attend Charlie Kirk's funeral, which is fine by me. Kirk was one of his biggest supporters, so I can certainly understand it. It's the lowering of the White House flag that went over the top, doing it for Kirk but not for the Democratic MN Senator that was brutally murdered that highlights his hypocrisy. That's the part that bothers me, that there are people, including the POTUS, that will express all this outrage over the assassination of Kirk but don't so much as blink an eye when a liberal or company CEO is murdered in cold blood.

What do you expect in this looney America. Republican Party controlled by Trump. Democrats controlled by wealthy, liberal environmentalists and identity politics ideologues. The days of sensible government where Reagan worked with Democrats and Clinton worked with Republicans is over. Now it's the age of polarization. I don't know how you get to any normalcy as long as each party is dug into stupid positions they sell on their news arms to oppose each other.

Aseahawkfan wrote:What do you expect in this looney America. Republican Party controlled by Trump. Democrats controlled by wealthy, liberal environmentalists and identity politics ideologues. The days of sensible government where Reagan worked with Democrats and Clinton worked with Republicans is over. Now it's the age of polarization. I don't know how you get to any normalcy as long as each party is dug into stupid positions they sell on their news arms to oppose each other.

A lot of people claim that it all started with the Robert Bork SCOTUS confirmation hearings during Reagan. But I agree, it's really polarized nowadays, especially since 2016 in Trump's first term.

River Dog wrote:A lot of people claim that it all started with the Robert Bork SCOTUS confirmation hearings during Reagan. But I agree, it's really polarized nowadays, especially since 2016 in Trump's first term.

It started with the rise of political media like Limbaugh, Fox News, and MSNBC and the like. As soon as mega-corporations determined they could make more money dividing America and selling news echo chambers for ratings, the path to polarization was made as each side cocoons themselves into their favored viewpoints without bothering to have to engage a conversation. Just follow the voices that support what you believe and ignore the rest.

The media said, "Thanks for the money and helping us turn political news into big money."

Tucker Carlson in court has admitted he manufactures his news using a team that queries the internet and other sources for trending topics, then creates a show around the trending topic. Limbaugh was the same. They make millions riling people up in their homes. Now it's a matter of find the biggest idiot, make it seem like they represent the chosen political party, rile people up, profit.

They don't care about the long-term negative impact on American culture. The majority of Americans as you have noted many times don't bother to do much research either due to lack of time or lack of motivation. We're also on information overload where you can't tell truth from fiction any longer unless you look at source material. Journalism used to have ethics like the medical profession. Modern journalists don't share those ethics and it's a make money selling division world now.

That's why when you go down the rabbit hole of media, you find many news companies own both a conservative and a liberal news arm because they can pit them against each other to drive ratings and capture profit from both sides.

People should have been wary of Fox News, own by an Australian, to begin with. Why is an Australian so interested in selling conservative news to America if not to make money?

River Dog wrote:A lot of people claim that it all started with the Robert Bork SCOTUS confirmation hearings during Reagan. But I agree, it's really polarized nowadays, especially since 2016 in Trump's first term.

Aseahawkfan wrote:It started with the rise of political media like Limbaugh, Fox News, and MSNBC and the like. As soon as mega-corporations determined they could make more money dividing America and selling news echo chambers for ratings, the path to polarization was made as each side cocoons themselves into their favored viewpoints without bothering to have to engage a conversation. Just follow the voices that support what you believe and ignore the rest.

The media said, "Thanks for the money and helping us turn political news into big money."

Tucker Carlson in court has admitted he manufactures his news using a team that queries the internet and other sources for trending topics, then creates a show around the trending topic. Limbaugh was the same. They make millions riling people up in their homes. Now it's a matter of find the biggest idiot, make it seem like they represent the chosen political party, rile people up, profit.

They don't care about the long-term negative impact on American culture. The majority of Americans as you have noted many times don't bother to do much research either due to lack of time or lack of motivation. We're also on information overload where you can't tell truth from fiction any longer unless you look at source material. Journalism used to have ethics like the medical profession. Modern journalists don't share those ethics and it's a make money selling division world now.

That's why when you go down the rabbit hole of media, you find many news companies own both a conservative and a liberal news arm because they can pit them against each other to drive ratings and capture profit from both sides.

People should have been wary of Fox News, own by an Australian, to begin with. Why is an Australian so interested in selling conservative news to America if not to make money?

The liberal owned the media in the 60's and 70's. If you take a look at the first televised presidential debate between JFK and Nixon in 1960, JFK is wearing a dark suit against a light background while Nixon was wearing a light suit against the same light background. The effect, along with a couple of other factors, made Nixon look tired and weary, Kennedy young and vigorous. The network had briefed the Kennedy people about the background but not Nixon. People who listened to the debate on the radio thought Nixon won, those who watched it on TV thought JFK had won. That's just one example.

Rush Limbaugh got his start in the late 80's. What had happened was that music that used to be played on AM radio had started to transition to FM in the late 70's-early 80's, leaving AM radio with a void that was filled first by Limbaugh and later by other mostly conservative hosts, sports talk, etc. It helped even the playing field as the networks (minus Fox) to this day still have a liberal slant to them. I used to listen to Limbaugh until I caught him in a lie, that he claimed that some firefighters who had died while fighting a wildfire near the Wenatchee area died because the float planes couldn't land in a river because of the endangered species act. I had heard about that rumor and read where they had investigated but found that the plane had no such restriction on it. Limbaugh never issued a retraction, just let his version of the story stand. I started listening to a conservative by the name of Neal Boortz, a libertarian.

One of the things that Limbaugh admitted to doing had to do with callers that would call into his radio program. He had issued specific instructions to his staff only to forward callers that would make the host look good. It was all about enhancing his image and that of his program, and he was wildly successful.

Prior to the pandemic, I remember exercising on an aerobic machine at a gym and I had two choices of TV news to watch: Fox and MSNBC. Fox's lead story was of some illegal alien that had murdered a college girl in Iowa, MSNBC was talking about the Trump impeachment. They show viewers what they want to see. It's why I don't get my news off TV.

River Dog wrote:The liberal owned the media in the 60's and 70's. If you take a look at the first televised presidential debate between JFK and Nixon in 1960, JFK is wearing a dark suit against a light background while Nixon was wearing a light suit against the same light background. The effect, along with a couple of other factors, made Nixon look tired and weary, Kennedy young and vigorous. The network had briefed the Kennedy people about the background but not Nixon. People who listened to the debate on the radio thought Nixon won, those who watched it on TV thought JFK had won. That's just one example.

Rush Limbaugh got his start in the late 80's. What had happened was that music that used to be played on AM radio had started to transition to FM in the late 70's-early 80's, leaving AM radio with a void that was filled first by Limbaugh and later by other mostly conservative hosts, sports talk, etc. It helped even the playing field as the networks (minus Fox) to this day still have a liberal slant to them. I used to listen to Limbaugh until I caught him in a lie, that he claimed that some firefighters who had died while fighting a wildfire near the Wenatchee area died because the float planes couldn't land in a river because of the endangered species act. I had heard about that rumor and read where they had investigated but found that the plane had no such restriction on it. Limbaugh never issued a retraction, just let his version of the story stand. I started listening to a conservative by the name of Neal Boortz, a libertarian.

One of the things that Limbaugh admitted to doing had to do with callers that would call into his radio program. He had issued specific instructions to his staff only to forward callers that would make the host look good. It was all about enhancing his image and that of his program, and he was wildly successful.

