The problem with public events.
I was surprised that there was so much audience participation at the Rep
debate, which was closed to the public and only open to families and
friends of the candidates.
But the biggest problem is that one can't tell if they are booing or
Booing is a lot like ooing, except for that first b, which can be very
short and since not everyone starts at the same time, totally lost in
the noises they all make.
Cheering can be done with many words, i guess (Is there a standard
word?) Maybe yea???.
Anyhow, I listened and could never tell if the crowd was cheering for or
against what had just been said.
We should solve this problem. State regulation would be so confusing,
because viewers would have to know what the rules are for each of the 50
states or wherever speeches are held. And attendees are not just from
the state in which an event is held. Some travel all over the country.
So the only workable solution is federal regulation, of cheering,
booking, yelling, shouting and other remonstrations of approval or
disapproval at public events. There, I wrote the subtitle. Just
contact your congressman to work out the details. The Title should
be the Clarity in Booing Act. CIBA. Pronounces SEE bah.
On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 1:43:50 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
I that's likely baloney. That stadium is huge and it was almost entirely
full. I find it hard to believe that they could fill it with friends
Does it really matter? You probably had some of both going on
at the same time. The biggest response I saw was at the very
beginning, when Trump would not pledge to not run as an independent.
And that clearly got booed.
It will be interesting to see the first poll after the debate.
If you watched Fox after the debate, they had Frank Luntz with
his focus group on. There was a big swing in people who came
in having a positive view of Trump who switched to negative,
along with plenty of really bad comments about what he did..
Which left me confused, because the Trump I saw was very much
the typical Trump, nothing new. If anything, he was somewhat
more reserved, he didn't openly insult anyone except Rosie
O'Donnell, again.... That insult alone for me was further proof of
his character, how he holds grudges, isn't statesman like, etc.
So, I don't really understand the folks in the focus group
that turned on him. A plausible explanation I've heard for
the Trump phenomenon is that it's so early in the process
that voters haven't paid attention and know little about all
the candidates. But they do know Trump from TV, his brand
name, etc, so that's where the support has really been coming from.
My prediction is that Trump will come way down and the
beneficiaries will mostly be Cruz and Rand, with all the
lower share candidates picking up some, Bush and Walker
probably staying about the same. And Fiorina will be in
the next main debate. But in this environment, who knows....
I also have to wonder if we didn't just see Hillary getting
elected. Trump has said that he would base his decision on
whether to run as an independent on how the Republicans treat
him. With his ego and character, I would think the threshold
for mistreating him was reached in the first minute, when
they asked the pledge question. I can see him saying that this
was a put up job, the GOP and Fox screwed him, so now he's
free to run as an independent because of what they did.
Along with his after debate follow up he had to have lost 99% of the
female vote. A tiny part of me likes that he says what he is thinking,
be that good or bad. The rest of me shudders at the thought of him
negotiating a peace treaty or nuclear arms deal.Refreshing at first, in
this PC world, but scary one you get past the first chuckle.
No matter what happens, he has had an impact. He may shape what the
rest of the field does over the next few months too. I think it is
possible he will find a way to walk away and preserve his ego and not be
a loser (in his eyes) in a real election.
On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 11:06:46 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
He just did it again. He was on CNN, berating Megyn Kelly for asking
him the question about women and he said "She had blood coming out of
her eyes......... out of her wherever...."
A conservative group that was having him as it's keynote speaker
canceled him over that. There is something seriously wrong with
him and I 100% agree that I wouldn't want him handling an international
crisis. Just think about the Cuban missle crisis, for example.
You had the military advising Kennedy to invade Cuba, take out the
missles. Unknown at the time was that the Russians had tactical
nukes both on land and on their subs and the commanders had been
given the OK to use them to defend the missles. What would have
happened if Trump were running that show?
I hope you're right and the sooner it happens, the better.
The only member of the Joint Chiefs that JFK listened to was the
Commandant of the Marines, a communist sympathizer. In the 1920s, he'd
resigned his Army commission because he'd met Marines and found them as
socialist as he was. Eisenhower had appointed him commandant so he'd
have somebody on the Joint Chiefs he could trust.
With JFK out of the way, LBJ fired him. That freed him to express his
views publicly. He could make a compelling case for staying out of
Vietnam, but the antiwar senators wouldn't let him testify. The rest is
On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 8:24:25 PM UTC-4, J Burns wrote:
Assuming what you say is true, which I've never heard before, then
the Marine Commandant apparently recommended that JFK not invade?
If so, we owe him a debt of gratitude, because he was right and the
outcome would, by all indications, have been a nuclear exchange that
could easily have lead to the total destruction of the USA and Soviet
I suspect Mr. Burns is talking about:
If so, he was also right in thinking we should have backed Mao because he
was going to win in his battle with the Chinese nationalists.
