The 5th GOP Debate: Mindless Brutality, Calls to Commit War Crimes, and Fact-Free Bloviating

© Josh Sager – December 2016

Yesterday, the Republican Party had its 5th debate (link to transcript) of the 2016 primary season and it was excruciating the watch. The entire debate was an exercise in substance-free posturing, interspersed with blind hatred, delusional policy proposals and calls to brutality. Each of the candidates took their chance to declare themselves as the toughest and smartest candidate on defense issues, while disparaging the other candidates along with the current administration and Hillary Clinton.


While there were so many bad moments at this debate that it would be hard to put them on a scale, there were a couple moments that were simply beyond the pale. In my opinion, the title of most heinous comment/proposal during debate is a tie, held between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.

First, when pressed on his proposal to start killing the families of Islamic terrorists, Trump doubled down and reiterated his support for murdering these innocents. He specifically mentioned “friends family, [and] girlfriends” when discussing these plans, so it is safe to assume that his targeting parameters for those close to terrorists is very broad, and could encompass almost anybody in their vicinity.

Of course, being a Republican debate during the 2016 cycle, the “moderators” failed to ask the obvious follow-up of whether this policy would include white, right wing, terrorists in the USA, who actually commit the most terrorist attacks of any other group. This would have been extremely uncomfortable for many in this group, as who knows how many of them have a crazy uncle/cousin/brother/in-law who is involved in the right wing militia movement and who may bring down a predator strike on his entire family if this policy ever gets enacted. While I have little hope that such follow up would have been answered honestly by Trump (he would almost certainly have deflected and accused the moderators of bias for conflating right wing American terrorism with right wing Islamist terrorism), it would have at least put this possibility into the minds of the audience.


Not to be out-done, Cruz said that he would “carpet bomb” ISIS in order to destroy them. As ISIS exists primarily in civilian areas, such a bombing campaign would kill innumerable civilians, not to mention the fact that carpet-bombing is explicitly banned in the Geneva Conventions. In effect, he just stood up and publically declared his intention to commit war crimes if elected president.

As with Trump’s family-murdering plan, the moderators refused to mention these inconvenient facts or challenge his comments in the slightest. In fact, Hugh Hewett, the representative of extreme conservatives among the moderators, followed up on these comments by Cruz and Trump while questioning Carson on whether he could match their brutality given his history as a doctor. Here is an excerpt from that exchange:

Hewett: “We’re talking about ruthless things tonight — carpet bombing, toughness, war. And people wonder, could you do that? Could you order air strikes that would kill innocent children by not the scores, but the hundreds and the thousands? Could you wage war as a commander-in-chief?”

Carson: “Well, interestingly enough, you should see the eyes of some of those children when I say to them we’re going to have to open your head up and take out this tumor. They’re not happy about it, believe me. And they don’t like me very much at that point. But later on, they love me.”

This exchange strikes me as amazing for several reasons.

First and foremost, the question reveals a truly terrifying strain of though within the GOP establishment—they take it as a given that a true “Commander in Chief” wages war by killing “thousands” of children abroad, and that anybody who finds this unpalatable is not qualified for the job. Putting aside the obvious lack of morality this demonstrates, the idea that we can defeat terrorism by killing children and bombing Muslim regions into oblivion is absolutely absurd. Those children have families, and killing them will create a massive amount of hatred among the survivors—I can think of no better recruitment tool for ISIS than this.


Second, Carson’s argument that the pain he caused during surgery to save lives is equitable with killing families and carpet bombing to destroy ISIS is fundamentally wrong-headed. Killing civilians is not only immoral and “painful” but it is also an amazing recruitment tool for ISIS that could sway the region against the west and into their pockets.

In the face of these comments, all of the other exchanges were tepid by comparison—for the most part, each of the candidates just repeated the same “tough on defense” language over and over again with few real policy suggestions or factual supports for their ideas. That said, I need to give some credit to Rand Paul, who was the least-reprehensible of the candidates on the stage.

Paul actually had several pretty good exchanges on privacy rights with Rubio and Trump. He is opposed to bulk surveillance by the government and was willing to defend this position against attacks from other candidates. Additionally, Paul, pointed out the obvious on several occasions by recognizing that getting involved in regime changes in the Middle East has caused immense problems for the USA and suggesting that we stop creating these messes. Ironically, this puts Paul in roughly the same boat that Bernie Sanders is in, and makes him slightly more progressive on this issue than even Hillary Clinton.