Prior to the pandemic, I remember exercising on an aerobic machine at a gym and I had two choices of TV news to watch: Fox and MSNBC. Fox's lead story was of some illegal alien that had murdered a college girl in Iowa, MSNBC was talking about the Trump impeachment. They show viewers what they want to see. It's why I don't get my news off TV.

Makes sense as the Democrats were the racist Southerners prior to Nixon winning them over when the Democrats became more progressive. I think that occurred in the 60s. Southern influence over politics has been immense. Most Americans never think about it or study it. After the South lost the Civil War, they still had an outsized influence on politics which is why we regressed after Lincoln died and none of the presidents that followed him commanded the same respect and popularity as Lincoln. He was a special, special president, the likes we may never see again.

Nixon won over the Southerners to the Republican Party. You probably know when that happened better than I do.

I imagine the 60s really pushed liberalism up the ladder as the 60s anti-war movement is the real reason we abandoned Vietnam after winning every major military battle including The Tet Offensive. To hear the liberals tell it we lost the Vietnam War, then when you study military history you learn the American military won every major battle and outfought the North Vietnamese Army every time they faced each other. It wasn't the military failing, it was the American Anti-War movement that forced the American government to pull support for the South Vietnamese even though we were in a proxy war with China who was supporting the North Vietnamese in a losing effort.

From what I understand of the time reading history, the 60s and 70s was the first time Americans received real time, visual updates of war including horrifying pictures of what mustard gas and napalm did to enemies. Suffice it to say Americans did not like it. Due to the duration and visual impact of the American War Machine in action, it caused the Anti-War movement to gain sufficient political power to end the Vietnam War and force abandonment of the South Vietnamese. Pretty sad given the Vietnamese people suffered immensely under communist rule after we left. If we had stayed, South Vietnam would likely be doing as well as South Korea.

But the 60s Anti-War movement never did grasp world politics and power. They didn't seem to understand that the Communist Vietnamese would treat their people worse than the South Vietnamese Democratic government. Didn't help that our initial entry into Vietnam was to support France's attempt to retain French Indo-China as a colony and then morphed into an anti-Communist War due to Ho Chi Minh embracing Communist ideology and seeking help from Russia and China. But you can't redo the past and Vietnam seems to be doing better now and modernizing. We have a much better relationship with Vietnam now. I'm glad too as I've always had good interactions with Vietnamese people. Super nice people, but how I hate to hear what happened to their families after America abandoned them. I believe a major part of that was due to the liberal press taking the side against the American government during the Vietnam War and undermining our efforts to ensure Democracy survived in Vietnam.

In the modern day the media seems unconcerned with honest, balanced discourse. They seem to sell division for money.

With Rush Limbaugh, I watched him one time. He had some show where he showed a video of white people throwing bananas to monkeys around the cars while he did a narrative comparing the monkeys to welfare recipients. Then the camera panned to the one black person sitting in the audience as though that was justification for the obvious racial narrative he was pushing.

One area where I'm very progressive, though not idiotic like some liberals is in regards to "race." The race system in America is America's class system. It has had a massive negative impact on America that almost led to our destruction. I do not listen to idiot conservatives that sell the "white" narrative of everything is the fault of non-whites. That's a ridiculous lie. Same as words like Western Civilization which is a meaningless term that in no way encompasses how the world was built. Europe was massively influenced by other cultures from all around the world. They weren't racist rubes trying to hold onto a fool's view of the world. Greek and Rome for example respected other empires like Persia and Egypt and many Asian Empires. Richard the Lion-Hearted respected Suleiman the Great who opposed him in the Holy Lands. The knights that interacted with the Muslims in Outremer respected the various peoples of that region and did business with them.

I am not 100 percent sure when exactly the ridiculous racist viewpoints started. I know in America the race system was solely built to justify slavery and unite the European diaspora in enforcing slavery with a moral justification simliar to what they used in Europe to justify oppressing the peasant class.

I don't like that trash. You either believe in liberty for all or you don't believe in liberty. Racists don't believe in liberty and are too stupid to understand why liberty and racism cannot co-exist because the very nature of racism is a denial of the natural rights philosophy that underpins the American Constitution. You cannot believe in someone's inferiority based on an attribute of their birth while also holding true the idea that "all men are created equal." You deny a person their equality when you are a racist, sexist, or any other form of prejudice. I can't go with it.

I find the American Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights and Preamble, to be an amazing document. I embrace the philosophy and guiding conscience it provided. I think that document changed the direction of the world and in a better way. It has ushered in an era of peace and prosperity we have never seen in history. If there is a divine power, it helped make it so. If not, then I guess we had some universal inspiration and incredible leadership to guide the world into this era of global cooperation and peace. Now if we can get back to it after Mr. Dumbass is done in office screaming about "Getting ripped off" all the time while he's ripping us all off with his sons scoring billions selling meme coins and Trump wanting low interest rates so he and his business friends can finance their operations with cheap money, then maybe someone better can get back to America leading the world to more prosperity and peace.

The Dems lost the south during LBJ's tenure. Richard Russell, Sen. from GA who was Johnson's mentor in the Senate, warned Johnson that Democrats would lose the south for 50 years if he pushed civil rights legislation, and he was right. Carter was able to win some of that back as he was a white southerner himself complete with the accent,

LBJ was a fascinating personality. If you ever get a chance, PBS did a fantastic documentary on him. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/lbj/

You're right about TV during the late 60's changing America's perception of warfare. Always before, the military was able to control the press, keep them off the front lines under the ruse that they were doing it for their own safety and welfare. But that all changed in the 60's with imbedded reporters traveling with the troops on the front lines. Even though it wasn't an American that did it, there was a captured Viet Cong who was executed by a shot to the head by a South Vietnamese army officer that horrified the country. It ignited the antiwar movement.

Limbaugh was everything you said he was, racist, etc. But he wasn't all bad and had an occasional good insight. One of them was the origins of the women's rights movement, saying that it was ugly women wanting the same benefits that the good-looking women already had, and he was exactly right. 15-20 years earlier, I remember my roommates and I during college making jokes about the appearance of women shown on TV demonstrating. It's actually an indictment on men as it suggested that they were biased. And the looks bias isn't limited to men, either. Women will vote for a JFK-type before they'd vote for someone like Chris Christe based solely on their appearance. Abraham Lincoln grew a beard because he was told that women liked beards and would encourage their husbands to vote for him if he grew one.

The final straw with me regarding Limbaugh was when he was hired as an ESPN analyst (he was a huge NFL fan) and the issue of Eagles QB Donovan McNabb came up and Limbaugh claimed that the liberal sports media (which doesn't exist IMO) wanted a black quarterback. I don't think Limbaugh lasted a week before ESPN fired him.

That makes sense. The Southern states were trying to hold on to the evil of racism as long as they could. It was so entrenched in the culture of the South that it has been like extracting corruption from corrupted souls. Once a group of humans has dehumanized a group and entrenched it in a culture, hard to get it out. Cultural reprogramming on a mass scale isn't easy, just as the initial programming to make humans act so cruelly isn't easy. You have to enforce it over generations to inculcate those type of cultural changes.

The origin's of the women's right movement was caused by men during the transition from the agricultural economy to the industrial economy and the transition occurred strongly during your generation. Women did push for the right to vote and didn't get it until after men of African descent because men did not want or believe women should vote. The modern women's right movement was spawned by the male midlife crisis that occurred in the 50s and 60s when men decided the didn't want to be house husbands any longer. You have a few films from your generation that illustrate the male during that time period: Carnal Knowledge and Five Easy Pieces with Jack Nicholson.

