Nazis blew their one chance at being members of the human race in the 1931-45 time frame. So, anyone who dredges up the images, icons, salutations and rhetoric of Adolf Hitler and his band of monsters is not to be coddled or protected.

Just because it’s speech does not mean it’s protected speech. I can say “Fire” anytime I want, but I can’t suddenly scream that in a dark movie theater with the intent to cause bodily harm by causing a panicked stampede. Likewise, Nazi punk scum cannot march through my taxpayer improved streets and parks and shout hateful rhetoric like “Jews will not replace us” while invoking the memory of Adolf Hitler’s storm troopers and Nazi Germany’s Final Solution.

Our greatest generation fought this scourge at great loss of life, and it was our nation’s finest hour. How dare they flaunt their Nazi ideological stench in our America. What would our heroic World War II veterans buried in Arlington, Va. and the Lorraine American Cemetery and Memorial in France think?

I don’t feel any different about the Klu Klux Klan. Their members were and are monsters, and I don’t have to guess why their meetings are now held underground.

I do not believe our president really “sides” with these monsters. I just believe he is in over his head (“many sides, many sides”) in this political world of imaging and messaging, and I believe he thinks he’ll be just fine doing the opposite of what most politicians do — it’s his personal way to keep his promise of “draining the swamp.”

But, unfortunately, the anger and hate and racism that is percolating in America’s hot streets and public spaces is getting angrier and louder; so, President Trump is not the issue. The public is no longer looking to the president to speak up on this. People are taking it to the streets.

Finally, it’s been 152 years since the end of the American Civil War. The great majority of monuments to the Confederacy went up in the “Moonlight and Magnolia” era of the Jim Crow South — after Reconstruction and up to and through the mid 20th century culminating in the bloody Civil Rights era. Heritage not hate? Let’s go back and see what history was being recalled versus what history was being made when these monuments were erected.

See the meeting minutes of the county commissioners courts and city councils commissioning these statues, read newspaper reports celebrating the unveiling of these monuments. Look at the pictures of the public who attended the unveiling. Then determine whether this is a “history” worth preserving and celebrating in our public squares in today’s diverse America. Society is changing, and change is inevitable; I welcome change. Friends, there is no “going back” or being “great again.” Let’s all acknowledge each other’s roots, but let’s be great Americans together in a sharing, forward-looking perspective.

Out of many, One. Those words — in Latin — appear on the Great Seal of the United States of America. I acknowledge our differences; except for Nazi and KKK scum, and ISIS and like violent, murderous ideologies, I respect the diverse many: white, black, Latino, Asian and all Americans of many races, creeds, political persuasions and sexual orientation. But you’ve got to acknowledge our one common purpose: we are the flickering light of freedom in a dark, dangerous world that regularly attempts to extinguish that light. The torch atop the Statue of Liberty is the perfect metaphor for the United States.

Joe Jaworski lives in Galveston.

Locations

(76) comments

Steve Fouga

Well, this column certainly captures the ambiguity of the situation we're in. But it doesn't really state a path forward. That's fine. Personally, I don't think the path is easily discernible, and in that matter I see I'm in good company with Mr. Jaworski.

I do understand this: the Nazi, KKK, White Supremacist "issue" was not visible to most of us, or at least me, before the election. Now it is.

I think the logical conclusion is that Trump's campaign and election caused the problem to become visible, whether the president is a White Supremacist or not, which I doubt, because I don't think he cares about moral issues.


Carlos Ponce

The President does care about moral issues but is not a White Supremacist.
"was not visible to most of us" Then pay attention. This is part of an ongoing smear propaganda perpetuated by the Democrat Party to link the Republican Party to white supremacist groups like the KKK, neo-Nazis and the like. While the number of white supremacists are dwindling, Democrats bring them up every time there is a Republican candidate or president.
1998: " In Missouri, the state Democratic Party has begun running a radio commercial with a bald appeal to blacks: 'When you don't vote, you let another church explode,' the narrator says. 'When you don't vote, you allow another cross to burn. When you don't vote, you let another assault wound a brother or a sister. When you don't vote, you let the Republicans continue to cut school lunches and Head Start.' ''
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/02/us/the-1998-campaign-the-overview-clinton-and-gingrich-press-cases.html
This anti GW Bush commercial was put out by the NAACP:
''On June 7 1998, James Byrd Jr. was beaten, chained and then dragged behind a pickup truck three miles to his death simply because he was black. Even after such a brutal act as this, hate crimes legislation in many states still remains nonexistent. I'm Renee Mullins. James Byrd was my father. On Nov. 7, let it be known we will not be dragged away from our future. Vote on Nov. 7. Please.''
GW Bush had said that Hate Law legislation was not needed because Texas law already imposes harsh sentences for violent crimes.
The Nazi, KKK, White Supremacist "issue" is always on the Democrat Party back burner to be used when they are losing power.