For his lucidity on the issues of privacy and foreign interventionism, as well as the vacuous barbarism of his adversaries, I consider Paul to be the substantive “winner” of this debate. To be honest, this bar is about as high a popsicle stick laid flat on the ground, but he is the only candidate on the stage who managed even this much, so take that as you will.

25 thoughts on “The 5th GOP Debate: Mindless Brutality, Calls to Commit War Crimes, and Fact-Free Bloviating

  1. Well. These guys, with the exception of Kasich and to some extent Bush , seem to be losing all sense of reality. They are simply vying for “most testosterone”. Reminds me of the chimpanzee threat behavior where they jump up and down and throw things and bounce off of trees and make their hair stand out to make themselves seem bigger.
    They are appealing to fear and hatred, which are basic human emotions. The similarities with Hitler’s techniques when he rose to power are a bit frightening.
    Christie talks of shooting down Russian planes. Cruz would “carpet bomb” civilian who are being held captive by ISIS. Trump would actually DO NOTHING, but he talks tougher than the rest. Carson is totally inarticulate.
    The only two conservatives and the libertarian (the others are reactionaries and radical) on the stage receive almost no support from the GOP “faithful”. The ones with a smattering of common sense are called RINOS !
    Most disturbing of all is that the press has abrogated it’s responsibility to call out these morons when the blatantly lie and misstate “facts”. Or make utterly stupid comments which are almost never questioned. Perhaps we need better prepared
    “news” people moderating these debates instead of these “celebrity” news men. They show very little grasp of issues themselves.


  2. With the exception of Rand Paul (as mentioned in this piece), the words falling out of the mouths of these cretins was appalling. It would be interesting to know how many Americans actually support these candidates’ draconian, vacuous self promotions.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I do believe that the explanation is quite simple. People who have decided to label themselves as liberal are just mislead by the first three letters of the word and believe that liberals are all about liberty. This is quite laughable. It is similar to how some imbeciles believe that the Democratic party is all about democracy. Liberals are just basically immoral, self indulgent, narcissistic, hedonists. They don’t realize that being liberal is a stigma and that liberals are a scar on society.

      Conservatives have a unified front with the Republican party. Liberals are scattered and weak just like partisans fighting what amounts to nothing more than political guerilla warfare. Once in a while, liberals may gain what they believe to be a victory. However, it turns out to be short lived and the conservatives always counter attack and take everything right back. Liberals are just biting the hand that feeds them and are too stupid to realize that the conservatives are doing what is best for everyone. I especially like how liberals are so eager to bring in Muslim refugees because it gives them the illusion that they are being tolerant and benevolent which gives them the illusion of being intellectual. However, they would not be willing to shelter a refugee in their own home and expect the government to pay for it all. Liberals want equal rights for women (as do conservatives), unrestricted access to addictive, mind altering, recreational drugs, gay marriage and the choice to be agnostic or Scientologists. They don’t realize that given their way, Muslim refugees would eventually form their own communities and begin practicing Sharia law which forces women to be subservient, makes drug and alcohol use and homosexuality crimes punishable by death and establishes theocracy. I’m just thankful that you people are, always have been and always will be a small, albeit loud minority.


  3. Marie, I do believe it is those who label themselves as Conservative who have misunderstood the meaning of that word. It’s a habit simple minded people are prone to do. The term “conservative” is based on the word “conserve”.
    Definition of conserve:
    1) to keep (something) safe from being damaged or destroyed
    2) to use (something) carefully in order to prevent loss or waste

    The majority of those calling themselves Conservatives today do not appreciate conservation of quality of living for the majority, prefer to make money over protecting the very air they breathe, and the water they and their grandchildren will drink. Conservative means to be prudent, not be willing to spend billions on wars and military spending – as the basic infrastructure of the US crumbles for lack of funding. To be conservative one would wish to protect the Constitution, not call for repeals of certain Amendments that protect American citizen’s rights, nor ad Amendments that would weaken Americans’ freedoms . Most of the Republican/Conservative presidential candidates have called for repeals of different Amendments that would suit their agendas. **

    Liberal thinking on the other hand, expresses the desire for preservation of all citizen’s rights – to be free to vote without constraint, privacy within their personal papers, phone calls, medical decisions, preservation of the environment over the greed of a few, etc. Being Liberal means to accept that others disagree with their opinions, and accept that they have a protected right to spew garbage as free speech. We’ve seen a lot of the latter in all the GOP presidential debates.



