# Cowardly Leaders



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

I am disgusted by the cowardice of the Mayors of Ferguson and now Baltimore, and the governors of the two states involved. Missouri mobilized the NG but would not send them in until too late to help. 

The governor of Maryland said that he felt it "inappropriate to use the National guard." Cowardly illegitimates.

Why in (deleted) is it inappropriate to use force to put down arson and thievery?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

In a world of insane politically correctness, who didn't see this coming?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

When in doubt I look at my little bracelet that says "What would TR do?".


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Oxankle said:


> Why in hell is it inappropriate to use force to put down arson and thievery?



I don't think it's the force it's bringing in the Army against a civilian population. 
I suspect the mayor hopes the police and troopers will be able handle it.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Already proved they could'nt handle it, How many biz & homes, cars burned? How many stores looted, trashed?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I don't think it's the force it's bringing in the Army against a civilian population.
> I suspect the mayor hopes the police and troopers will be able handle it.




She had some historical and recent events to give her a clue...


Fyi.....if Al Sharpton want to come it ain't gonna be pretty
.......if the president give his nod of approval it ain't gonna be pretty.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I heard even though the NG was deployed in Ferguson they were not given ammo. Hard to believe.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Tricky Grama said:


> Already proved they could'nt handle it, How many biz & homes, cars burned? How many stores looted, trashed?



They haven't proved anything they just haven't done it. 
Don't you think that it should be a huge decision to bring in the army against a civilian populace? 
Isn't that the first sign that the government is out of control ?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> They haven't proved anything they just haven't done it.
> Don't you think that it should be a huge decision to bring in the army against a civilian populace?
> Isn't that the first sign that the government is out of control ?


The greatest or one of the greatest Presidents according to most people did use the army against its citizens and he has monuments, picture on money, is credited with saving the Union and freeing all the slaves. Seems like a precident was established and praised in the govt schools.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

The important thing to remember about that sneaky lawyer you're talking about is that he has always had good PR.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Oxankle said:


> The governor of Maryland said that he felt it "inappropriate to use the National guard."


I don't believe that quote is accurate.

The governor was ready to mobilize the guard as soon as the Mayor asked. He did say he thought it was not appropriate to send in the guard until the Mayor asked for them, but he had the guard on standby. He officially activated them within 30 seconds of receiving the Mayor's request.

The Baltimore Mayor and Police Chief seem to be the incompetent ones.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Did he not tell the Police to stand down, Then call in the national guard? I see lots wrong with the use of the national guard, actually, but I don't believe that he was against that.

Then again, I see this whole thing as a manufactured scenario and the Mayor is just one of the players on the field.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

It's a no win situation. If they bring in enough force to keep the criminals within the demonstrators under control, they are accused of being "militarized police force", over aggressive, suppressing free speech, etc. But if the criminals loot, burn and commit violence, well then they were "unprepared", ineffective, incompetent, take your pick. Either way it goes, somebody will flog them. 

So if I was the one in charge, I would err on the side of maintaining order and public safety. You can demonstrate with signs and noise all you want to, but the first item chucked at the police or first act of vandalism, your protest is over because it just evolved into a riot. Break it up and send 'em home.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

AmericanStand said:


> They haven't proved anything they just haven't done it.
> Don't you think that it should be a huge decision to bring in the army against a civilian populace?
> Isn't that the first sign that the government is out of control ?


George Washington in the Whiskey Rebellion. So I guess by that standard we have always been in out of control.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> They haven't proved anything they just haven't done it.
> Don't you think that it should be a huge decision to bring in the army against a civilian populace?
> Isn't that the first sign that the government is out of control ?


We already know the gov't is outta control.
Did you not see anything or read anything about what went on the 1st nite of the "peaceful demonstrations"?
IF the NG had been there, do you think all those homes, biz, cars would have been burned? Think all the stores would have been looted? There may have been a few instances but I betcha the punks/thugs jumping on the cop cars & bashing in the windows would've been the end of it. Drag their rears off to a pretty long time in jail.