Steve Fouga

Carlos, you may have missed my point about Nazis, KKK and the like. My point is that they are a tiny, tiny, tiny element of our society, not a mainstream driver like many other organizations, both formal and informal: the Tea Party, the NRA, big-business lobbyists, big donors, the political parties, the military, etc. Nazis and KKK, while always around, are largely invisible to the public; that's the reason for the surprise and outrage when they suddenly show themselves.

The key difference between the past, when Nazis were hidden, and the present, when they are front-page news, is the Trump presidency. It's obvious to anybody "paying attention."

Trump does NOT care about moral issues. It's a hallmark of the man's character, one of the key reasons he's unfit to be president.

George Croix

Mr. Fouga, that's an interesting line of thought.
Building on it, question:
Does pretending to care about moral issues, or being selective about them, make a person unfit for office?

Steve Fouga

First, while on the topic of morality, I should make it clear that I DON'T believe in legislating it. But, I think public leaders, in their public duties, should portray a degree of moral leadership that their constituents would consider near the norm.

Back to your question, I think pretending to care, and following through on that pretension, is better than providing no moral rudder at all. The public needs to feel that the president's moral rudder is at least somewhat conventional, even if he's faking it. I hate to word it that way, but it's what I think.

As for being selective, are you asking about a president having a moral compass on certain issues but not others? Or are you asking about a president having conventional morals in one arena (decries adultery, for example), but unconventional morals in another (it's okay to lie, or to use certain drugs, for example)? Or are you asking about a president considering topics that some view as moral in nature (abortion, for example) to not be a question of morality at all, but instead a different sort of issue?

Since I'm not clear on what you're asking, I'm not sure how to answer, but I bet we can agree on this: we both know it when we see it. "It" may be different in each of our cases, but I bet both of us judge fitness at least partly on a moral basis.

George Croix

I'd certainly like to see more conventionality in the Oval Office, as at the very least a courtesy from the Office, but that wasn't what was voted for, so we play the hand we have...
Some of my point was to wonder whether pretending to be moral, or care, and then being found to be a liar about same, over and over again, is any worse than just outright saying you don't care in the first place, or pretending to.
Then, we have the situation where one says he's opposed to something, but is never taken at his word for it...giuilty until proven innocent....
I think a lot of people could benefit from adulthood, and a job where you don't get to pick and choose who you work with....
But, I'd admit that refinery supervisor and fire captain are not nationalally prominent jobs.

George Croix

Ahhhh....premature posting...[beam]
I certainly admit I DO use my own moral attitudes and opinions as a guide, ofeten a big part of same, BUT I made it my personal policy on the job to try my best to treat each individual the same as any other, and put team and the overall good of the unit(s) or emergency site over my personal opinion or even knowledge of anyone's morality or beliefs.
i was told I was pretty successful at it, but such judgments, themselves, tend to be individualistic.....

Steve Fouga

"Some of my point was to wonder whether pretending to be moral, or care, and then being found to be a liar about same, over and over again, is any worse than just outright saying you don't care in the first place, or pretending to."

Well, in that case I'd rather they just not care, and admit it, than pretend they care and then lie, over and over. Lying is really high on my list of moral hot buttons. That's why I was so disgusted with our choices last November.

Carlos Ponce

Okay I'll buy your premise in the first part of the post but
Trump does care about moral issues. He now cares about the unborn despite his previous support of abortion. The pictures of Syrian children killed moved him to act. He shows compassion for all who wear the uniform, police and military. Just a few examples.

Steve Fouga

Well, Carlos, for MOST in uniform, I'll give you that.

After dozens of statements causing me to question his character, it's hard for me to give him the benefit of the doubt. When he's suddenly "nice," I tend to suspect Ivanka has given him advice.

Mark Aaron

"This is part of an ongoing smear propaganda perpetuated by the Democrat Party to link the Republican Party to white supremacist groups like the KKK, neo-Nazis and the like."