    • Thank you for your comment Deb. It only proved my point. You are confusing the term conservative with the word “conservation” as it applies to natural resources such as forests, wild animals and water. Not quite the same. We all want freedom, but liberals take it for granted because they don’t know what it means to earn anything. Conservatives on the other hand have not forgotten that freedom must not only be fought for, but protected by loyal Americans with strength and courage. Oh, did I forget to mention that conservatives have God on our side?


      • Again Marie, it seems you are confused about what “God” ( I’m assuming you mean the Christian version of) may find important. If you consider yourself a Christian, and given your apparent bigotry about any people who are unlike yourself – you might want to sit down and actually read the Bible. You might find the New Testament very enlightening about what Jesus taught concerning strangers, helping one’s neighbors, and over all generosity of spirit being crucial to following Him.
        If you succeed in understanding what the Bible and Jesus said and meant, compare those lessons to the rhetoric being used by the GOP presidential candidates; perhaps your propensity to lecture could convince some of them, that they are Christians in label only – and to stop sounding more like dictator wanna-bes and more like human beings.
        In any event thanks for playing.


      • Thank you again for commenting Deb. Your new post only further supports my point. One thing I like about liberals is that they are so easily defeated. All that you have to do is just give them enough rope to hang themselves. You have again demonstrated just how naïve and predictable you people really are. Anyone that may only now be reading this blog may suspect that your comments were really posted by me just to make liberals look even more stupid.

        I couldn’t help but notice that you didn’t actually claim to be a Christian yourself as I am proudly doing right now. You may be familiar with some of the words, but you might be having trouble with their meaning. Just how new is the “New Testament” that you are referring too? Did you write it yourself shortly before posting your comment on 12-21-15?

        If you succeed in understanding the Bible and what Jesus really meant, then you would know that Muhammad was a false prophet and that Islam is based on lies and is not a religion of peace.

        Furthermore, if you actually had a clue about how the world today really works, you would know that even though not every Muslim is a terrorist (yet) that they all read the same Quran and therefore, should be contained to the countries that they currently inhabit.

        In any event, thank you for loosing again. Now go to church.


  4. Well, Marie, We certainly are an encyclopedia of stereotypes, aren’t we? You mentioned the “short-term” liberal victories. Let me give you a few examples of those “short-term” liberal victories over the years that you seem to despise.
    Child labor laws. Social Security. Medicare. Medicaid. A minimum wage. ACA. Voting Rights Act. Roe v Wade. TVA. Interstate Highway system. EPA. OSHA. Free public education. Equal pay for equal work. Equal rights for homosexual citizens. Integration of the military.Separation of church and state. The Bill of Rights. A partial list. For fun, you may want to check out this little ditty to help you deal with your fears:

    Regarding “Muslim” refugees. How will 10,000 people in a nation of 320,000,000 take over and practice “Shari’a Law”? Have you ever heard of the US Constitution? I suppose if a number of these scary refugees could take over Congress and 3/4 of state governments they COULD change the US Constitution, although I think that possibility is a remote one.

    Ironically your comment about people “sheltering refugees” hits home. I live in a very conservative part of western NY. Last week I went to a meeting at a church basement with about 20-25 other people. All of them were EAGER to house and help any “Muslim” refugees that are coming into the US. One family had done the same for Laotian refugees many years ago. Everyone felt a desire to combat mindless racism and religious stereotyping. You may call that being “liberal”. I call it “common decency”. That is where we differ.


    • I don’t seem to recall ever declaring any contempt for child labor laws, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the minimum wage, the soon to be repealed or at least amended ACA, voting rights (for American citizens), abortion rights (since liberals are more likely to have unexpected pregnancies, more abortions equals less potential future liberals), The Tennessee Valley Authority, interstate highways, protection of our environment, workers safety, public education (which by the way is not free, perhaps you have heard of these things that illegal aliens don’t contribute to called “taxes”), fair wages for all, equal rights to homosexual American citizens who pay taxes, integration of the military which increases our strength, separation of church and state or the first ten amendments to our constitution which includes the Second Amendment that you despise so much. I believe that a little more research on your part might reveal that none of these accomplishments could have been possible without conservative help. You seem to equate being conservative with being racist. You apparently have read quite a bit of history, yet you have failed to learn from it. Thanks for the link. However, I have no interest in giving your pathetic blog any views or comments. In light of recent events, you may wish to rename it “The liberals are loosing – the liberals are loosing.”