Men ran out on women first for younger girlfriends during the free love and sex period. Women found themselves woefully unprepared for men to do this. Women had been socialized to find a husband, stay married, and be a housewife. So here you have this group of women having to enter the workforce to provide for their family. They don't have great job skills. So they had figure out how to make that work. That spawned the women's empowerment movement because women found men had all the hiring power in businesses and weren't particularly amenable to women entering the workforce and competing with them. This occurred at the same time many men decided they also didn't like being married and staying at home when they could get a young girlfriend to have sex with and enjoy a more carefree life while they had all the money.

This is the kind of power structure that produced men like Roger Ailes and Harvey Weinstein. Men had all the power and all the money. So they could use it to acquire what they wanted from vulnerable women new to the workplace.

I watched this happen with my mother and some of my friend's mothers as that generation of women were the ones dealing with that transition from being taught "Get married, stay at home, raise kids, trust your husband" to the "Earn your own money, learn a job skill, and don't rely on a man" philosophy change that occurred when men ran out of on women as part of the "The Mid-life Crisis" male movement. A lot of males don't like to admit that this is what drove women to start a movement for more economic power, but if you study history you will see the men ran out on them first and broke the paradigm when we heavily industrialize and loose city living in the 60s and 70s really made men not want to get stuck in the married for life situation.

From a historical perspective, men and women have always had to adjust to change and renegotiate their societal relationship. I understand most people don't spend much time studying the history of movements, so they tend to go over the top. Some females tend to radicalize rather than study history for a sensible view of what occurred. I don't care for the radicalization, anti-male rubbish like "The male gaze" being pushed. It's a stupid idea that you can easily see is stupid. Males eyes. Male vision is the primary sense males use to determine sexual attraction. Even ancient so called "uneducated" cultures understood this and didn't try to vilify it like it was some bad thing. Females are the same way as they use their eyes to determine an attractive male as well. The only problem occurs when someone exploits this aspect of male behavior for some foul purpose as we see done all the time. The alternative is something like you see in the Islamic culture with forced dress codes for females. If you talk to Muslim men, they do this because they freely admit that an attractive female that isn't modestly dressed can drive men to lustful feelings and actions. So they stop that from happening by requiring stringent dress codes and no contact. Western culture seems to be of the mind to just tell the male, "You shouldn't feel that way. So stop looking at me" like men can just turn off their eyes and primal behavior. Pretty dumb to push that idea.

And yes, unattractive women definitely like to push this idea more than attractive women benefitting from their attractiveness as do older women whose beauty is fading since men as they grow older and less attractive still often have money to drive their attractiveness to females. Young females go after physical attractiveness first like males including height and such. As females age, they definitely start looking at the pocketbook as they realize it's hard to live poor even with an attractive male. Whereas very few males ever think this way.

That's why get all the funny stuff like men driving the porn and gun industry and entertainment like action films. Women driving the makeup and fashion industry as they position to attract the best mate they can. Some people like to try to deny how men and women operate to pretend the world is other than it is. Money don't lie and where we spend it shows often how we are driven. It changes as our age and priority changes.

It's why you also see dumb stuff like Disney trying to convince women they should love superhero movies when the majority likely think they are dumb. Just like women don't watch tons of pro wrestling. Pro wrestling is soap operas for males. Soap operas are heavily driven by female engagement because men don't want to watch them.

The male-female dynamic is another one of those topics I find interesting. You find so often that what each says is very different from their actions. Most humans don't have the sense to realize their words don't align with their actions. It makes for ridiculous public interactions, especially when it is fished for by reporters or interviewers looking to draw out some controversial statement.

To finish it up. I like women pursuing their own income and gaining hiring power. The economic power wielded by males when females were discouraged from working was a soft form of control that men tried to hold over women to their benefit once they decided to no longer fulfill their responsibilities as a husband and father. If men want to change the dynamic, then women are right to call them on it and pursue economic independence to prevent being tossed away and forced into a lesser standard of living due to lack of work skills. Men running out not only negatively impacts the women they run out on, but the children the women had with the man that they trusted the man to help raise financially and socially.

And if you haven't seen them or don't recall them, give Five Easy Pieces or Carnal Knowledge a watch. Interesting films on those times. Jack Nicholson gives an excellent performance in both.

The women's movement started long before my generation, ie Baby Boomers born between 1946-1964. Women's suffrage began in the early part of the 20th century and culminated in the 19th amendment giving women the right to vote. They migrated into the workplace during WW2, with Rosie the Riveter taking over during the labor shortage created when 13 million men, roughly 10% of the entire US population at the time, went off to war. "The Pill", ie oral contraceptives, became readily available in the early 60's and further liberated women as it allowed them to have more control over their reproductive process, allowing them to attend college, pursue careers, etc instead of having to raise a family. That decline in the birth rate is what created the age disparity we struggle with today. All of that occurred while my generation was either nothing but a gleam in their daddy's eyes or when we were grade schoolers.

I've watched a number of Jack Nickolson's movies, but not those two. I'm not much into movies anymore, with most of my TV watching occupied by sports and documentaries.

River Dog wrote:The women's movement started long before my generation, ie Baby Boomers born between 1946-1964. Women's suffrage began in the early part of the 20th century and culminated in the 19th amendment giving women the right to vote. They migrated into the workplace during WW2, with Rosie the Riveter taking over during the labor shortage created when 13 million men, roughly 10% of the entire US population at the time, went off to war. "The Pill", ie oral contraceptives, became readily available in the early 60's and further liberated women as it allowed them to have more control over their reproductive process, allowing them to attend college, pursue careers, etc instead of having to raise a family. That decline in the birth rate is what created the age disparity we struggle with today. All of that occurred while my generation was either nothing but a gleam in their daddy's eyes or when we were grade schoolers.

I've watched a number of Jack Nickolson's movies, but not those two. I'm not much into movies anymore, with most of my TV watching occupied by sports and documentaries.

The women's suffrage movement was older. The women in the work force during WW2 was a temporary necessity. The man-woman working at the same time creating the dual income household happened during the 60s (maybe the late 50s) and on. It changed the entire economy.

The women's liberation movement in its current form started after men started running out on their wives. Men destroyed the paradigm women had become accustomed to by deciding they wanted to use their income to pursue younger girlfriends and not follow in their father's footsteps. College age males of that time were definitely doing this. They were caught up in a big transition where the male could either follow in their father's footsteps marrying and settling down for life early or enjoy the free love generation.

I look at it as the difference from my grandfathers from the WW2 and Great Depression generation who were very much work and go home types that married for life generally. To your generation, which is around my father's age, who decided that married for life wasn't their bag and divorce became easy and common. They had control of the income and didn't feel like being tied down during the sexual liberation movement. Often married multiple times, dabbled in drugs, and suffered The Midlife Criss where you leave your wife, buy a motorbike, and get a younger girlfriend.

This is all historically documented. Men broke the trust first. Women responded once they found out what life was like when a man divorced them to pursue other women and they suddenly had to figure out how to raise kids with no job skills. They did not want to be trapped any longer in that paradigm. But you thinking they decided this "just because" is not how it went. Women must be motivated to make such moves. That motivation came from men deciding they didn't like the stay at home lifestyle any longer. It's like when women got tired of their husbands drinking too much and voted for Prohibition.