Sorry Carlos, but Trump has earned that reputation without any assistance needed from Democrats.If you are ever able to see beyond your blind devotion that would be impossible to ignore.

Carlos Ponce

No, if you bother to do the research you will find that Trump has disavowed these hate groups for decades, long before he became President. But I doubt if you will do the research. The truth would undermine your false narrative.

Mark Aaron

"Racist? That must explain that Black man behind Donald Trump in Phoenix holding up a sign reading "Blacks for Trump" and wearing a shirt reading "Trump and Republicans are not Racists"."

And you consider that conclusive Carlos? Is that what you consider scholarship?

Carlos Ponce

I consider it evidence that he appeals to those who are knowledgeable. And that is scholarly.

Mark Aaron

"No, if you bother to do the research you will find that Trump has disavowed these hate groups for decades, long before he became President."

You are talking about a serial liar who has been caught in over a thousand lies since his campaign began last year, and you think he should be believed despite all of the evidence to the contrary? Poor, poor Carlos. You are in so deep you can never get out, can you.

Carlos Ponce

"You are talking about a serial liar ...." No need to go any further. Since you refuse to do any scholarly research and are stuck on the premise he is a "serial liar" there is nothing more to post. If you want to stick to your erroneous presumptions so be it. Teachers can cure ignorance but not stubbornness.

Mark Aaron

"whether the president is a White Supremacist or not, which I doubt, because I don't think he cares about moral issues."

Judging by his bigotry directed towards Muslims and Mexicans as well as his record of denying apartments to Blacks in the past I can come to no other conclusion other than he is a White Supremacist. Though he likely doesn't recognize it in himself. Many bigots think that just because they tolerate non-Whites it means they aren't bigots without recognizing that non-Whites have every right to be here with equal measure to theirs.

Steve Fouga

I see your point, and maybe this is splitting hairs, but to me Trump is just a garden-variety racist, probably having been brought up as such. Furthermore, being a narcissist, the president considers himself superior to pretty much everyone other than family members and, for some reason, thankfully, the military.

A white supremacist, in my view, goes beyond simple racism and proactively espouses white superiority through organized activities, verbal slander, etc. Yes, Trump does this, but he does it to whites also.

Carlos Ponce

Racist? That must explain that Black man behind Donald Trump in Phoenix holding up a sign reading "Blacks for Trump" and wearing a shirt reading "Trump and Republicans are not Racists".
Racist? That must explain why Trump had more African-American and Hispanic votes than the previous Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

Steve Fouga

Black people at a Trump rally have little to do with his being racist. They might not care, because they approve of his agenda; or maybe, like you, they aren't familiar with his racism. They may have simply not been paying attention.

Carlos Ponce

Maybe they are familiar with the accusations against him and dismissed it as groundless campaign rhetoric. It's all over the Leftist media. How can anyone miss it?

George Croix

Simple racism....
Is that like slightly pregnant...???
[beam][beam]

Mr. Fouga, do you give any credibility to the Southern Poverty Law Center?
They list 3 or 4 or so organizations that they say are black supremacist.

Evil...an equal opportunity employer.....

"It's not the number of bullets flying through the air in a war that kills you, it's the one at the specific time and place that hits a vital spot that does."


.

Steve Fouga

"Simple racism..."

That's what many whites suffered from in the 50s and 60s when we were growing up. They made fun of Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, "AY-rabs," anyone different from them. They felt threatened when anyone different moved into their neighborhoods. I grew up around people like them; my family, my schools, my neighborhood, were full of them.

None of them joined organizations touting white supremacy, and eventually most if not all of them learned the stupidity of their ways and now peacefully and willingly coexist with the same different folks they were leery of 50 years ago.

White supremacy is a different thing, wishing to return to the ways of the past, and worse. I have no trouble labeling Donald Trump a racist, but I think of him as more of a "practical racist." He's a racist when it suits his purposes, and drops it when it counters them. In my opinion he's nowhere near being a White Supremacist, at least not as I think of them. Donald Jr., and Eric? Hmmmm...

Carlos Ponce

If “Jews will not replace us” is hateful speech then the chanters should suffer the LEGAL consequences but not be physically attacked.
BLM: "Marchers chanted in unison, 'Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.' What officers and many others find offensive is also protected free speech. "
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2015/08/30/black-lives-matter-chant-called-disgusting-by-police-leader/
"What some might find offensive is also free speech."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8Yqv8mnywU
HUH!

