The February meeting of the NCDC will address the committee’s plans and agenda for the coming year. Most important, the meeting will feature Phil Hernandez, a Democrat and former Obama White House staffer who will be running for Delegate for the 100th District in the upcoming election.
2019 will be a pivotal election year for local Democrats as we will have a capable and exciting candidate running in the Virginia House of Delegates District 100 race. The results of this District race could be a major factor in flipping the VA HD in 2019.
The February 2019 meeting of the Northampton County Committee will be 7 PM, Tuesday February 5, 2019.
Charles Faulkner says
VERY VERY Poorly written NOTICE !!. Where is the meeting being held. COMMON SENSE . This county needs Democrats to UNITE. i’ll attend if I know where to GO?
donald l green says
Since when have Democratic Party apparatchiks exhibited common sense? After “Poppy” and “Dubya”, I’m no Republican, but I do know this: the Democratic Party exists to create and distribute as many government “jobs” as possible to those whose votes it is trying to attract.
Mike Kuzma, Jr. says
Typical democrat…………..too lazy to look up the website of the NCDC, but expects others to do it for him.
And acts pissy if he isn’t given exactly what he needs, when he needs it.
Stompy foot!!! Wahhhh Wahhhh!!!!!!
Viva Venezuela!, right?? We needs us some of that sweet sweet socialism……….cuz it works so well!!!
Paul Plante says
Oh man, Mike, I am still laughing, and as you get older, especially up here in the cold country, that is a necessary thing, if you want to survive the freeze with your wits intact!
And your cogent political analysis above serves to confirm to us older, freedom-loving, loyal American citizens here to the north of you just how critical this meeting of the Northampton Democrats is going to be to the future of our nation, just as was the case on on 30 May 1765 when the Virginia Resolves on the Stamp Act introduced by Patrick Henry were adopted by the Virginia House of Burgesses, except for the last two, which were considered too radical.
Seven, slightly reworded, were published widely in newspapers, and similar sets were adopted by the legislatures of eight colonies by the end of 1765, which is how word of them came to be known here to the north of you, just as the Cape Charles Mirror is continuing that distinctly American traditi0n of informing the public, as opposed to deceiving the public, as is too often the case today with the main-stream media.
Key to this discussion as to why this Northampton Democrats agenda-setting meeting is of vital importance to every single person in this country who loves their liberty and is gravely concerned, with good reason, as to the direction House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose sole base of political power in the country is the City of San Francisco, which is her congressional district, is taking our nation with her “NEW DAWN RISING,” which seems distinctly un-American to us up here who still believe in the Republic, which takes us to the purpose of my address right here, which is an appeal to the Northampton Democrats to do like the founding fathers did and stand up for our liberty by reaffirming and re-defining what Resolve No. 1 should mean today and going forward, from the original text of the Virginia Resolves as adopted by the House of Burgesses on May 29, 1765, as follows:
1. Resolved, that the first adventurers and settlers of His Majesty’s colony and dominion of Virginia brought with them and transmitted to their posterity, and all other His Majesty’s subjects since inhabiting in this His Majesty’s said colony, all the liberties, privileges, franchises, and immunities that have at any time been held, enjoyed, and possessed by the people of Great Britain.
end quotes
I submit, Mike, as an American citizen, that that is where our nation’s political history as a people sharing a common belief as to history actually began, with that statement that Virginia’s first adventurers and settlers of His Majesty’s colony and dominion of Virginia brought with them and transmitted to their posterity, and all other His Majesty’s subjects since inhabiting in this His Majesty’s said colony, all the liberties, privileges, franchises, and immunities that have at any time been held, enjoyed, and possessed by the people of Great Britain.
That resolution, Mike, began a distinctly American vision of what it meant to be an American, and formed the starting date or zeroeth hour of a unique American political philosophy.
Given that, Mike, as a citizen of this nation at this our time of peril, I would like, and we as a nation desperately need the Northampton Democrats to produce a modern-day Patrick Henry at that meeting to tell us in plain language what our liberties, privileges, franchises, and immunities are today as American citizens, before this “NEW DAWN” of Nancy Pelosi’s becomes a bad moon on the rise in reality, and sweeps them away as if they never had been.
Why go for an imitation, Mike, when you can go to the source.
Our liberty as a people was born here in Virginia, so it is the place to come back to for a modern-day update, and divine providence gave us the Northampton Democrats as our agents of deliverance from the benighted ignorance which engulfs this sad nation now.