The BPF did not have enuf power, they were outnumbered. They braved the rocks & bottles & 15 were hurt. If the NG had been there, that little game of pitchin' would have ended w/a couple rocks.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> I don't believe that quote is accurate.
> 
> The governor was ready to mobilize the guard as soon as the Mayor asked. He did say he thought it was not appropriate to send in the guard until the Mayor asked for them, but he had the guard on standby. He officially activated them within 30 seconds of receiving the Mayor's request.
> 
> The Baltimore Mayor and Police Chief seem to be the incompetent ones.


How can that be?
We were told after Ferguson that it happened b/c the FPF & the city were run by whites. 
Here's a city totally run by black mayor, black police chief, mostly black force. The mayor made the decision NOT to have the NG there the 1st nite. 'Course she slipped & said they gave the ones who destroyed stuff the space to do so. Guess they couldn't have if the NG was there.

In the case of Ferguson, the NG was mobilized but neither the mayor OR Gov would send them.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> It's a no win situation. If they bring in enough force to keep the criminals within the demonstrators under control, they are accused of being "militarized police force", over aggressive, suppressing free speech, etc. But if the criminals loot, burn and commit violence, well then they were "unprepared", ineffective, incompetent, take your pick. Either way it goes, somebody will flog them.
> 
> So if I was the one in charge, I would err on the side of maintaining order and public safety. You can demonstrate with signs and noise all you want to, but the first item chucked at the police or first act of vandalism, your protest is over because it just evolved into a riot. Break it up and send 'em home.


Post of the year award.

Start a war & you are gonna get a war.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

HDRider said:


> I heard even though the NG was deployed in Ferguson they were not given ammo. Hard to believe.




Are you old enough to remember Kent State?:shocked:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> They haven't proved anything they just haven't done it.
> Don't you think that it should be a huge decision to bring in the army against a civilian populace?
> Isn't that the first sign that the government is out of control ?


Waco! And it was the National Guard, not the Army. The Army was used in Waco.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Wasn't the army called out to clear Veteran Bonus protestors in the 1920s?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Isn't the national guard a Army. ?


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> Isn't the national guard a Army. ?


 Only when federalized. Otherwise it's a state militia under command of the Governor.


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

Shrek said:


> Only when federalized. Otherwise it's a state militia under command of the Governor.


 Hmm,, always wondered about that.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

From the Wiki "a fighting force that fights primarily on land."
I was worried for a minute there that they would have to change the name to "The Salvation Militia"


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Here's a Leader for you:
"BOONE, N.C. (Christian Examiner) &#8212; In a Monday Facebook post, 
Franklin Graham says liberals are imperiling the United States and this 
danger emanates from the White House and the Justice Department. 

"One of the greatest threats to America is the progressives," he said, "led by Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder who are trying to impose a new morality&#8212;which is really no morality at all&#8212;jamming it down the throats of the American people." 

Continue Reading: http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/franklin...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Amen to that, Rev Graham!


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

7thswan said:


> Here's a Leader for you:
> "BOONE, N.C. (Christian Examiner) â In a Monday Facebook post,
> Franklin Graham says liberals are imperiling the United States and this
> danger emanates from the White House and the Justice Department.
> ...


And, in my opinion, that statement is simply ridiculous. Without progressives we'd still own people and have children working in sweatshops. 

Being gay isn't illegal, gay sex is not illegal (unless it's done in public and so is straight sex) and even if you're a gay American you still have the rights and privileges thereof. 

You will never be able to force YOUR morality on anyone else. That's a good thing, isn't it? You wouldn't want mine forced on you, right?


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Wanda said:


> Are you old enough to remember Kent State?:shocked:


Exactly. There's even a song if one has lived under a rock for almost 45 years- "Ohio" by Crosby Stills Nash and Palmer.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Doggonedog said:


> And, in my opinion, that statement is simply ridiculous. Without progressives we'd still own people and have children working in sweatshops.
> 
> Being gay isn't illegal, gay sex is not illegal (unless it's done in public and so is straight sex) and even if you're a gay American you still have the rights and privileges thereof.
> 
> You will never be able to force YOUR morality on anyone else. That's a good thing, isn't it? You wouldn't want mine forced on you, right?