      It is interesting how you neglected to mention the first Republican, Abraham Lincoln who in addition to defeating the racist Democrat controlled Confederacy also was responsible for the Emancipation Proclamation. Or the lesser known Republican senator Aaron Sargent who created the foundation for what would eventually become the Nineteenth Amendment. In some ways, they could have been considered the liberals of their time, but it is not liberal to want fair treatment and opportunity for all. That is just simply doing the decent thing. The liberals that I revile are the spoiled, naive, lazy, flag burning, stoners (a group which I suspect you may have been a member of at least one time in your sheltered life) who reject traditional family values, have no respect for authority, see themselves as revolutionaries and are only a burden on our economy.

      Regarding Muslim refugees, you may want to consult with the citizens of Great Britain.

      Was that little “meeting” that you attended the first time you had ever set foot in an actual church? I’m surprised you didn’t burst into flames. Just how big is the population in your area? I’m guessing that the 20 to 25 like minded people in your group therapy rant session were not indicative of the demographics of the community. Were all of them American citizens? This brings up a problem that our country may eventually have to face. After the refugees are dealt with, what should we do with the traitors who harbor them? Don’t even think of comparing this to the Third Reich. The Holocaust was a totally different matter.


  5. Marie. Interesting post. I have no need to throw out insults or make personal attacks .I believe in evidence. i will stick with substance. It’s the “liberal” thing to do.

    In your first paragraph you mention that you support almost all of those liberal benefits I mentioned. That is a good thing. But you may or may not realize that some very influential members of the GOP today want to do away with SS and Medicare and Medicaid and replace them with private systems. You support equal rights for homosexuals and gays in the military. You may not know that many in the GOP strongly opposed that. Mr. Obama actually had to use an executive order to outlaw “don’t ask don’t tell” and so give full rights to gays in the military. Similar to Truman’s executive order integrating the military. I am not sure where you get the idea that I, as a gun owner, “despise the 2nd Amendment”. Perhaps you could elaborate on the source of that information? I am glad we agree on the many accomplishments I mentioned, But you should be aware that some members of the GOP seek to deny women a right to an abortion, birth control and other medical care as provided by Planned Parenthood. It is rather ironic that bipartisan laws of the past (Social Security, Medicare, Voting Rights Act) are currently under attack by the new breed of GOPers.

    Regarding your second paragraph. I am not quite sure how Old Abe, who has been dead for 150 years, quite fits into an analysis of 21st century political thought. We can only speculate on which party he would find most comfortable today. Abe, a man of some ideals and a great deal of political pragmatism, would probably slide toward the middle somewhere. The Dems might not like his racism (which was true of most Americans of his time) while the GOP would probably not appreciate his attack on states’ rights and his belief in the primacy of the federal government. And, undoubtedly the news media would insist he was not electable because he was not “photogenic ” enough. Those focus groups would find him “too homely”. But Abe, being the consummate politician, would somehow forge a compromise if given the chance. Of course, a great deal has changed since the 19th century. So, comparing political parties based on their monikers really tells us nothing about them. Nixon’s “southern strategy” was very successful in prying the southern racist from their traditional base in the Democratic Party and bringing them into the GOP fold. But, the fact is that the racists are slowly dying off. Time will take care of that.
    (You might enjoy my analysis of the current state of the GOP):

    Regarding the local meeting of the fine people who are determined to help our newest refugees. I thought about the “demographics’ of the meeting I talked about. To put your mind at ease all people at the meeting were white. Some older, some younger. Some gay, some straight. Some Christians. Some atheists. Some homeschoolers. A pretty good cross section of this small town. One thing they had in common was a desire to live up to the best American values. Helping those unable to help themselves.I guess that would make the “liberals”.


    • If you believe in evidence josephurban, then why don’t you actually use it? By sticking with the “substance”, are your referring to illegal, controlled substance?