Mark Aaron

"If “Jews will not replace us” is hateful speech then the chanters should suffer the LEGAL consequences but not be physically attacked.
BLM: "Marchers chanted in unison, 'Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.' What officers and many others find offensive is also protected free speech."

In your zeal to excuse Nazis you claim BLM marchers attacked them. I have yet to see any evidence of that. Do you have any credible sources for that allegation?

You are right that what the Nazis chanted and what BLM members chanted is protected speech. I would note that the BLM has consistently shown themselves to be a peaceful movement however, and outside of that unfortunate 30 second chant in a four hour march, by one single chapter out of hundreds around the country, they have an excellent record. The right has done everything in its power to demonize them and the right have duped more than a few willing subjects into believing and claiming otherwise. Check your sources Carlos, and check your bias before making unfounded accusations.

Carlos Ponce

"In your zeal to excuse Nazis you claim BLM marchers attacked them." I never made that claim, Mark. Fiction on your part.
Two different occasions, TWO different scenarios. Everyone else figured that out. The neo-Nazis are bad, evil people but should not be attacked. They should suffer the LEGAL consequences. They were attacked by the Antifa.

The BLM started out legit but do not currently have a clean record.
Here's a video where Antifa and BLM attack the Boston police:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSTMrd0M9xE


Mark Aaron

"The BLM started out legit but do not currently have a clean record.
Here's a video where Antifa and BLM attack the Boston police:"

I see no indication that those brawlers are either BLM or Antifa, nor can I find any credible source making that claim. Do you just assume anyone Black is a BLM member Carlos?

Carlos Ponce

Check the date, location, etc of the video and find a news report on line.

Mark Aaron

"Check the date, location, etc of the video and find a news report on line."

I looked there is nothing to support your accusation Carlos. Can you supply a credible source making that accusation, or will you withdraw your claim?

Carlos Ponce

Of course there is but if I provide the answer you would rebut with another non-sensible post, so it is better for YOU to look it up. It will mean more to you. If you don't know how, ask a 5th grader. They are computer savy.

Mark Aaron

"Of course there is but if I provide the answer you would rebut with another non-sensible post, so it is better for YOU to look it up. It will mean more to you. If you don't know how, ask a 5th grader. They are computer savy."

Out of facts and back to your ad hominems, Carlos? So sad.

Carlos Ponce

No, not out of facts. The information will mean something to you if you seek it yourself. If I gave it to you, you would reject it immediately without even checking its veracity. That's your modus operandi.

Mark Aaron

"Racist? That must explain that Black man behind Donald Trump in Phoenix holding up a sign reading "Blacks for Trump" and wearing a shirt reading "Trump and Republicans are not Racists"."

From the Washington Post:

"The radical fringe activist from Miami once belonged to a violent black supremacist religious cult, and he runs a handful of amateur, unintelligible conspiracy websites. He has called Barack Obama “The Beast” and Hillary Clinton a Ku Klux Klan member. Oprah Winfrey, he says, is the devil.

Most curiously, in the 1990s, he was charged, then acquitted, with conspiracy to commit two murders.

But Michael the Black Man loves President Trump."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/23/the-strange-story-of-that-blacks-for-trump-guy-standing-behind-potus-at-his-phoenix-rally/?utm_term=.fff1122d183a

Carlos Ponce

Remember he was acquitted". You know what that means. And there are plenty more "Blacks for Trump" but they don't fit the scenario of believing Obama was a racist. They are there, however. I spoke with some of them.

Jarvis Buckley

In the liberals efforts to destroy our president , they will also destroy our country. That may be their objective.

Mark Aaron

"In the liberals efforts to destroy our president , they will also destroy our country. That may be their objective."

It is far from just Liberals who detest Trump, Jarvis. A vast majority of the world detests him including a majority of Independents and a sizeable portion of the GOP.

As for destroying the country, it is not Liberals who want to drown our government in a bath tub or disassemble it. That would be Conservative who preach hatred of our government.

Jim Forsythe

To try and say one party is the one behind all the bad things is not true. Most of the groups do not belong to a party, but they do try and use a party for their needs. When a politician says thy do not know who David Duke is  , you have to question , are they bring true full.
"And Trump said: "Honestly, I don't know David Duke. I don't believe I've ever met him. I'm pretty sure I didn't meet him. And I just don't know anything about him."

