Tornado Alley (PROG)

[fuagf]

livefree_ordie, Your efforts continue to contain masses of conservative oriented misinformation.

Take your suggestion Israel suffers from having to face it's history in it's totality.

"I say we should be like the Israeli Nation, they have to suffer still today the consequences when anyone brings up Adolph Hitler and his destruction of their peoplse in WWII. They have learned to suck it up and move on from it and grow a backbone in today's world you will see no other nation conquer them because they have learned to nip things in the bud before they get screwed again by some other maniac, you might support."

Actually nothing could be farther from the truth. Israel is as guilty of sanitizing their history as any. And much more than many. Take textbooks for one example:

---
The Nakba in Israeli History Textbooks: Between Memory and History
by Avner Ben-Amos
DOI : 10.48248/issn.2037-741X/1303

ABSTRACT
The aim of the present article is to delineate the way the Palestinian Nakba (“catastrophe” in Arabic), which was one of the consequences of the 1948 War, has been portrayed in Israeli history textbooks since the establishment of the State of Israel until the present. Based on the assumption that all history textbooks can be situated between the poles of history and memory, the article examines three main factors that determine the actual place of textbooks: academic history, the dominant ideology within the ministry of education and pedagogical norms. An examination of history textbooks that have referred to the 1948 War shows that the entire time span can be divided into three periods: first period, from the late 1950s to the mid-1970s, in which the official Zionist view of the past prevailed; second, intermediary period, between the mid-1970s and the late 1990s, in which the official Zionist view was slightly modified; and a third period, between the late 1990s and the late 2010s, in which the textbooks became diversified – some presented the official Zionist version, while others presented an alternative, critical version.
https://www.quest-cdecjournal.it/the-nakba-in-israeli-history-textbooks-between-memory-and-history/
---

There is too much rubbish in your latest there to touch on it all. So just two more points this time - yet again. To your.

"So you speak of American Democracy which involves our ENTIRE HISTORY not pieces of it as others want to do with it, but the entirety of it as a whole good, bad or indifferent. Leanr to deal with these things that are hurtful in our history, or seek professional help when these things bother you. I for one do not know of anyone still alive today that was during the Civil War times. So to be bothered by something no one here lived with at all today is mental illness and they should seek professional help."

The taking down of statues for example is not wiping mention of those people. It is stopping the public,
uncritical adulation of those individuals. Would you have statues of past KKK leaders in Harlem parks?

To your repeated, old and tired here, denial of American democracy:

"By the way we are actually a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy. And I suppoprt America fully and all its History not just pieces I like about it as I owe it to all of our forethathers and foremothers to carry on that legacy, not destroy it or else ti will be repeated by some dolt known as Biden."

OUCH. Now you are full-blown into repetitive conservative troll mode. We debunk yours.
You ignore and repeat. This post is to one which is to you, so you really should have read if.

Repeat excerpts of --- hap, ‘America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy’ Is a Dangerous—And Wrong—Argument
---
"livefree_ordie, Even much better --- Is The U.S. a Democracy or a Republic?
[...]
What you fail to understand is that even though you say you support the constitution in fact you support a perversion of it. In fact your representatives could vote to fairly tax windfall profits to give back to the people some of the excess profit scammed from them by overly greedy individuals.
[...]
When founding thinkers such as James Madison spoke of democracy, they were usually referring to direct democracy, what Madison frequently labeled “pure” democracy. Madison made the distinction between a republic and a direct democracy exquisitely clear in “Federalist No. 14 .. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed14.asp ”: “In a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.” Both a democracy and a republic were popular forms of government: Each drew its legitimacy from the people and depended on rule by the people. The crucial difference was that a republic relied on representation, while in a “pure” democracy, the people represented themselves.

At the time of the founding, a narrow vision of the people prevailed. Black people were largely excluded from the terms of citizenship, and slavery was a reality, even when frowned upon, that existed alongside an insistence on self-government. What this generation considered either a democracy or a republic is troublesome to us insofar as it largely granted only white men the full rights of citizens, albeit with some exceptions. America could not be considered a truly popular government until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which commanded equal citizenship for Black Americans. Yet this triumph was rooted in the founding generation’s insistence on what we would come to call democracy.

[...]

Yet while dependent on the people, the Constitution did not embrace simple majoritarian democracy. The states, with unequal populations, got equal representation in the Senate. The Electoral College also gave the states weight as states in selecting the president. But the centrality of states, a concession to political reality, was balanced by the House of Representatives, where the principle of representation by population prevailed, and which would make up the overwhelming number of electoral votes when selecting a president.

But none of this justified minority rule, which was at odds with the “republican principle.” Madison’s design remained one of popular government precisely because it would require the building of political majorities over time. As Madison argued in “Federalist No. 63 .. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed63.asp ,” “The cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers.”

[The SCOTUS decision on abortion clearly is not consistent with that Founder desire. ]

Alexander Hamilton, one of Madison’s co-authors of The Federalist Papers, echoed this argument. Hamilton made the case .. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-01-02-0162 .. for popular government and even called it democracy: “A representative democracy, where the right of election is well secured and regulated & the exercise of the legislative, executive and judiciary authorities, is vested in select persons, chosen really and not nominally by the people, will in my opinion be most likely to be happy, regular and durable.”

The American experiment, as advanced by Hamilton and Madison, sought to redeem the cause of popular government against its checkered history. Given the success of the experiment by the standards of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, we would come to use the term democracy as a stand-in for representative democracy, as distinct from direct democracy.

Consider that President Abraham Lincoln, facing a civil war, which he termed the great test of popular government, used constitutional republic and democracy synonymously, eloquently casting the American experiment as government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And whatever the complexities of American constitutional design, Lincoln insisted .. https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/99sep/9909linc1staddress.htm , “the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible.” Indeed, Lincoln offered a definition of popular government that can guide our understanding of a democracy—or a republic—today: “A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks, and limitations, and always changing easily, with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people.”
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=169714968

You have been told before you really should back off and research your thoughts more .. https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=169809683 .. before putting them forward as something important and valuable, as you do.

See also:

livefree_ordie Your responses are not only in the main untrue, but they also stand as stark evidence of just why links for such are required by such as you. I do appreciate the work you put into them, but they truly suck. They are mostly misguided and misinformation. Take your first bits (in your bold):
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=169727087

Bottom line. livefree_ordie, that while having some appreciation for the effort you put in, your repeated conservative bullshit is not appreciated.