Forgive me, but it sure wasn't 'progressives' who ended slavery. It was repubs. It was 'progressives' who kept Black soldiers segregated from whites in WWI and who gave us Prohibition. It was progressives/dems who fought tooth & nail to keep jim crow laws, LBJ was dragged into the civil rights act. He was prolly the most racist POTUS we had in modern times.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Tricky Grama said:


> Forgive me, but it sure wasn't 'progressives' who ended slavery. It was repubs..


I thought the Republicans WERE the progressives back then?


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

AmericanStand said:


> I thought the Republicans WERE the progressives back then?


"progressive" is a trick work. It means communist now.Which is a lefty side of the political scale-Big government.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Doggonedog said:


> And, in my opinion, that statement is simply ridiculous. Without progressives we'd still own people and have children working in sweatshops.
> 
> Being gay isn't illegal, gay sex is not illegal (unless it's done in public and so is straight sex) and even if you're a gay American you still have the rights and privileges thereof.
> 
> You will never be able to force YOUR morality on anyone else. That's a good thing, isn't it? You wouldn't want mine forced on you, right?


You did force it on me,by makeing me, have by law Health Ins to pay for others, and by changing marriage. Just because you insist gay marriage is the same as hetro-will never change it for those of us that think it's diffrent. I do realize it is all just a matter of "winning" for progressives. It helps them when the government implys that they are not sinning. I realize you don't want to hear that, but hey, just saying what many think. No need to argue about it, you can't make people "feel" what you do.
Maybe someone needs to come up with a "Real Marriage" bill.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

7thswan said:


> You did force it on me,by makeing me, have by law Health Ins to pay for others, and by changing marriage. Just because you insist gay marriage is the same as hetro-will never change it for those of us that think it's diffrent. I do realize it is all just a matter of "winning" for progressives. It helps them when the government implys that they are not sinning. I realize you don't want to hear that, but hey, just saying what many think. No need to argue about it, you can't make people "feel" what you do.
> Maybe someone needs to come up with a "Real Marriage" bill.


I did nothing of the sort.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Some people in power seem to need a posse to bully, only because they lack leadership but conned enough folks in the beginning that they could do the job.

In the end good societies, business, and government suffer till the comes a revolution.

Many generations might pass but in the end..... poor leadership is revealed


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Doggonedog said:


> I did nothing of the sort.


You and your agenda sure are, have been. Don't like it, turn the other cheek, live and let live right?


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

Doggonedog said:


> , *gay sex is not illegal
> * Sodomy used to be. Is it no longer on the books?
> Just askin, cause I havn't a clue and really don't care.
> * and even if you're a gay American you still have the rights and privileges thereof. *
> ...


 I dunno..
Thou shall not murder...
Thou shall not steal....
Thou shall not bear false witness... used to be,,, dunno anymore.
Thou shall not commit adultry... used to be...
Honor your father and mother... well,,, we know that ones in the toilet.
Just sayin...
I understand not wanting to have laws shoved down your throat. I'm a bit of a rebel myself. But why do I have to accept your immorality being shoved down my throat?
Again,,, just sayin.
G.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Can we have a no sex discussion really the subject was cowardly leaders.... not your sex choice.


Somehow it seem to be evangelism from the homosexuals and evangelism is not to be tolerated.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> Can we have a no sex discussion really the subject was cowardly leaders.... not your sex choice.
> 
> 
> Somehow it seem to be evangelism from the homosexuals and evangelism is not to be tolerated.


Both sides seem to have pretty strong opinions but thread drift is not unusual and I can see no reason to close the thread or make any deletions.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Is it ok ....since threads do drift for clarification of what IS you definition of evangelism.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> Is it ok ....since threads do drift for clarification of what IS you definition of evangelism.