Rep. Steve Scalise.
What was the reason that Steve Scalise was shot? We may never  know why,  because the shooter was killed.
12/30/14
House Majority Whip Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a leading conservative in the House, said in an interview Monday that he stood by Scalise and believed that many conservatives in the House’s hard-right bloc would do the same. (R-La.) is “facing questions about allegations that he was a featured speaker” at a white-supremacist event in 2002. According to the allegations, first reported by blogger Lamar White Jr., Scalise “spoke at an international conference of the European-American Unity and Rights Organization headed by Nazi and former Klan leader David Duke.”
“When someone called and asked me to speak, I would go,” he said. “If I knew today what they were about, I wouldn’t go.” 

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), the House majority whip, acknowledged Monday that he spoke at a gathering hosted by white nationalist leaders while serving as a state representative in 2002, thrusting a racial controversy into House Republican ranks days before the party assumes control of both congressional chambers.
The 48-year-old Scalise, who ascended to the House GOP’s third-ranking post earlier this year, confirmed through an adviser that he once appeared at a convention of the European-American Unity and Rights Organization.

The same year that Scalise spoke to the white nationalists, Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) ultimately lost his leadership post in the U.S. Senate after he said the nation would have been better off electing Strom Thurmond president in 1948 – the year Thurmond ran on a segregationist platform.
Republican leaders decided the racial element of Lott’s comments was simply too much for the party to support. Scalise’s participation in a white-supremacist gathering is every bit as serious, if not more so.

George Croix

The recently ex-President started his political career in the living room of a guy who not only bombed buildings, but said he wished he'd done a better job of it. Then spent his 8 year term doing what he could to divide the country along racial lines...with no small measure of success, as plainly seen.
Kinda puts just giving a speach in perspective....

Mark Aaron

"The recently ex-President started his political career in the living room of a guy who not only bombed buildings, but said he wished he'd done a better job of it. "

What in the world are you talking about, George. It sounds like you have OD'ed on the Kool-Aid. What hateful nonsense.

" Then spent his 8 year term doing what he could to divide the country along racial lines...with no small measure of success, as plainly seen. "

That is simply a lie. You should be ashamed.

Mark Aaron

"Does pretending to care about moral issues, or being selective about them, make a person unfit for office?"

Most rational people would think so, George. Apparently you see it differently. Isn't that right?

Carlos Ponce

"When a politician says thy do not know who David Duke is , you have to question , are they bring true full."
That's been explained ad infinitum. Candidate Trump had a bad connection and did not hear the question. If a Democrat had said that he or she did not hear the question properly because of a "lousy earpiece", Jim Forsythe would accept that without question. But when Trump says it...
From the Liberal Factcheck.org
Duke ran for governor of Louisiana in 1991 as a Republican, and Trump said at the time that President George H.W. Bush was right “to come out against” Duke’s campaign. Duke lost but he won a majority of the white vote — which Trump found troubling. “I hate seeing what it represents,” Trump said, referring to what he called the “anger vote.”
In 2000, Trump considered running for the Reform Party presidential nomination but did not run because he said he did not want to be associated with Pat Buchanan, who had left the Republican Party to seek the Reform Party nomination, and David Duke, who supported Buchanan. Trump at the time called Duke “a bigot, a racist, a problem.
And David Duke denies he endorsed Trump as reported:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en3l3dRj_-g
From CNN:
"Duke, who previously served in the Louisiana statehouse and ran for U.S. Senate in that state, did not endorse Trump and said Trump remains untrustworthy for his 'deep Jewish connections' and support for Israel."

Jim Forsythe

"The Sunday uproar started when Trump was asked by Tapper whether he would disavow Duke and other white supremacist groups that are supporting his campaign.
(How would he have had the following response , if he did not hear the question?)
"Just so you understand, I don't know anything about David Duke, OK?" Trump said."
If he did not hear the question , why did he answer?

“I hate seeing what it represents,” Trump said, referring to what he called the “anger vote.”In 2000" is a funny response from someone who in February 29, 2016 said
"And Trump said: "Honestly, I don't know David Duke. I don't believe I've ever met him. I'm pretty sure I didn't meet him. And I just don't know anything about him."  How can one  know Duke , then later he knows nothing about him.