Contraceptives were more control over the reproduction. Men wanted to utilize reproduction and the purse strings to keep women in the homes. That's why I chuckle at American male's complaints about Islamic culture when they were doing much the same thing. They were keeping their wives in the dark. They controlled the purse strings which limited the female's ability to leave. They were happy with women socialized to pursue marriage over career handing over control to men and suffering the consequences of such until men decided they didn't feel like being tied down as much. Men created the women's liberation movement through their behavior.

I'd bet money you watched this in your generation as much as you play it down. Men leaving wives or knocking women up and not wanting to settle down. Then not taking proper care of their children while doing so. The free love and sexual liberation movement generation you lived through. Men were no longer interested in the married life, stay at home, watch Archie Bunker.

The 1960s and 70s. The transition generation. Men like to make it seem like the women demanded this without a reason. But they had a reason. Men no longer liked being the stuck at home male while all his buddies were out having fun. Women responded with the women's liberation movement.

As far as the age problem, seems to be less a problem with contraception and more a problem with modernization as every modern economy is dealing with it. With more stuff to do, less people want to be tied down with kids including men. Men benefitted from contraception as well as they didn't want to be tied down to kids. Just have free sexual fun with no consequences or as few as they could manage.

Your generation is the one that pushed this transition. Not sure why you want to claim you didn't. You were part of that generation that came to age in the 60s? The free love, sex, drugs, and rock n' roll? Peace and love, baby? I know you were on the other side of that, but your generation pushed these changes. You voted for them. You changed your behaviors. You started the multiple divorce trend. Your generation has to own these things. Your generation even started the heavy drug use.

The divorce didn't rise because women were pushed it. Women were not ready for the rise in divorce. They had to step into a workforce they were not accustomed to and carve out a space for themselves, often while having to figure out how to raise kids on a divorced woman's income.

You kids born in the 40s and 50s, then coming of age in the 60s gotta own these major societal changes you caused. It certainly wasn't your dad and mom pushing for this or acting like jackasses. They were raised in hard, hard times and stuck by each other whether they were happy or not often times. Your generation had some of the best economic times in America and decided, "Screw it, we're gonna party."

Snippet From the AI Machine:

The divorce rate in the United States, after steadily increasing since the mid-1800s, experienced a sharp rise in the 1960s and 1970s, driven by the widespread adoption of no-fault divorce laws. This trend culminated in a peak in the early 1980s, after which the overall rate began to decline, though it has seen increases in certain demographic groups.

Key Factors in the Rise:

No-Fault Divorce:
.
The transition from requiring couples to prove fault (like adultery or cruelty) to allowing divorce based on "irreconcilable differences" significantly lowered the barrier to ending a marriage.
Changing Social Norms:
.
The emphasis on personal fulfillment and happiness, alongside rising individualism, eroded the idea of marriage as a lifelong, indissoluble union.

Increased Independence for Women:
.
Women gained greater legal rights and more opportunities for self-support, making divorce a more viable option.

Legal Transformation:
.
The legal system's shift towards a model that prioritized equitable asset division and child custody based on the child's best interests also played a role.

Timeline of the Rise:

Mid-1800s to 1950s: Divorce rates increased gradually from the mid-19th century until the mid-20th century.

1960s and 1970s: This period saw the most significant increase, often referred to as the "divorce revolution".

1980s: The divorce rate peaked in the early 1980s, with the rate more than doubling from 1960 to 1980.

Your boomer generation, Riverdog. That generation that came of age in the 60s was the generation that started so much bad in America. The Greatest Generation came home from war and survived The Great Depression to produce a generation of children that fought against racism and sexism, fought against war, destroyed marriage, pushed sexual liberation for the benefit of men, made divorce easy, and started the drug problem in America. One of the most mixed bag generations in history.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Q1SPCg_rxJk

Aseahawkfan wrote:Your boomer generation, Riverdog. That generation that came of age in the 60s was the generation that started so much bad in America. The Greatest Generation came home from war and survived The Great Depression to produce a generation of children that fought against racism and sexism, fought against war, destroyed marriage, pushed sexual liberation for the benefit of men, made divorce easy, and started the drug problem in America. One of the most mixed bag generations in history.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Q1SPCg_rxJk

In the early part of the 60's, it was mostly the succeeding generation, ie the Silent Generation, born between 1927-1945, that had "come of age" as you put it. I was born in October of 1954, so I started out the 60's as a 5-year-old (I can barely remember the Cuban Missile Crisis). The oldest boomer, born in 1946, would have been 14-15 years old in 1960.

Later in the decade, ie 1966-1969, yes, the Boomers definitely had an impact and affected change, both good and bad. But I don't think you can blame 18-20 year olds alone for making divorces easy. We weren't the ones who changed the laws.

As I said earlier, the women's movement had its genesis in the early 1900's with women's suffrage and the 19th amendment. The civil rights movement went into high gear after WW2 with the integration of the military, Jackie Robinson, Brown v Board of Education, and so on. Boomers aren't responsible for those things, either.

One of them was the origins of the women's rights movement, saying that it was ugly women wanting the same benefits that the good-looking women already had, and he was exactly right. 15-20 years earlier, I remember my roommates and I during college making jokes about the appearance of women shown on TV demonstrating. It's actually an indictment on men as it suggested that they were biased. And the looks bias isn't limited to men, either. Women will vote for a JFK-type before they'd vote for someone like Chris Christe based solely on their appearance. Abraham Lincoln grew a beard because he was told that women liked beards and would encourage their husbands to vote for him if he grew one.

You made the comment above, Riverdog. This is not the woman's movement that started during suffrage where women were worried about "ugly women wanting what good-looking women had". That part of the women's liberation movement occurred during the 60s and 70s with the rise of television and print media with lots of color pictures being highly influential on American culture. It also incorporated fashion and makeup and other ways to highlight female beauty. Let's just say there were more than a few men that started making money highlighting female beauty in ways that would not have been allowed in previous generations.

The women's liberation movement you watched during your childhood into your teens and twenties was the woman's movement driven by the sexual liberation movement. The sexual liberation movement was heavily supported by males and pushed by them. The Swinger lifestyle pushed by men like Hugh Hefner. Women were convinced that free sex was somehow greater freedom, often by men. Men started to participate in this loose sex environment. This caused men not to want to be the "go home after work" husband any longer. Why miss out on the fun?

Those "ugly" women you are making fun of that let their bodies get out of shape having children and had spent their lives being wives and mothers were being left high and dry by men wanting a piece of the swinger lifestyle. Thus the rise of the no fault 60s and 70s increase with no fault divorce. Women did not greatly benefit from divorce, especially women that had kids and expected to be married for life. They had no job skills and no ability to maintain their standard of living after the husband left. Thus men were the greater beneficiaries of the no fault divorce laws. Men made enough money back then to send some money to the old wife while enjoying the new girlfriend.

Women weren't exactly going to sit back and take this crap. Thus the rise of what do they call it...new wave feminism during the 60s and 70s you watched. All those women that had become "ugly" due to age and wearing their bodies down still needed to be able to take care of their children and families when the hubby was enjoying his income and his younger girlfriend. What's that saying" "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."

Women have reasons for doing what they're doing often due to male behavior. Prohibition is one of the examples of women exercising the voting right to try to stop the male drinking problem that existed in America for decades. America paints itself on TV as this fine, upstanding place of manly men all doing the right thing, when in reality there were a ton of drunks in America for decades. Alcoholism was a real problem, undiagnosed and generally accepted.