I don't see anything posted rules about evangelizing but if you would like something like enforced, it may have a negative impact in the politics forum.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Chuck old thread... it is in the administration area... even mention gay agenda... 
Take a look... it as been a LONG standing rule.... check out how he defined it.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Oh....it was on the admin....page by Chuck just ten min ago..now it is gone but I have a print of it if it will aid you.

He wrote it on 06-08-06
It was always found in the admin.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> Chuck old thread... it is in the administration area... even mention gay agenda...
> Take a look... it as been a LONG standing rule.... check out how he defined it.



Yes ma'am but Chuck hasn't owned HT for quite some time. 

It's good you pointed that out though so people don't get confused and think we're changing the rules on them.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

So, what is the deal on evangelism. It was up while the rules were discussed... no one was against it...

Say, for transparency sake ....and drifting what it is causes me to wonder. suddenly it is gone why.

Is evangelism no longer an issue... or is it.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> So, what is the deal on evangelism. It was up while the rules were discussed... no one was against it...
> 
> Say, for transparency sake ....and drifting what is the deal... suddenly it is gone why.
> 
> Is evangelism no longer an issue... or is it.


There is nothing in the rules about thread drift and never has been. 

As for evangelizing, I thought I explained that previously but to clarify, it was not addressed as part of the rules and the rules we're using are in the stuck thread at the top of this forum. 

Since it is not part of the rules and in order to avoid any further confusion as to who owns Homesteading Today and the discussion (not rules) on evangelizing, it was removed. 

I do thank you for pointing out that it may cause members some confusion.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Transparency makes for better leadership.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Wanda said:


> Are you old enough to remember Kent State?:shocked:


Of course. Not sure, what your intended meaning is. Are you saying the NG should be deployed unarmed?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

wr said:


> I don't see anything posted rules about evangelizing but if you would like something like enforced, it may have a negative impact in the politics forum.


The politics forum is dead.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Douglas McArthur used regular army troops in Washington to move out the bonus vets.

The NG is armed and trained to do exactly what they should have done in Ferguson and Baltimore. Only the cowardice and complicity of the governors and mayors permitted the riots.

Ox

PS: There is a thread somewhere else for the gay-straight dispute. Go there.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Marshloft said:


> I dunno..
> Thou shall not murder...
> Thou shall not steal....
> Thou shall not bear false witness... used to be,,, dunno anymore.
> ...


No clue if sodomy is a crime but given that it includes oral sex I'll be willing to bet that the majority of people have broken it once or twice.  

Not everyone is Christian, I am agnostic myself, but I do believe the golden rule of âSo whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them." That covers just about everything doesn't it?

No one is asking for you to accept anything, but if I recall Sunday school correctly it was Jesus that taught tolerance. Didn't he?


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

AmericanStand said:


> I thought the Republicans WERE the progressives back then?


Yes, they were...


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

JeffreyD said:


> You and your agenda sure are, have been. Don't like it, turn the other cheek, live and let live right?


What exactly is my agenda? Equal rights for ALL Americans? Such a horrible goal, isn't it?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Oxankle said:


> Only the cowardice and complicity of the governors and mayors permitted the riots.
> 
> Ox
> .



There are a lot of considerations in calling out the guard. 
You don't swat flies with hand grenades. 

Everyone that disagrees with you isn't a coward. The mayors of those towns might even have had information you didn't and might not have had information you got later.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

HDRider said:


> The politics forum is dead.


Things decay under poor leaders.
Leaders who delete emails, recording, servers are doing so out of fear of the truth
They are the cowards.

Cowards bad leaders. They will turn on their own as Hitler did when the liabilities get high. They only care about them selves. Yet people put in.office and allow it out of laziness... or fear of looking stupid once they know they made a mistake.

Hilary will not step down she will have to be over thrown.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> Things decay under poor leaders.
> Leaders who delete emails, recording, servers are doing so out of fear of the truth
> They are the cowards.
> 
> ...


I meant the politics forum on HT.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

HDRider said:


> I meant the politics forum on HT.


I was not excluding it.

