Embracing violence – stand up for america anxiety attack help

Of course, heading into Pirate Latitudes, we see that both sides are coercive, stealing, violent, etc. But that is within bounds that the American electorate has seemingly broadly accepted. (eg, it’s ok to tax… you, BF, and DPM might call this theft, but The People have broadly decided to condone it). In this light, of course, it’s the pot calling the kettle black. That’s undeniable.

So, with that in mind, what he’s getting at isn’t relevant to the Pirate interpretation, but rather, he’s accusing “the Democrats” of condoning otherwise non-condoned violence by cherry picking, using fallacious generalizations, and obtusely interpreting narrowly cropped quotes. This, while pretending that “his side” (the Republican Party) does no such thing (See also: No True Scotsman).


This he does by writing off inconvenient examples.

So, when Bill O’Reilly spent years calling Dr. George Tiller a murderer and wishing that someone would stop him, and then a Christian Fundamentalist, Fox fanatic, and registered Republican walked into church and executed the doctor, Gman looks at me with a blank expression and innocently proclaims that he wasn’t really representative of his side – whereas, were the rolls reversed, of course, he would be jumping up and down proclaiming the proof of such evil behavior by Democrats, liberals, the left, and Mathius.

There is a quote in there from Marc Rudd, former member now a respected adult (hah!) and contributor to the NYT (see below) who was a Weatherman and SDS leader and actually led the Columbia U riots in ’68. ( I remember that one well), cop’s still in a wheel chair).

“We have to start tearing down this fucking country. We have to have a revolution in this country that’s going to overthrow—like bombs like guns, like firebombs, by anything and everything…The most important thing that the Weather machine should be right now is to create a consciousness, a political consciousness and the best way to create this is by doing and preforming some exemplary action, like offing some pigs, creating some chaos in the streets, blowing up pig stations, blowing up banks. Once the Weathermachine begins this and starts the ball rolling, then the Weathermachine will not have to be involved as much. Other white revolutionaries are going to get involved and try to destroy the system that we all hate so much”

Now this was the good old 1960’s among those who NEVER condemned any of this were Hillary, Bill, Bernadette Devlin, Bill Ayres (and still don’t) . The difference between them (including Rudd) and Antifa today? They all got hair cuts, shaved off their beards (and for the ladies) their underarms and started wearing clothes. Do any of them condemn the mob today? I don’t think so.

You my friend suffer from a real lack of historical reference. Fifty odd years from now the current “leaders” will be writing op-ed pieces for what passes for the NYT , wearing suits and dresses and being very ordinary looking. But….in their hearts…They will still be the same goddam commo-fascist monsters.

“PRESUMED innocent” is the standard. No, it actually isn’t the standard when it comes to how people view this ethical principle. nanoxia project s review It is innocent until proven otherwise. You are playing games with the word presumed because it suits you and you need it to throw your shade at Trump or anyone else claiming X innocent. The “presumed” standard is something I think you will find in legal language, but not often used in human language. hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy grade 3 Yes, I am saying lawyers may not be human. 🙂

But let us look at “presume” in this context. Presume = assume. The presumption or assuming of innocence is the STANDARD. Ergo, in our minds, in our culture they are innocent until proven otherwise. In the legal sense we use assume or presume because there is a trial ongoing. An attempt to provide evidence and sway a jury to convict. Thus the instruction to the jury is to “presume” innocence.

PROVEN innocent is a different concept entirely. Yes, technically or scientifically that is correct. And it would apply to the separate standard of “Guilty until proven innocent”. But again, you are nit picking the use of the word “proven”. I am beginning to think this is just so you can call Trump a liar and argue against those who think Kavanaugh innocent.

At this point let me remind you of a time when I played this nitpicking card on you and you reacted in a most offended manner. Eventually accusing me of being insane because I would not accept your more general, that is popularly, accepted statement as an absolute.