      Just because you may have inherited an ancient and probably unsafe to use firearm from a long deceased relative that you most likely don’t even know how to load does not make you a gun owner. Have you ever even tried to shoot any type of gun? A real Second Amendment supporter actually respects and cherishes that freedom and understands the true reason why we need it. If Hillary Clinton were to come to your area to give a speech on gun control and allowed anyone who surrendered a firearm for destruction free admission, you wouldn’t hesitate to give it away.

      So. You think that Abraham Lincoln, one of the few early presidents that never owned slaves, was a racist. I can only assume that you had been using some of your “substance” prior to typing that crap. If you would have paid attention in school (assuming that you even bothered to attend), you would have learned that it was the Confederacy that fired the first shots when they attacked Fort Sumter which started the Civil War. Had they not done that, the Union may have just simply allowed the Confederacy to exist and have their individual state rights. At least you have finally admitted that the “southern racists” had a “traditional base” in the Democratic Party.

      I find your story about your little local meeting suspicious. It sounds a little too diverse. Does your group require everyone to divulge their sexual orientation and religion or lack thereof? Would you allow any more white, heterosexuals in or are you reserving those vacancies for Native Americans, blacks, Asians, or bisexual Wiccan vegetarians?

      Liberals exist for only one purpose. That is to be stupid and make mistakes and keep the threat of anarchy alive so that Conservatives who comprise the majority of all educated and decent people do not become complacent. Plus, you people do occasionally provide entertainment. I especially enjoy watching the police pepper spray, taze and arrest you on the news. I just wish they would bring back the good old days when they used fire hoses, wooden clubs and dogs. You may want to start the process of getting your passport prepared and plan a long vacation in Canada. Just be sure to avoid Sweden.

      On second thought, no. Please, do go to Sweden.


      • Well, Marie. I won’t return insults with you. I prefer to use evidence. So, your 1st paragraph seems to imply I use illegal drugs. it merits no response.
        Your second paragraph contains no factual information or evidence of anything. Except more insults. So, again it merits no response.
        You third paragraph betrays a lack of understanding of the pre-Civil War debates and Lincoln’s attitude towards slaves. Let me help you out. Lincoln , by his own admission, believed that blacks were an “inferior” race to whites. He was quite clear about that not only in his speeches but in the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858. I don’t “blame” him for that racism, as it reflected the overwhelming majority of white folks at the time. It was a time before modern science and genetics. He said that if he could preserve the union and not free ANY SLAVES he would do so. So, I did pay attention in school and have read the Lincoln-Douglas debates. In defense of your lack of understanding it is possible that the schools you attended did not cover this adequately. Not your fault. Regarding the fact that the Democrats in the south, like the Republican candidate for POTUS, were also racist, I cannot remember any scholar, liberal or conservative, denying that. Perhaps you can link to a body of knowledge that denies that fact?
        Regarding your questioning my veracity about the Refugee Meeting. I have no problem with that. You don’t know me and may think that I lied about it. However, the meeting was called by a couple retired white people.Another old couple related how they had put up Laotian refugees in the 1980s and how difficult it was. I know another couple there who home school their kids.Another young man told how he is gay and how the local community was not bothered by that and so he thought refugees would also be accepted. There were no real ethnic “minorities” at the meeting because this is a very white rural area. But, judging by the overall open and liberal tone of the group I am pretty sure anyone would be welcome. After all, we are all just trying to help people who are trying to escape for a vile tyranny. A liberal thing to do.
        Your fifth paragraph shows a rather high degree of hostility toward a class of people who hold different political beliefs than you do. Your desire to use violence against those who are exercising their rights as citizens seems to contradict your claim that you support the Bill of Rights, or at least parts of it. It could have been written by a member of a right wing political party in Munich in the 1930s. This party also fought against the very idea of a democratic government and imposed it views on liberals and others through the use of force. It sought to silence any opposition through violence. It propagandized a hatred of people based on skin color, religion and political views. Of course, it was rejected at the polls. So, it turned to violence. That was the only road open to them because they knew that their ideas about race, ethnicity and freedom of speech would be rejected by the population as a whole.
        Regarding going to Sweden. It is a possibility. I have traveled to a few countries in Europe and Latin America but have not been to Sweden yet. I find that travel can broaden the mind and allows one to understand that mankind is composed of a multitude of viewpoints, belief systems and cultures. Nothing like firsthand experience. I’ll put Sweden on my bucket list.
        And if you ever decide to post some real evidence or facts I will gladly respond .