A tradition of liberty is embedded in the Northampton Democrats like it is nowhere else in America, and so it is only logical and rational that wise people elsewhere in America seeking a political champion to stand up to this tyranny would be reaching out to the Northampton Democrats to be that champion as I am doing in here, and humbly so, as is only fitting.
Getting back to the rich tradition of fighting for our liberty attached to the Northampton Democrats by virtue of them actually being in Virginia, earlier in 1765 the British Parliament had passed the Stamp Act, which placed a tax on newspapers, almanacs, pamphlets, and broadsides, all kinds of legal documents, insurance policies, ship’s papers, licenses, dice, and playing cards.
This led to widespread protest in the American colonies and to the slogan, “No taxation without representation!”
The Virginia Resolves concerning the Townshend Acts were prepared by George Mason and introduced 16 May 1769 by George Washington in the House of Burgesses.
They were adopted unanimously that day as a protest against the 1767 Townshend Acts, which had been adopted by the British Parliament after the repeal of the Stamp Act in 1766.
The Townshend Acts created a tax on imported goods, such as paper, glass, paints, and tea shipped from England.
Will the Northampton Democrats rise to the nation’s needs as they did at the founding of this nation, and most importantly, will they produce another George Mason?
We desperately hope so.
Mike Kuzma, Jr. says
Reading your words, I could actually see the reasoned, intelligent debate between Mason, Washington et al in their defense of freedom and dignity.
Then I imagined the “Star Wars” cantina scene as a more restrained, elegant affair than what I presume the NCDC meeting will resemble.
Lots of loud voices, flailing arms and purple hair. Sturm und drang writ large.
Paul Plante says
It has been observed by an honorable gentleman, that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government.
Experience has proved, that no position in politics is more false than this.
The ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government.
Their very character was tryanny; their figure deformity: When they assembled, the field of debate presented an ungovernable mob, not only incapable of deliberation, but prepared for every enormity.
In these assemblies, the enemies of the people brought forward their plans of ambition systematically.
They were opposed by their enemies of another party; and it became a matter of contingency, whether the people subjected themselves to be led blindly by one tyrant or by another.
– First Speech of Alexander Hamilton on June 21, 1788 at the New York Ratifying Convention, Poughkeepsie, New York
Stuart Bell says
We have a political party that opposes our very existence as a sovereign nation, plus the additional corruption that money can buy. As long as the Democrat Party exists there will be no balanced budget and no real border security. If we build a wall, the moment the Democrats have the political power to do it, they will tear the wall down at our expense. They are a domestic enemy, and unless we face that fact and deal with it, we will continue down a road of slow destruction.
Ray Otton says
New to the CCM?
No doubt someone will be by shorty to tell you where to go.
Paul Plante says
The Democrat party is becoming the Democratic Socialist Party with Nancy Pelosi’s “NEW DAWN FOR AMERICA” http://thelivyjrfiles.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=73 as that party makes a pivot to the left as a result of the Democratic Socialists gaining more of a political foothold in America as they have done in these recent mid-term elections.
You can also see their influence in New York state and California, as well.
The future of the Democrat party as this country’s Marxist-Leninist “Vanguard “party can be seen in this excerpt from the “NEW DAWN” agenda, as follows:
Starting in the 1970s, however, in a movement that would become known as neoliberalism, economic elites in these countries began mobilizing politically to lower taxes for the rich and corporations, to eviscerate democratic decision-making both in the workplace as well as at the ballot box, to slash spending on essential social services such as education and social security, to deregulate industries across the economy and to open up flows of capital across national borders.
These “reforms” enabled corporations to evade virtually all forms of accountability either to the workers they employed or to the communities in which they operated.
In the United States neoliberalism was aided by racialized attacks on social service provision in which African American and Latino recipients of welfare and other anti-poverty programs were portrayed as an “undeserving poor” whose lifestyle was being subsidized by (white) taxpayers (even though whites constituted the largest group of welfare beneficiaries).
The success of neoliberalism across the United States and Europe differed based upon the relative strength or weakness of left-wing political parties and trade unions – leaving working people in traditional bastions of social democracy such as Sweden relatively better off than working people in countries such the United States where trade unions and the Left have been weak historically.
But by the early 2000s the historic gains made across these countries in the post-World War Two period had been rolled back dramatically.