The Silent Generation was part of it. You were college age during the 70s period and your generation definitely participated in the Anti-War movement and sexual liberation movement which would have risen up during the mid-60s when you were about 11 and into the 70s as you were hitting your teens and twenties, probably enjoying the loose women environment that was a great deal different than your parents had grown up on. Since you were a kid and a teen, it probably seemed normal to you.

Maybe you didn't like those hippies from Easy Rider in 1969. You would have been around 15 at the time. I can't believe you missed out on one of the best times for a young American male to have some fun.

I saw where Charlie Kirk once said that Joe Biden should be given the death penalty for his crimes against America. If that's not considered preaching hate, I don't know what the standards are. Vote them out of office, absolutely. But wishing death on a fellow human being?

It certainly doesn't justify the action, and I hope they hang his assassin from the tallest tree in the state. But in retrospect, it's apparent that Charlie Kirk was out there on the fringe with incendiary comments like advocating giving the sitting POTUS the death penalty. My old man had a saying for everything, and if he were alive, he'd say this about the Charlie Kirk assassination: "If you're going to sleep with the dogs, don't be surprised if you wake up with fleas."

River Dog wrote:I saw where Charlie Kirk once said that Joe Biden should be given the death penalty for his crimes against America. If that's not considered preaching hate, I don't know what the standards are. Vote them out of office, absolutely. But wishing death on a fellow human being?

It certainly doesn't justify the action, and I hope they hang his assassin from the tallest tree in the state. But in retrospect, it's apparent that Charlie Kirk was out there on the fringe with incendiary comments like advocating giving the sitting POTUS the death penalty. My old man had a saying for everything, and if he were alive, he'd say this about the Charlie Kirk assassination: "If you're going to sleep with the dogs, don't be surprised if you wake up with fleas."

I didn't know who Kirk was prior to his assassination. Some of the stuff he said is pretty ridiculous. Then again it seems that is the state of America right now where ridiculous gets views and votes. America is a bunch of angry people yelling at each other while reasonable viewpoints are drowned out.

Kirk's working as a martyr for the right. We'll see if they can ride it to more power in the midterms.

I'd feel more bad if I hadn't seen the Democrats weaponize government agency against cake makers with different religious views, investigate Trump based on a dossier paid for by Hilary Clinton, and abuse the power of government against free speech that ended with Roseanne Arnold getting fired, Disney making really bad movies, and attempts to cancel anyone that disagreed with leftist rhetoric including not wanting to bend to transgender ideology.

All Trump and his cronies are doing is what the Dems and left wing taught them to do: wield the power of government to force through their ideology. Now the Dems and their supporters are crying when they were doing exactly the same thing pushing their ideology into schools and getting anyone fired that said anything remotely against what they believe.

This is the very definition of the slippery slope theory. Trump and the Republicans have the upper hand now, so they're copying the Dems while they scream tyranny. The exactly feeling right leaning conservatives felt when they questioned Democratic ideology and got canceled, called racist or sexist, and punished by the government for doing so with multiple right wing supporters going to jail or getting fired.

I knew it was going to happen. Payback is a b**** as the saying goes. I've never seen the Democrats and Republicans not pay each other back. Just like once the Democrats have power again, they'll start paying the right wing back. Just an endless path of tit for tat idiocy America is being taken down.

The right is now forgetting about Timothy McVeigh and the right wing militias during the 90s that did a bunch of violence as they try to pain the left as violent. When the reality is both of the political extremes have been violent, insane, and bad for the country. They ebb and flow depending on who feels justified.

I hope we can find another leader during these times to get things right like we've done many times before when we had Washington starting us off, Lincoln dealing with slavery, FDR with WW2, and Reagan with the Soviet Union. We always seem to find some leader to set us right when we're on a bad path. We gotta find that person and get them in office to start fixing some of this looney.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I didn't know who Kirk was prior to his assassination. Some of the stuff he said is pretty ridiculous. Then again it seems that is the state of America right now where ridiculous gets views and votes. America is a bunch of angry people yelling at each other while reasonable viewpoints are drowned out.

Kirk's working as a martyr for the right. We'll see if they can ride it to more power in the midterms.

I'd feel more bad if I hadn't seen the Democrats weaponize government agency against cake makers with different religious views, investigate Trump based on a dossier paid for by Hilary Clinton, and abuse the power of government against free speech that ended with Roseanne Arnold getting fired, Disney making really bad movies, and attempts to cancel anyone that disagreed with leftist rhetoric including not wanting to bend to transgender ideology.

All Trump and his cronies are doing is what the Dems and left wing taught them to do: wield the power of government to force through their ideology. Now the Dems and their supporters are crying when they were doing exactly the same thing pushing their ideology into schools and getting anyone fired that said anything remotely against what they believe.

This is the very definition of the slippery slope theory. Trump and the Republicans have the upper hand now, so they're copying the Dems while they scream tyranny. The exactly feeling right leaning conservatives felt when they questioned Democratic ideology and got canceled, called racist or sexist, and punished by the government for doing so with multiple right wing supporters going to jail or getting fired.

I knew it was going to happen. Payback is a b**** as the saying goes. I've never seen the Democrats and Republicans not pay each other back. Just like once the Democrats have power again, they'll start paying the right wing back. Just an endless path of tit for tat idiocy America is being taken down.

The right is now forgetting about Timothy McVeigh and the right wing militias during the 90s that did a bunch of violence as they try to pain the left as violent. When the reality is both of the political extremes have been violent, insane, and bad for the country. They ebb and flow depending on who feels justified.

I hope we can find another leader during these times to get things right like we've done many times before when we had Washington starting us off, Lincoln dealing with slavery, FDR with WW2, and Reagan with the Soviet Union. We always seem to find some leader to set us right when we're on a bad path. We gotta find that person and get them in office to start fixing some of this looney.

You're not alone with your ignorance about Charlie Kirk. I didn't know who he was before the assassination, either.

I see where when Trump was pressed as to why he lowered the flag for Kirk but not for the MN legislator who was murdered in a politically motivated crime in an even more heinous manner than Kirk's assassination as they not only shot her and her hubby, but they also shot the family dog, too. Trump first tried to say that he didn't know about the murders, which is a lie because he commented about it when it happened, then he tried to pass the buck to the Dem MN governor by saying that the governor didn't ask him to. I know of no governor, or any other elected official, requesting that the POTUS lower federal flags in observance of a tragedy. That's always been a decision made exclusively by the White House. The whole thing stinks, the assassination, the reaction, the firings, everything.

I don't disagree with anything you've said. I have never seen our country as divided as we are now, and I don't see a quick fix in the immediate future. Maybe once Trump is out of office in 2028.

River Dog wrote:You're not alone with your ignorance about Charlie Kirk. I didn't know who he was before the assassination, either.

I see where when Trump was pressed as to why he lowered the flag for Kirk but not for the MN legislator who was murdered in a politically motivated crime in an even more heinous manner than Kirk's assassination as they not only shot her and her hubby, but they also shot the family dog, too. Trump first tried to say that he didn't know about the murders, which is a lie because he commented about it when it happened, then he tried to pass the buck to the Dem MN governor by saying that the governor didn't ask him to. I know of no governor, or any other elected official, requesting that the POTUS lower federal flags in observance of a tragedy. That's always been a decision made exclusively by the White House. The whole thing stinks, the assassination, the reaction, the firings, everything.

I don't disagree with anything you've said. I have never seen our country as divided as we are now, and I don't see a quick fix in the immediate future. Maybe once Trump is out of office in 2028.