  6. Well, josephurban, I will use the evidence that you provided by failing to deny illegal drug use as a silent admission thereof. Please, get counseling.

    My second paragraph contained what is now apparently an accurate guess based upon your response. You are not the first liberal fool that I have crushed with logic. I will add you to my collection of trophies.

    Your embarrassment at my having exposed your ignorance regarding the Civil War caused you to lash out blindly which resulted in your absolutely pathetic attempt to insinuate that Lincoln’s debates with Douglass proved that he was somehow a racist. You yourself admitted that Lincoln’s views that blacks were “inferior” to whites was “reflected in the overwhelming majority of white folks at the time.” This was also at a time when women were not allowed to vote. This was just the way things were back then and had been for decades. So just how exactly did that make Lincoln a racist? Would it have been racist for Lincoln to delay freeing the slaves to a later date if that would have prevented war? It would have been quite easy for Lincoln to have just asked for an armistice and told the Confederacy that he would not seek abolition of slavery. Instead, he bravely decided to end slavery and allow blacks to serve in the Union army. Yeah, that really sounds like a racist.

    In regards to your little gathering. Providing aid and shelter to a Laotian family (Buddhist) in the 1980’s is a whole lot different than doing that for Syrian refugees (mostly Sunni Muslim) today in the wake of 9/11 and the Paris Attacks. Your gay friend sounds like he is very young if he thinks that just because the community accepts him (as far as he knows) that they will do likewise for Syrian refugees. Tell him that if that is what he truly believes, then he should broaden his mind by putting going to an Islamic country and starting a support group for homosexual Muslim’s on his bucket list. That is of course if he isn’t that fond of being alive and having his head remaining attached to his shoulders.

    I find your interpretation of my fifth paragraph amusing since it is people such as yourself that have been to blame for some of the most infamous murders in US history.
    How do you like these little facts?

    By the way. That video I included that you seem to have ignored was not fiction.

    I am a peaceful person and do not advocate unnecessary violence. As long as you and your fellow anarchists pay your taxes and don’t harm or steal from anyone, I don’t care how much drugs you use, how many same sex partners you have or what anti government garbage you say as long as I don’t have to hear it. It is when you abuse your freedom to assemble and block busy intersections and airports, loot from and or vandalize private property or throw bottles and rocks and attempt to injure my police or national guard troops that you have given up your right to be heard and should be dealt with appropriately even if that includes deadly force to disperse and bring you back under control.

    It is impossible to have an intelligent debate with a Liberal because of their lack of actual intelligence. An intelligent person controls their emotions and or any possible feelings of inferiority and uses only fact in their statements. They must also be ready for the possibility that the opposition may have information that they were previously unaware of that challenges their position and should cause them to reevaluate their own opinions. You however, do not do this. You have bricked yourself in to your own little narrow, anti American, anti Christian, pro chaos and disorder corner that you have convinced yourself that you are civilized and that every little outburst you have should be a rallying cry. You do this because you know deep down that you have not facts to support you and that you can not hide from reality forever. Your lifestyle is unsustainable and as long as you persist, you are doomed.


  7. Merry Xmas, Marie.
    Once again I have no need to respond to your first two paragraphs as they are devoid of evidence. So be it. As I have said, I prefer evidence to insults.

    Regarding your comments about Lincoln NOT being a racist. I would suggest you read the Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858. His position regarding blacks and whites is quite clear. I will offer only a few quotes since the debates are quite long .

    A simple definition of racism form the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
    : poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race
    : the belief that some races of people are better than others

    All are taken directly from words said by A. Lincoln:
    “…I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.” (1858)
    “You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.” (1862. to Black ministers in the midst of the Civil War)
    “And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” (debate with Douglas, 1858)
    “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.” (debate with Douglas, 1858)
    Despite these racist beliefs Lincoln did believe that blacks were humans and so had some rights under the Constitution.