Carlos Ponce

" I don't know anything about David Duke, OK?" Good response.
All we really know about people in the news is the way people are portrayed and much of that is biased. Ask yourself, " Do I really know about the real Donald Trump?" From your posts I doubt it.
Based on what I've looked up since, Duke is a bad person. On the other hand, contrary to fake news reports, Trump is not so bad. He is not perfect, but as Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin...." Do the research and turn off the fake news.

Mark Aaron

"That's been explained ad infinitum. Candidate Trump had a bad connection and did not hear the question."

You are such a willing and easy gull, Carlos. There is a reason David Duke and the KKK keep thanking Trump.

George Croix

From NBC News 10/21 /16
CLEVELAND — Hillary Clinton accused Donald Trump on Friday of “threatening our democracy” by refusing to say that he will accept next month's election results, adding that “the peaceful transition of power is one of the things that sets us apart.”

Peaceful transition of power sets us apart.....
Well, we're no different anymore in that respect.
Banana, anyone/
Anyone?

Mark Aaron

"Well, we're no different anymore in that respect."

What in the world are you going on about George? You make no sense.

Jim Forsythe

The Anti-Defamation League had called on Trump to repudiate the support of Duke, the former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, and other white supremacist groups.
Despite what he said Sunday, Trump apparently did know Duke in 2000 -- citing him, as well as Pat Buchanan and Lenora Fulani -- in a statement that year explaining why he had decided to end his brief flirtation with a Reform Party presidential campaign.
"The Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep," Trump said in a statement reported then by The New York Times.

George Croix

Aw, c'mon, Jim...don't get drug down to that level with the others.....you're WAAAY better than that.....
""The Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep," Trump said in a statement reported then by The New York Times."
Knowing OF is not the same as personally KNOWING.
Those words, if you or I said the exact same ones, would indicate we don't wish to keep company with such people....just like we don't care to keep company with any other of a host of vile, smart mouthed arrogant jerks with 'tudes' anywhere or anyplace.....
It doesn't mean we personally did so.
Might be, but it's just spin and diversion absent evidence.
Pres. Trump calls out all vile evil, people have a litter of kittens. Pres. Obama invites some of it to the White House, people slobber all over themselves.
That says all we need to knwo about such people....

Mark Aaron

"Knowing OF is not the same as personally KNOWING."

Like defining what the meaning of is, is George?

Mark Aaron

"the Generals are making their recommendations, and getting what they ask for, and, most important of all, seem to be being left alone to call the shots that they have trained their whole lives to call, rather than the Commander in Chief taking that role waaaay too much to heart, and trying to 'command from behind', or from his behind, either...."

Are you saying you don't think the civilian leadership of our government should have oversight over the military George? Because it sure sounds like it. I think most service people and veterans would take a dim view of that development.

Carlos Ponce

"Despite what he said Sunday, Trump apparently did know Duke in 2000 -- citing him..."
You've cited Obama, Hillary, Trump, etc. Does that mean you KNOW them or just know of them?

Mark Aaron

"You've cited Obama, Hillary, Trump, etc. Does that mean you KNOW them or just know of them?"

Are you saying you think you have to know someone personally in order to judge them Carlos? Do you know Obama, Hillary, or Trump personally? Or do you get special dispensation from your pontifications because you are special?

Jim Forsythe

George , maybe my point is hidden . We can find stupid things that both sides have said , or done. Just last night , the President said what he is going to do ,which is the same as past President have done,about Afghanistan  . He said, they were wrong in the past , but now it is what is right .

North Korea is heating up again.
Did he look into the camera and say, North Korea, this does not mean we have forgotten about you!
He needs to be more on live TV ,and address the Nation. No one can misquote him, if he says it himself.
He needs to stay off twitter.
Has he hired all the people he needs. for his staff?.
Members of his own party are starting to say bad things about him. 
If he is playing to his base , then he is forgetting about 2/3's of the people .
The time for the excuse, that he is new to the job, is over. 

Carlos Ponce

"He said, they were wrong in the past , but now it is what is right ."
Afghanistan was micro-managed during the last administration. Military decisions made by bureaucrats unfamiliar with warfare. A US soldier would have to phone an attorney to get permission to take the enemy out. Obama would broadcast military actions before they occurred. That's inane. Active duty military, people who have served in combat areas, Gold Star mothers all APPLAUD what Trump said last night and the changes made.