You didn't feel this divided in the 60s when the protests were crazy and you had the Alabama national guard with desegregation. Although now that I know when you were born, you might have been too young and TV not on a 24 hour, constant news cycle where it didn't feel as bad as it does now. My mother experiences the same thing even though she was born in 1950. You all experienced Kennedy's assassination, the Vietnam War, the end of segregation, the Civil Rights movement and the bill that was passed into law, and even weaker gun laws than now, the rise of the drug epidemic with the loss of many people to heroin, and such, the Cold War, and probably more I'm forgetting.

Somehow due to the 24 hour news cycle and the way the media is now, it makes it all seem worse now even though this is one of the easiest times to live in history, especially in America and other first world nations. Though the school shootings have been worse in the modern day since probably the 80s. What was the worse shooting you dealt with when young? The Texas Tower shootings at a college?

River Dog wrote:You're not alone with your ignorance about Charlie Kirk. I didn't know who he was before the assassination, either.

I see where when Trump was pressed as to why he lowered the flag for Kirk but not for the MN legislator who was murdered in a politically motivated crime in an even more heinous manner than Kirk's assassination as they not only shot her and her hubby, but they also shot the family dog, too. Trump first tried to say that he didn't know about the murders, which is a lie because he commented about it when it happened, then he tried to pass the buck to the Dem MN governor by saying that the governor didn't ask him to. I know of no governor, or any other elected official, requesting that the POTUS lower federal flags in observance of a tragedy. That's always been a decision made exclusively by the White House. The whole thing stinks, the assassination, the reaction, the firings, everything.

I don't disagree with anything you've said. I have never seen our country as divided as we are now, and I don't see a quick fix in the immediate future. Maybe once Trump is out of office in 2028.

Aseahawkfan wrote:You didn't feel this divided in the 60s when the protests were crazy and you had the Alabama national guard with desegregation. Although now that I know when you were born, you might have been too young and TV not on a 24 hour, constant news cycle where it didn't feel as bad as it does now. My mother experiences the same thing even though she was born in 1950. You all experienced Kennedy's assassination, the Vietnam War, the end of segregation, the Civil Rights movement and the bill that was passed into law, and even weaker gun laws than now, the rise of the drug epidemic with the loss of many people to heroin, and such, the Cold War, and probably more I'm forgetting.

Somehow due to the 24 hour news cycle and the way the media is now, it makes it all seem worse now even though this is one of the easiest times to live in history, especially in America and other first world nations. Though the school shootings have been worse in the modern day since probably the 80s. What was the worse shooting you dealt with when young? The Texas Tower shootings at a college?

I grew up in Walla Walla, and we were very isolated in the 60's and 70's. We had a scratchy AM radio station in Richland we had to listen to in order to get our rock-and-roll fix until 7pm when one of the local stations would play rock music until 11pm. My dad would be considered a racist in today's world but was quite tolerant for his demographic during that era. He hated the riots and protests but said of the MLK assassination that they killed "one of the good ones," hated the KKK, was for desegregation but drew the line at mixed marriages. He was also a hawk when it came to the Vietnam War. The town itself was mostly white, but we did have a half dozen or so black families and a few Hispanics, some of whom I made friends with and remain friends to this day. But they were different from the urban blacks and Hispanics, weren't political or into social activism. That was the environment I grew up in.

I was completely unaware of George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse doorway that occurred in the early 60's when I would have been 7-8 years old. The JFK assassination was the first major event that I was fully aware of, and that occurred shortly after my 9th birthday when I was a 3rd grader. You couldn't get away from the event unless you dug a hole and hid as the three network TV channels canceled all of their programming, including commercials, and televised nothing but assassination-related material from an hour after JFK was shot on Friday about noon until he was buried the following Monday morning. It's likely why I've developed a passion for researching that event, because I have a clear recollection of where I was and what I was doing when it happened.

Anyway, enough of my personal story. It's my opinion that we've never been this divided in this country during my lifetime. Social media and the 24-hour news cycle have definitely played a role in shaping this environment, but I don't think it's been made to seem worse by it. People are much more political than they ever used to be.

River Dog wrote:I grew up in Walla Walla, and we were very isolated in the 60's and 70's. We had a scratchy AM radio station in Richland we had to listen to in order to get our rock-and-roll fix until 7pm when one of the local stations would play rock music until 11pm. My dad would be considered a racist in today's world but was quite tolerant for his demographic during that era. He hated the riots and protests but said of the MLK assassination that they killed "one of the good ones," hated the KKK, was for desegregation but drew the line at mixed marriages. He was also a hawk when it came to the Vietnam War. The town itself was mostly white, but we did have a half dozen or so black families and a few Hispanics, some of whom I made friends with and remain friends to this day. But they were different from the urban blacks and Hispanics, weren't political or into social activism. That was the environment I grew up in.

I was completely unaware of George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse doorway that occurred in the early 60's when I would have been 7-8 years old. The JFK assassination was the first major event that I was fully aware of, and that occurred shortly after my 9th birthday when I was a 3rd grader. You couldn't get away from the event unless you dug a hole and hid as the three network TV channels canceled all of their programming, including commercials, and televised nothing but assassination-related material from an hour after JFK was shot on Friday about noon until he was buried the following Monday morning. It's likely why I've developed a passion for researching that event, because I have a clear recollection of where I was and what I was doing when it happened.

Anyway, enough of my personal story. It's my opinion that we've never been this divided in this country during my lifetime. Social media and the 24-hour news cycle have definitely played a role in shaping this environment, but I don't think it's been made to seem worse by it. People are much more political than they ever used to be.

That's my mother's situation. She grew up in a small town in Colorado and Texas.

I make a concerted effort not to get dragged by the nose by the media. It's why I read a lot of history and avoid the mainstream news sites or the mouthpieces of either political party. The political parties want votes and like to make things seem more extreme than they are. America is a nation that had a Civil War, nothing gets more divided than that.

This era does feel more divided than when I grew up in the 70s and 80s. Reagan was well liked across the spectrum, though many folk of African descent call Reagan a racist for his old style views. I imagine he may have had some in him like your father as they were raised in different times. Once you teach a generation something, hard to reprogram that type of thinking.

My mother's side of the family is Mexican ancestry, but third generation American. My grandfather was American to the bone. He served in WW2 in the Pacific Theater. He suffered through The Great Depression and served in the Civilian Conservation Corps. He worked as a coal miner and mechanic to make sure to buy his family a home. He believed in America, believed in hard work and taking care of his family. I always wonder what he would think of modern American strangeness that no longer seems to put family as a priority and believes in a lot of trash. He always dealt with the racism against Mexicans, but he never attributed it to "white" people as a whole as he had a ton of white friends he served with and maintained where we lived. Racists are racists is how I was taught. It's not the people, it's the person.

Modern America is not as fun to live in nowadays as it was in the 80s. I never thought people would view Trump as the savior of free America. Pretty sure he isn't. But Dems have gone so far left that they don't seem very supportive of America any longer. It's a shame the younger generation has to grow up with these whack job parties setting a bad example of what this country should be.

I saw this quote and had to share it as it demonstrates how much this country has changed:

The Smothers Brothers, known for their comedic and satirical television show during the late 1960s, often used political figures, including President Johnson, as subjects of their humor. Their sketches frequently poked fun at Johnson's administration, particularly regarding the Vietnam War and other political issues. This led to tensions between the show and the White House, prompting the Smothers Brothers to express their regrets for any offense caused by their comedic portrayals.