A lack of proven guilt does not mean you’re innocent. It means you’re not proven guilty. This is true only, again, in an absolute sense. As in “only God knows for sure” sense. generalized anxiety disorder dsm 5 criteria But only a robot or Spock would demand an absolute be applied to human language use.

Look Mathius, I understand your argument. In the absolute you are correct in that we have not “proven” innocence. We, as humans, have found this to be nearly if not completely impossible. That old issue of disproving a negative. So we developed the standard of innocence first. Thus, for the majority of humans, when we see inadequate evidence for guilt we often call this proof of innocence. Frankly, I think you calling Trump a liar over use of the word “proven” is petty.

There are certainly enough other more concrete examples of him lying or distorting the language for his own benefit. I just disagree with you that this is one of those examples. I think his use of the term is completely consistent with how most people view the issue. That is who he is communicating with, not the Ivy League elite and certainly not the philosophers among us who can dissect things down to the atomic level.

Billions of people actually believe that garbage, think magic spells make violence a good thing or acceptable or something else or whatever. If that is the popularly accepted standard, then he has a ‘right’ to turn raping her into skydiving or silverware or doughnuts or something. It’s not a crime to give someone silverware or or doughnuts or take them skydiving.

A good example would be theft/extortion being magically transformed into taxes, which is something you owe in exchange for what they choose for you because they say so because they’re super humans with extra rights, super hero costumes and weapons.

Another one would be armed aggravated roadside public sexual assault being magically transformed into “protecting the public”, but only within the imaginary lines defining Texas where marijuana is dangerous. (If you transport it to Colorado from Texas, it disappears through New Mexico and Arizona where it is prohibited, then transforms into cultural benefit when it crosses the imaginary line into Colorado. But it is somehow very very dangerous in Texas)

Yep, you live in bizarro world alright. “Want to” in combination with magic spells does not automatically make something justified or anything other than what it is. And even if justifiable, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is the right answer.

A right is inalienable, a condition of your existence. Inalienable means that you cannot be separate from. Inalienable rights are based on what defines us as human. It is to say that you have a right to be a human and do as humans do because you ARE a human. You exercise rightful existence as a human up to whatever point it encroaches on another human’s right to be a human.

Breathing is a good example of an inalienable right. You are a product of the natural universe, a real creature that needs air to survive. Your DNA dictates that you have to continuously cycle a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen called air through an organ called lungs or you will die. You, as a human, need air. It is an inalienable condition of your existence in your natural habitat called Earth. You have a right to do whatever you have to in order to breathe.

Those are simple ones though. anxiety disorder treatment A more complicated one is individual free will and self determination. We think for ourselves. We are not the borg or a hive species, but individuals with independent thoughts, wants, needs, ideas, etc. Mathius doesn’t tell me what I want you to crave for dinner. We simply do not function as such. We cannot not think for ourselves. Individuality and self determination are an inalienable condition of our existence.

One of the reasons that the Benghazi investigation took so long was that the various executive departments stonewalled the committee similarly to what DOJ has done to the Russian investigation. anxiety depression meaning in hindi It was very late in the investigation before it was discovered that Hillary had an illicit email server that the State did not have access to for FOI requests. The committee had been asking for Hillary’s emails which the department claimed they did not have but never explained why. Once discovered, it was learned that Hillary did admit privately the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack but publicly blamed the video. there were other anomalies in her story that could have been resolved early had the executive branch had been more forthcoming with information much of it not flattering to the State Department.

The same is happening with the DOJ and the Russian investigation. Documents are dribbled out and large embarrassing sections redacted. Congress needs to put a stop to this behavior. They need to start prosecuting. Unfortunately it is the DOJ that does the prosecuting. Should we have a special Inspector General that can investigate such government malfeasance and have prosecutorial powers to charge and try miscreants. They should be limited in their scope to specific enumerated infractions of the law and only conduct investigations on request from at least 50% of one house of Congress.