Jim Forsythe

Sounds like the same road as before.
In addition to these limited number of special forces, one thousand US soldiers specially trained for mountain warfare were in place in Uzbekistan at the start of operations. The early rounds of US on-the-ground fighting on October 7th, 2001 involved US personnel fighting alongside soldiers from the Northern Alliance, an anti-Taliban group .

What would a win look like?
Is the definition of victory, the killing of all terrorists in the region?
Even if that were possible, what conditions need to be in place so that once we leave, new terror groups don’t spring up? And how will we achieve our new military objectives with a few thousand more troops (up from 8,400 now) when we couldn’t “win” with a combined 140,000-strong U.S. and NATO force just a few years ago?

When is someday? Is someday, the same amount of time, as the DMZ in Korea.
The President did acknowledge that “someday” a political settlement with some elements of the Taliban may be possible — but only after an “effective” military approach. He then immediately went on to express skepticism over prospects for reconciliation. He’s right to be skeptical – any serious analyst should be skeptical of any proposed solution. What’s worrying is Trump’s certainty that there is a military path to victory in the country. There isn’t one.

George Croix

Jim, I left out one very big difference that may...may...make for better results.
In the current atmosphere WH, the Generals are making their recommendations, and getting what they ask for, and, most important of all, seem to be being left alone to call the shots that they have trained their whole lives to call, rather than the Commander in Chief taking that role waaaay too much to heart, and trying to 'command from behind', or from his behind, either....
We stand a better chance with active duty Generals than we had with general Obama, and if Pres. Trump will just avoid the urge to micromanage, that will be a sea change for our military and mission(s).
Talked with my bird Colonel nephew about the changes, and his comment was that better to be deployed and directed by career officers than political hacks from thousands of miles away.
Can't say I disagree with him.....

Mark Aaron

"A US soldier would have to phone an attorney to get permission to take the enemy out."

Reductio ad absurdum. Is that the best you can do Carlos?

"Obama would broadcast military actions before they occurred."

Like all presidents before him President Obama kept the nation as informed as he could. Trump will have to inform all of our UN allies helping in Afghanistan and the Afghani government, but you want him to keep it secret from the American public? Trump has repeatedly claimed to have secret plans to fix things, most in the first hundred days of his administration. None of them have yet to come to fruition. Why should we believe him now?

George Croix

"George , maybe my point is hidden . We can find stupid things that both sides have said , or done. Just last night , the President said what he is going to do ,which is the same as past President have done,about Afghanistan . He said, they were wrong in the past , but now it is what is right ."
Nahhh....not hidden, I just didn't get it![wink]
That second sentence should be tattooed on the forehead of every elected official on the planet.
Last night Pres. Trump said what he was going to do, just like others have. What he did not do, was say, how, when, details, or timeline fore and aft.
That is a significant and GOOD departure from recent years, where, in one noteable instance about the same country, the Pres. at the time both announced sending more troops then announced withdrawing them and all but a comparative handfuland set a date to do so....missed, but still a date....
We do NOT need to help the NYT print engagement/battle plans on the front page anymore....[ban]

Doyle Beard

but one can burn the precious American flag which several of my people defended and now all the nuts nuts holler its ok.

Mark Aaron

"but one can burn the precious American flag which several of my people defended and now all the nuts nuts holler its ok."

Do you believe in free speech Doyle? Even if you find it offensive?

Carlos Ponce

Speech - the expression of or the ability to express thoughts and feelings by articulate sounds
I guess the flag is crying for help while being burned. That must be what that crackling sound is.[wink]
Burning synonymous with speech? Strange!

Mark Aaron

"Burning synonymous with speech?"

According to many Republicans money is free speech. Do you agree Carlos?

Doyle Beard

dont believe you got the jist of this article Do you have any idea whaat free speech is. The right wants PC and PC only. That is not free speech.

Doyle Beard

correct last post of mine should have been liberals in place of the right I poste.

Mark Aaron

"The right wants PC and PC only. That is not free speech."

So true.

George Croix

"Our greatest generation fought this scourge at great loss of life, and it was our nation’s finest hour. How dare they flaunt their Nazi ideological stench in our America."

I may never get used to these new glasses, missed this the first time....