In response to their apology, President Johnson wrote a letter acknowledging the role of satire in a democratic society. He stated, "It is part of the price of leadership of this great and free nation to be the target of clever satirists. You have given the gift of laughter to our people. May we never grow so somber or self-important that we fail to appreciate the humor in our lives." This letter reflects Johnson's understanding of the importance of humor and satire in American culture, even when it was directed at him.

This interaction highlights the complex relationship between political figures and the media, particularly in the realm of satire, during a tumultuous period in American history. The Smothers Brothers' ability to critique and mock political leaders through humor was a significant aspect of their show, and Johnson's gracious response illustrates a level of acceptance of that role.

It's important to note that Johnson wrote his response after he was out of office.

River Dog wrote:I saw this quote and had to share it as it demonstrates how much this country has changed:

The Smothers Brothers, known for their comedic and satirical television show during the late 1960s, often used political figures, including President Johnson, as subjects of their humor. Their sketches frequently poked fun at Johnson's administration, particularly regarding the Vietnam War and other political issues. This led to tensions between the show and the White House, prompting the Smothers Brothers to express their regrets for any offense caused by their comedic portrayals.

In response to their apology, President Johnson wrote a letter acknowledging the role of satire in a democratic society. He stated, "It is part of the price of leadership of this great and free nation to be the target of clever satirists. You have given the gift of laughter to our people. May we never grow so somber or self-important that we fail to appreciate the humor in our lives." This letter reflects Johnson's understanding of the importance of humor and satire in American culture, even when it was directed at him.

This interaction highlights the complex relationship between political figures and the media, particularly in the realm of satire, during a tumultuous period in American history. The Smothers Brothers' ability to critique and mock political leaders through humor was a significant aspect of their show, and Johnson's gracious response illustrates a level of acceptance of that role.

It's important to note that Johnson wrote his response after he was out of office.

You're not listing the context of why you posted this, though I'm pretty sure why you did it. Presidents and political figures have been satirized for years. SNL makes a business of it. They have satirized Trump as much...if not more...than any president. Let's just say South Park really did a job on Trump that was hilarious, though I imagine you don't watch that show.

Seems some media figures are getting hammered for Charlie Kirk comments, one in particular. I know they got rid of Stephen Colbert. From what I understand the factors were business related as both companies are trying to get merger deals passed. They don't want interference until the mergers are done.

It shows how much of the media is owned by a handful of companies more interested in the bottom line than free speech or standing up for anything. Even the mega-corp CEOs from the billion dollar tech companies are bending the knee. Trump is sucking up all the love from the Big Tech CEOs. Never seen business so intertwined with the presidency. It's so blatant at this point that I almost expect the CEOs of every major tech companies to be part of Trump's entourage.

Trump don't like poor people. He's even adding a 100,000 charge to H1B visas. 5 million golden visas. He seems to only want to attract wealthy people into America. It's the most blatant display of wealth and oligarchy I've seen in my life.

What's even sadder is the Democrats can't stop him. Not even sure they want to with Pelosi making immense stock returns and the left more concerned with transgender ideology than working class people improving their lives.

Aseahawkfan wrote:You're not listing the context of why you posted this, though I'm pretty sure why you did it. Presidents and political figures have been satirized for years. SNL makes a business of it. They have satirized Trump as much...if not more...than any president. Let's just say South Park really did a job on Trump that was hilarious, though I imagine you don't watch that show.

Seems some media figures are getting hammered for Charlie Kirk comments, one in particular. I know they got rid of Stephen Colbert. From what I understand the factors were business related as both companies are trying to get merger deals passed. They don't want interference until the mergers are done.

It shows how much of the media is owned by a handful of companies more interested in the bottom line than free speech or standing up for anything. Even the mega-corp CEOs from the billion dollar tech companies are bending the knee. Trump is sucking up all the love from the Big Tech CEOs. Never seen business so intertwined with the presidency. It's so blatant at this point that I almost expect the CEOs of every major tech companies to be part of Trump's entourage.

Trump don't like poor people. He's even adding a 100,000 charge to H1B visas. 5 million golden visas. He seems to only want to attract wealthy people into America. It's the most blatant display of wealth and oligarchy I've seen in my life.

What's even sadder is the Democrats can't stop him. Not even sure they want to with Pelosi making immense stock returns and the left more concerned with transgender ideology than working class people improving their lives.

LBJ was the first POTUS to be mocked by satirists. That's one thing I can remember about the late 60's, how television started venturing into politics. It was quite a shock to the pols in office at the time. Same with the music industry. Those politicians who followed had to suffer the same indignation. Gerald Ford, after stumbling down the steps on AF1 and shown falling down on a ski slope, was portrayed on Saturday Night Live by Chevy Chase as this clumsy idiot, picking up a glass of water and putting it to his ear thinking it was a telephone or falling off a ladder while putting a star on a Xmas tree. Jimmy Carter actually had a comedy series based loosely on him, Carter Country, that was created while he was in office and portrayed a deep south bumbling mayor as one of the lead characters. Johnny Carson had a field day mocking politicians.

I agree with your take on Trump. His attack on immigrants is disgusting, and going after the H1B visas by attaching a hideous fee of some $100k makes no sense at all except when put in a racial context. These are highly educated skilled people that this country needs in order to be competitive. In the medical field, one out of five of doctors in the United States, including my PCP, were born and educated outside of the US. Bringing them here raises the bar for all doctors and improves the quality of our health care by ensuring that we're going to get the best qualified physicians in the world and not one simply because they were native born. He's against DEI (as I am) based on the argument that it results in lesser qualified candidates being given critical jobs based on something besides their job qualifications, yet he is adapting the exact opposite philosophy when it comes to the H1B visas. He wants to give jobs to people based on their national origin.

That's my biggest beef with Trump, i.e. his America First obsession. Competition leads to higher quality and lower prices for goods and services. It's the basic foundation of a free market society. Shrinking the market of available goods and services by insisting they be made in America, performed by native born citizens, or attaching tariffs to imports and thereby discouraging them, does the opposite. It leads to less competition, a smaller supply, which in turn increases demand resulting in higher prices, and in many cases, lower quality. It's the law of supply and demand; a principle taught in the first week of Econ 101.

River Dog wrote:LBJ was the first POTUS to be mocked by satirists. That's one thing I can remember about the late 60's, how television started venturing into politics. It was quite a shock to the pols in office at the time. Same with the music industry. Those politicians who followed had to suffer the same indignation. Gerald Ford, after stumbling down the steps on AF1 and shown falling down on a ski slope, was portrayed on Saturday Night Live by Chevy Chase as this clumsy idiot, picking up a glass of water and putting it to his ear thinking it was a telephone or falling off a ladder while putting a star on a Xmas tree. Jimmy Carter actually had a comedy series based loosely on him, Carter Country, that was created while he was in office and portrayed a deep south bumbling mayor as one of the lead characters. Johnny Carson had a field day mocking politicians.

I agree with your take on Trump. His attack on immigrants is disgusting, and going after the H1B visas by attaching a hideous fee of some $100k makes no sense at all except when put in a racial context. These are highly educated skilled people that this country needs in order to be competitive. In the medical field, one out of five of doctors in the United States, including my PCP, were born and educated outside of the US. Bringing them here raises the bar for all doctors and improves the quality of our health care by ensuring that we're going to get the best qualified physicians in the world and not one simply because they were native born. He's against DEI (as I am) based on the argument that it results in lesser qualified candidates being given critical jobs based on something besides their job qualifications, yet he is adapting the exact opposite philosophy when it comes to the H1B visas. He wants to give jobs to people based on their national origin.