    Your discussion of Lincoln wrongly claims that Lincoln COULD have told the Confederacy that he did not seek to end slavery but he chose, instead, to end slavery. What you may not know is that Lincoln’s original position was EXACTLY what you just described. He was determined to save the union, not end slavery. He made that clear not only in the Lincoln-Douglas debates but also in other speeches and statements. For example, another Lincoln quote:
    “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
    “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery.”
    It is true that eventually Lincoln came around to the side of the abolitionists, but that was long after the war was already dragging on. It was only then that he reluctantly allowed the employment of black troops.
    So, I present historic evidence and direct quotes, not taken out of context.

    Regarding refugees we will have to differ. I tend to think that I know my community better than you do, but perhaps not. In my neck of the woods most people, be they liberal, conservative, Christian, Muslim, atheist, Jew, etc. tend to be decent human beings who are quick to hep another. I cannot speak for the area you live in. Perhaps folks are different there. But I know that Syrian refugees, fleeing from ISIS, would be very welcome in this area.

    You state that you are not a violent person, yet…..Your paragraph of Dec. 26 calling for violence against those with whom you disagree speaks for itself. I have no need to respond to your defense of that attitude. Perhaps you should read it again.
    I did read your link to the NRA article pointing about that since 1865 there have been 19 people who claim to be Democrats who have been guilty of murder. That is a pretty scrawny list when you consider it covers over 150 years. LOL Of course, the list left off all the murders of children in schools, the attacks on black churches, the murders of doctors by fanatics not to mention the multitude of hate crimes. Since over 10,000 Americans are killed each year by people with guns I would suggest that 19 over a 150 period is not too bad.

    I especially enjoyed your last paragraph. While I have simply continued to calmly supply facts and evidence and logic you have attacked me personally as a drug using anarchist who cannot control my emotions. You attack my “lifestyle”, whatever that is, without knowing anything about me. Really? I challenge you to quote back to me any response I have made to you that was “emotional” or was personally insulting. Then read your own responses and see how they compare. I am not the one who had advocated violence. I let the evidence speak for itself.


    • Seriously, get counseling. If you have any actual friends, you may want to ask them to proof read your comments for you in the future. To kickoff the New Years celebration, lets enjoy another video.

      P.S. So sorry that the grand jury decided not to indict those police in Cleveland for killing Tamir Rice. You should protest. Get a toy gun and go point it at a police officer.


  8. Happy Holidays “Marie”. Regarding your helpful suggestions that I have someone “proof read” my work.
    Just for the record. “Proofread” is one word, not two.
    Just for the record “New Year’s” has an apostrophe.
    Just for the record “Let’s” is a contraction of “Let us” and should have an apostrophe.


  9. Just for the record. You’re probably the only person other than Mr. Sager who is going to read this. So I don’t particularly care about petty little apostrophe’s. You understood the message. Here’s another message for you.


  10. Happy Holidays, Joe or Marie. I will confess that I tend not to watch videos that , by the title, demonstrate they are simply editorials. Nor do I post such videos. I prefer evidence. With sources. If you wish to post substantive comments I will be happy to respond.
    (By the way, the proofreader I hired per your suggestion pointed out to me that the plural of “apostrophe” does not have an “apostrophe” and should be written as “apostrophes”, not as ” apostrophe’s”.)


  11. What the hell? Joe or Marie? Didn’t anyone tell you that you should never type while you are drunk or high Deb Meeker, josephurban or Muhammad?

    I knew that you wouldn’t be able to figure out that I put an apostrophe in the word apostrophes just as a little joke.

    I should have suggested that you use a graphologist to examine your writing, not a proofreader. They are not quite the same thing as I had thought. That’s the trouble with being conservative. You are just not accustomed to making mistakes.

    Have you ever been to the National Air And Space Museum?

    God how I hope that one of the troublemakers in this video is you.


  12. Marie. Using that apostrophe incorrectly certainly made a fool out of me !
    I have been to the Space Museum many years ago. It is very interesting and educational, like the rest of the Smithsonian. I would suggest a visit to the Native American Museum, the Holocaust Museum and the National Portrait Gallery be included in any visit to DC if possible.
    And, for the record, I have participated in peaceful legal protests a number of times to try to educate the public about government actions I disapproved of. I consider it not only a right (see Amendment 1) but also a duty. However, I have never used weapons to take over a government building or participated in rioting as I consider those activities not covered as rights under the Constitution. People who take such actions should be willing to accept the legal consequences.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s