Here's my personal answer, Mr. Author.
They dare, even though deplorable to decent people, precisely because the greatest generation fought people like them at great loss of life...and won.
That winning allows the rest of us in this country to remain relatively free, and our Constitution to not be replaced with Mein Kampf.
My dead family members died for not just your right to speak, but everyone's in this country...good or bad.
Odd, isn't it, how all...all...of the voices these days who want to shut down anything they don't agree with, including speech, not just oppose it, even physically harm or professionally destroy all opposing views, are acting precisely LIKE those very evil basta__s that the Gretaest Generation faught.
How dare THEY do that......??!!!
I abhor nazis, but equally the ones who act the same, just don't carry flags...
History forgotten or denied invariably becomes history repeated

Mark Aaron

"Odd, isn't it, how all...all...of the voices these days who want to shut down anything they don't agree with, including speech, not just oppose it, even physically harm or professionally destroy all opposing views, are acting precisely LIKE those very evil basta__s that the Gretaest Generation faught."

Who exactly are you talking about, George? Anyone who doesn't share your fringe rightwing conceit?

Doyle Beard

yeah Joe,Robert Byrd was a KKK who led the filibuster to try and defeat the 1964 bill. Now liberals think he hung the moon.LBJ and JFK knew whathe was up to, peculiar how people think sometime.

Jim Forsythe

Is it possible that someone to change ?

"In his memoir, Byrd wrote, “It has emerged throughout my life to haunt and embarrass me and has taught me in a very graphic way what one major mistake can do to one’s life, career, and reputation.”

"Because of Byrd’s evolution on race and equality, the NAACP issued a statement praising him at the time of his death. “Senator Byrd came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda, doing well on the NAACP Annual Civil Rights Report Card,” said Hilary O. Shelton, director of the NAACP Washington bureau and senior vice president for advocacy and policy. “He stood with us on many issues of crucial importance to our members from the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, the historic health care legislation of 2010 and his support for the Hate Crimes Prevention legislation.”

George Croix

Sure. A lot of people getting old or nearing death go through a sugnificant character change.
Of course, it may have been nothing to do with that at all.

Pete Nanos

More to do with getting re elected than anything else, but these libs won't give you that.

George Croix

Mr. Nanos, lucky for me, I don't give a porcine rodents rear what they give me... [wink][beam]
I've actually had to work side by side for decades with people who could actually walk, not just talk. Quite a few became good friends...with disagreement, it's not the phylosophy that counts as much as the character.....

Jim Forsythe

Pete, are you the same person now, as you were at 18. Most people change as to what they think as the get older. Sometimes, they find out what they were told, when they were gowning up, is not true.,
"More to do with getting re elected than anything else" is true of not just libs , Democrat's, Independents , Republicans also practice this .

wmaceo@att.net Maceo

I read some of these comments, and it amazes me that there are people who ARE racists don't want to admit to others or more importantly to themselves. What I've learned over the years, being from the south, is that people who are racists will only acknowledge their "racist" feelings if they believe those around them hold the same beliefs. They will NEVER admit it openly. There's been so many times when white people I've known for years or I've attended school with whom have come clean and expressed severe racist comments believing I'm of the same belief. This action has been so prevalent that our entire country believed that racism was waning, when in fact it's bee increasing, especially after the election of President. Now, with Trump bringing those racists beliefs into the open, condoning those beliefs, supporting the alt-right and their actions, brining bona fide racists into the office of the President, while calling out "those people" himself (Mexicans are rapist and muders, Muslims, Jewish, etc), he has validated the belief in white superiority, and promoted the same during his campaigns and along with some white house speeches violence against liberals who believe in equality. This man IS a RACIST, and for those who deny that fact, merely deny it because they're denying that themselves are racists.

Carlos Ponce

"What I've learned over the years, being from the south, is that people who are racists will only acknowledge their 'racist' feelings if they believe those around them hold the same beliefs."
Not my observation. The few racists there are will gladly share their feelings and not look around to see who's listening. And their numbers are dwindling, not increasing.
"Mexicans are rapist and muders (sic)" Some are.
Likewise you can say truthfully some Americans are rapists and murderers.
What amazes me is Liberals omit the part where Trump says "Some [Mexicans] are good people". Are Liberals hard of hearing or is their objectivity lacking? I would say the latter. His executive order does not single out Muslims but countries with unstable central governments. Calling out Jewish people? No, his own daughter and son-in-law are Jewish. Such a claim is without basis.
Trump is no racist. No evidence of that claim. You can call me a racist but I know Mexicans, Muslims, Jews, African-Americans, etc. who would disagree with you. Calling someone racist who does not agree with you is inane.

George Croix

It's no wonder this country is in the fundamentally changed shape it's in....

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.