<<In a book titled Militarism U.S.A. (1970), Shoup and Donovan elaborated
their criticisms. Shoup said the country was seeking military solutions to
issues that could be resolved politically. He accused military leaders of
propagating the war for their own career advancement, and accused the
veterans group Veterans of Foreign Wars of propagandizing for the armed
forces establishment. Shoup blamed the American education system for what he
saw as discouraging independent thought and stressing obedience.>>
<<Carlson also stormed Tarawa with David Monroe Shoup, another old friend
from the China days, whose valor on that island that day would earn him a
Medal of Honor. Shoup would later become the Marine Corps commandant under
Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, when
Kennedy's cabinet was mulling an invasion of Cuba, Shoup reportedly
presented the president with a projected image of the island. He then
superimposed a photo of Tarawa, the tiny, nine-square-mile atoll where
nearly 2,000 of Shoup's and Carlson's Marines had been killed, to make the
point that assaulting an island as big as Cuba was suicidal folly. After
retiring from the Corps, Shoup would vocally oppose the Vietnam War,
American imperialism, and a creeping militarist perspective that he saw
supplanting true patriotism.>>
This is one of his more famous speeches:
<<Author/Presenter:General David M. Shoup, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps
Date:4 July 1962
It is said that patriotism is the love of country. I think it is the love of
the things about your country that you don't want to see lost-that you want
to see perpetuated-and you're willing to sacrifice to ensure it.
Patriotism is not something you put on each morning like a clean shirt.
Patriotism is not something you can buy at the super market. Patriotism is
not something you can get in return for a monthly paycheck to a man in
uniform. It is devotion to an ideal-a principle; a burning desire that the
things that people think are best for their country and its people are
protected from erosion-protected from any and everything which would tend to
lessen in the mind of the individual the image he has of how things should
be in his ideal country.
Patriotism is an abstract thing. You can't see it, you can't feel it, you
can't hear it-albeit at times you can see the action and hear the things
that people do, who are imbued with patriotism.
In the armed forces we have one fundamental mission-to provide for the
security of this nation. Everything else is included in this goal. Devotion
to country-patriotism, if you will-is essential to our success.
The men and women in the armed forces are not so different from other
Americans. The uniforms they wear merely signify what their job is and in
which service they carry out their important duties. But soldier, sailor,
airman or Marine, they are bound by a common promise and a common
Patriotism is something from our hearts-a faith-a dedication.
We cannot confine patriotism to a single day, year, or to whenever it is
convenient, any more than we can confine a belief in God to the occasion
when one is trapped in a foxhole under fire, or a Sunday morning in church.
If patriotism is faith-and I believe it is-then it is a faith based on love,
the love of the things that we believe are best for the people of our
country, and thus for the nation itself. It is a deep faith in what we are
for, not a hatred for things we are against. American patriots need not hate
nor fear anyone.
Fear and hate are corrosive and carry the seeds for the destruction of the
deep patriotism so necessary to ensure the future of America.
I am firmly convinced that the cornerstone of our Democracy are Americans
who have pride in their country-true patriots.
We are not born with this sense of patriotism. This thing called patriotism
is not just handed to us. We must know our history, we must participate in
our country's current affairs of concern-vote for leaders-foster education
for more of our people-and stand beside our country as her defenders.
Let us all do these things, and there will be no lack of patriots in this
One of the more interesting claims from the
website is that the words "Gung Ho" are an expressions of solidarity with
<<the Corps' new leadership held a solemn June ceremony at Camp Lejeune in
North Carolina to re-name MARSOC's Marines in honor of the service's earlier
elite: the Raider Battalions, born 1942, died 1944.
In press coverage of the re-naming, some mention was made of the Raiders'
famous motto, "gung ho," and its permeation into the American vernacular. No
mention was made of the Marine who coined the phrase, who did the most to
build the original Raiders' war-era legend and transform the Corps' way of
warfare with it. This is probably because that officer, Colonel Evans
Fordyce Carlson, was a racially progressive, bleeding-heart communist
sympathizer. "Gung ho" was a cry of solidarity with Chinese communism.>>
No speculation whethere that's true or not
<< This unofficial motto of the US Marine Corps is an abbreviation for the
Mandarin Gongye Hezhoushe, or industrial cooperative. The term was used in
China, starting in 1938, to refer to small, industrial operations that were
being established in rural China to replace the industrial centers that had
been captured by the Japanese. The phrase was clipped to the initial
characters of the two words, gung ho (or gung he, as it would be
transliterated today), which means "work together." This clipping became a
slogan for the industrial cooperative movement.>>
but it sure does seem to be true. (-:
I am sure Mr. Burns with his encyclopedic knowledge of the USMC can confirm
or deny this "factoid.:
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.