I agree with you, to a point ...I would say it has been harmed ...one should question the why's.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *AmericanStand*  
_I thought the Republicans WERE the progressives back then?_


Doggonedog said:


> Yes, they were...


No, American Progressivism is a relatively new (20th Century) movement.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

They will not believe the truth.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

From the thread concerning evangelization:



> - *Using* HT as a bully pulpit to foist your worldview on others.
> 
> *exception:* expressing your opinion on a matter is not evangelizing, unless it is done in such a way as to make it clear that you are not interested in providing "neighborly help and thoughtful discussion" on a topic.
> 
> ...


Regardless of whether or not I agree with something, the evangelization thread made it pretty clear as to what evangelization is...and classically, General Chat and *especially* the Politics forum have been places where one dons flameproof undies. Simply getting hot and heavy and passionate about a subject, and serious thread drift, don't really equate to evangelization, IMHO.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Is evangelism allowed now or not.my understanding is that it is allowed... New owners.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

If those were actual rules, the second to last would practically empty CG/Politics.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Is evangelism allowed now or not.my understanding is that it is allowed... New owners.


Until told that it's allowed, IMHO, it stands as it was.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Kung said:


> Until told that it's allowed, IMHO, it stands as it was.



Lol isn't your opinion the ultimate authority here ?
Like a king your opinion can't be humble it's simply the law of the land !


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol isn't your opinion the ultimate authority here ?
> Like a king your opinion can't be humble it's simply the law of the land !



IMHO means "in my humble opinion."

My opinion is just that â an opinion. No, my opinion is not the ultimate authority. That's why I always consult with other moderators before making a decision.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Kung said:


> Until told that it's allowed, IMHO, it stands as it was.


It should be noted that while the unofficial evangelizing rule was never formalized and not added the last time rules were put up or this time, the spirit or intent remained with the be nice rule and the current rules about treating each other with respect and courtesy. 

If a member figures they've just found the loophole intended to cause problems or treat other members with a lack of courtesy, they may come to discover that the rules in place are more than sufficient to maintain civility.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Sorry but the evangelism rule was up at the time of discussion. No one had an issue.

When it was felt appropriate to point something out it was deleted by you. 

Why is having a clear understanding seeking a look hole. All the complaints about the lack of transparency...then thing just get vaped....


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> Sorry but the evangelism rule was up at the time of discussion. No one had an issue.
> 
> When it was felt appropriate to point something out it was deleted by you.
> 
> Why is having a clear understanding seeking a look hole. All the complaints about the lack of transparency...then thing just get vaped....


The evangelism issue was in fact never a rule but a guideline and never discussed as part of the rules so it would be unfair to members who made their wishes clear on rules to just pull a bait and switch. 

I unstuck the thread in question and it just fell back into the index and I thanked you for bringing it to my attention and explained that it was not part of the rules members voted on. 

I don't think a person can be any more transparent than that. 

If you feel you would like the rules amended, it is something that affects all members and it would need to be addressed accordingly and that would require a thread in the Admin forum followed by discussion.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

As I stated and I will state again....
It was a standard..

I simply want to know what the rules are and bluntly removing in the mist of the discussion was not transparency in action....my thoughts.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> As I stated and I will state again....
> It was a standard..
> 
> I simply want to know what the rules are and bluntly removing in the mist of the discussion was not transparency in action....my thoughts.


It wasn't removed, it was unstuck. It's still there.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

It did disappear from its location of prominent. Thus my word choice of disappearing.

Lord know Hilary is not in charge... or else NSA could it..


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

This is too much! Arguing for the sake of arguing to be vindictive! Wow!


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> As I stated and I will state again....
> It was a standard..
> 
> I simply want to know what the rules are and bluntly removing in the mist of the discussion was not transparency in action....my thoughts.


http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/faq.php


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

nchobbyfarm said:


> This is too much! Arguing for the sake of arguing to be vindictive! Wow!


 Unsure about the vindicative. But someone is in need of a nap.


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

If you think this is evangelism boy do i have some churches in memphis i need to show you.


----------