That's my biggest beef with Trump, i.e. his America First obsession. Competition leads to higher quality and lower prices for goods and services. It's the basic foundation of a free market society. Shrinking the market of available goods and services by insisting they be made in America, performed by native born citizens, or attaching tariffs to imports and thereby discouraging them, does the opposite. It leads to less competition, a smaller supply, which in turn increases demand resulting in higher prices, and in many cases, lower quality. It's the law of supply and demand; a principle taught in the first week of Econ 101.

I think Trump is using the H1B program to force India to comply with his trade agreements. Indians are 71 percent of H1B visas. Modi is resisting the tariffs, so Trump is punishing them a different way. Trump has a lot of Indian support. You see his F.B.I. head and Vance's wife, both are Indian descent. So is Vivek Ramaswamy. I don't think it is racially driven. I think the majority of Americans don't understand how much Indians use the H1B visa program. This is another pressure point Trump is using in negotiations with India. Mainstream press like CNN or MSNBC will sell it as a racial issue as that's what Dem news organizations do. Business news is selling it as a pressure tactic on Modi of India to get him to comply with trade that Trump will use in negotiations since India is the largest user of the H1B visa program. That's why he suddenly tossed the H1B visa fee on there while he's been publicly negotiating with India.

Then that is why I watch the business news. They usually know what's going on better than the mainstream news that is always trying to sell the political advantage for their chosen party. Whereas the business news just tells you how the tactic is being used to force a business deal.

But I hope they get dropped at some point. H1B visas are generally reserved for high end STEM workers that add a lot to this country. Its' not these other nations fault that they pursue education more than Americans, especially the MAGA followers who don't want to put in the work to become a doctor or engineer or scientist. They don't even trust doctors and the science community, while they use many services and items based on this science they want to reject.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I think Trump is using the H1B program to force India to comply with his trade agreements. Indians are 71 percent of H1B visas. Modi is resisting the tariffs, so Trump is punishing them a different way. Trump has a lot of Indian support. You see his F.B.I. head and Vance's wife, both are Indian descent. So is Vivek Ramaswamy. I don't think it is racially driven. I think the majority of Americans don't understand how much Indians use the H1B visa program. This is another pressure point Trump is using in negotiations with India. Mainstream press like CNN or MSNBC will sell it as a racial issue as that's what Dem news organizations do. Business news is selling it as a pressure tactic on Modi of India to get him to comply with trade that Trump will use in negotiations since India is the largest user of the H1B visa program. That's why he suddenly tossed the H1B visa fee on there while he's been publicly negotiating with India.

Then that is why I watch the business news. They usually know what's going on better than the mainstream news that is always trying to sell the political advantage for their chosen party. Whereas the business news just tells you how the tactic is being used to force a business deal.

But I hope they get dropped at some point. H1B visas are generally reserved for high end STEM workers that add a lot to this country. Its' not these other nations fault that they pursue education more than Americans, especially the MAGA followers who don't want to put in the work to become a doctor or engineer or scientist. They don't even trust doctors and the science community, while they use many services and items based on this science they want to reject.

I haven't dug that deeply into the specifics of the H1B issue, so I don't doubt what you say. I was speaking more in general terms, that as you said, the H1B visa program is for educated, trained folks who can contribute more to our economy than the typical farm working immigrant. That's not to say that we can't use farm laborers, just that the educated folks are more valuable to the economy.

I was also pointing out the hypocrisy, that he's using the argument in opposition to DEI that it uses a non-work-related attribute, i.e. race, sex, etc., to put underqualified people into positions they wouldn't otherwise had been able to obtain, yet he's using a non-work-related attribute, country of origin, to put people into positions they wouldn't have otherwise been able to obtain in the form of his H1B fee.

My PCP, an immigrant from Peru who is also a personal friend of whom I see socially once or twice a year, told me that part of the requirement of his visa was that he went to work in an underserved area. Doctors don't like working in the Yakima Valley (his clinic is in Grandview, about a 35-minute drive from where I live) because it doesn't pay and native-born doctors in general don't want to live in the social backwoods. Most of his patients are on either Medicaid or Medicare, which doesn't pay nearly as good as private insurers. To me, that's a huge plus as it gets a good doctor to work in an area that really needs it rather than having to overpay to entice a native-born doctor to go to work there.

River Dog wrote:I haven't dug that deeply into the specifics of the H1B issue, so I don't doubt what you say. I was speaking more in general terms, that as you said, the H1B visa program is for educated, trained folks who can contribute more to our economy than the typical farm working immigrant. That's not to say that we can't use farm laborers, just that the educated folks are more valuable to the economy.

I was also pointing out the hypocrisy, that he's using the argument in opposition to DEI that it uses a non-work-related attribute, i.e. race, sex, etc., to put underqualified people into positions they wouldn't otherwise had been able to obtain, yet he's using a non-work-related attribute, country of origin, to put people into positions they wouldn't have otherwise been able to obtain in the form of his H1B fee.

My PCP, an immigrant from Peru who is also a personal friend of whom I see socially once or twice a year, told me that part of the requirement of his visa was that he went to work in an underserved area. Doctors don't like working in the Yakima Valley (his clinic is in Grandview, about a 35-minute drive from where I live) because it doesn't pay and native-born doctors in general don't want to live in the social backwoods. Most of his patients are on either Medicaid or Medicare, which doesn't pay nearly as good as private insurers. To me, that's a huge plus as it gets a good doctor to work in an area that really needs it rather than having to overpay to entice a native-born doctor to go to work there.

Like, you, I don't like the way Trump uses anti-immigrant rhetoric. It's crass and appeals to the LCD.

The bigger problem I have is his followers don't care. They seem to ignore all the problems his policies are causing and buy everything he's selling. They seem to think everything he says is the gospel truth even when it is provably wrong. Random tariffs based on trade deficits are stupid, yet not to hear MAGA talk about them. The H1B visa program is the high end of immigration, but his followers are buying the job crap when they don't even realize like you are seeing that taking away great doctors, engineers, and scientists from other nations, the exact type of immigrants Trump wants is going to hurt them.

I hear all these old MAGA followers supporting Trump. Then I ask them who takes care of them at hospitals and they say more often than not immigrant nurses, doctors, and other hospital workers. I ask them who is going to take care of you if all these people are gone? They think young Americans are going to step into these jobs when young Americans don't want those jobs because Americans have rasied their kids to be so fricking lazy. They don't want to take care of some old person pissing themselves and needing all kinds of medical care. They want to play video games, work at some computer company, and hope the old people somehow get taken care of by someone...guess whose been doing it.

The MAGA followers have no clue how their country runs. No clue how much they benefit from science and medical advancement. They keep acting like Trump is the smartest man in the room. It's ridiculous. Trump don't care about them. Trump only cares about people with money. He wants more rich people here as they are the only ones that can afford his hotels. That's why he has his 5 million visa and even the 100k H1B will be usable mainly by rich people.

That's why I view Trump as less of a racist and more of a guy who doesn't want more poor people in the country. He doesn't care about the poor at all. He barely cares about the working class. All his tax cuts mainly benefitted the wealthy. Look he hobnobs with: rich CEOs, rich Arab people from oil countries, and anyone that has a lot of money. Trump would love nothing more than to fill this country with rich people that can afford his hotels and golf courses.