This, combined with the fall of Soviet and East European Communism and the marketization of the Chinese economy by the early 1990s, led most pundits and politicians to proclaim the ultimate triumph of neoliberalism: “there is no alternative” to the free market became the mantra of policy makers around the world.
Insurgent Responses to Neoliberalism
Given the profound and sustained defeats suffered by the Left and progressive movements during this period, by the mid- 2000s socialists and progressives in the United States and Europe could boast of virtually no examples of successful resistance to neoliberalism.
Many turned their eyes to South America, which during this time was practically the only democratic leftist political stronghold in the world.
Only a few short years later, however, the situation in Europe and the United States looked completely different: the Left had finally galvanized significant support in the electoral arena, and had pulled the terms of political debate significantly leftward through creative social movement organizing.
To name but a few electoral examples, in Greece the left-wing Syriza party came to power in 2014, in Spain the left-wing Podemos party emerged from antiausterity protests in 2014 and only two years later it was the third largest party in the country.
Even more surprising were the rise of Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership of the British Labor Party in 2015 and the phenomenal success of Bernie Sanders’ “political revolution” during the 2016 United States’ presidential election.
These electoral successes have been paralleled by, and to a large degree made possible by, the rise of a new generation of progressive social movements committed both to thoroughgoing critiques of capitalism, racism, sexism, xenophobia and other forms of oppression, as well as to the creation of an ecologically sustainable, democratic and egalitarian future.
To take the United States as one example, the progressive offensive against neoliberalism began in earnest with the Occupy protests of 2011 and the resistance to Governor Scott Walker’s anti-labor offensive in Wisconsin, which put the issue of inequality at the center of U.S. political discourse and cultivated a new generation of activists that have been crucial in more recent movements.
In the wake of Occupy, powerful new movements arose to challenge brutal immigration policies (The Dreamers), the shamefully low federal minimum wage (Fight for $15), the epidemic of police brutality and structural racism (Black Lives Matter) and inequality (the Sanders Political Revolution) to name a few.
These movements have opened up space for a serious discussion of capitalism, male dominance and racism in our society that has not existed in decades, and which provides unique opportunities for the growth of a democratic socialist movement that emphasizes the interconnectedness of all of the struggles and the structural character of the reforms needed to make real and lasting change.
end quotes
That is pretty straightforward and easy to understand, as it should be if it is to appeal to the masses consistent with Lenin’s theory of Vanguardism which operates as follows:
In its first phase, the vanguard party would exist for two reasons.
Firstly, it would protect Marxism from outside corruption from other ideas as well as advance its concepts.
Secondly, it would educate the proletariat in Marxism in order to cleanse them of their “false individual consciousness” and instill the revolutionary “class consciousness” in them.
“Our task is not to champion the degrading of the revolutionary to the level of an amateur, but to raise the amateurs to the level of revolutionaries.”
“If the party is successful in this goal, on the eve of revolution, a critical mass of the working class population would be prepared to usher forth the transformation of society.”
“Furthermore, a great number of them, namely their most dedicated members, would belong to the party cadres as professional revolutionaries and would be elected to leadership positions by the mass party membership.”
“Thus the organization would quickly include the entire working class.”
Once the proletariat gained class consciousness and thus was prepared to revolt against the ruling classes, the vanguard party would serve another purpose.
The party would coordinate the proletariat through its revolution by acting as a military command hub of sorts.
This is, according to Leninists, a vital function as mass revolutions can sometimes be easily crushed by the disciplined military of the ruling classes.
The vanguards would serve as commanders of the revolt, chosen to their positions by “democratic natural selection”.
In Lenin’s view, after the revolution the working class would implement the dictatorship of the proletariat to rule the new worker’s state through the first phase of communism, socialism.
Here it can be said that the vanguard disappears, as all of society now consists of revolutionaries.
end quotes
That makes it an exciting time to be in America, does it not, as a NEW DAWN rises?
As to that NEW DAWN, here is some further definition, to wit:
Beyond our relative lack of resources, the structural barriers placed in our path by the nature of the U.S. political system and the extraordinary power of individualist ideology to undermine collective action, Leftists and progressives face a groundswell of racist and antiimmigrant political organization — represented most dramatically by Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.
As the life prospects of many white people in the 99% continue to decline, and as demographic tides shift steadily toward a United States in which people of color constitute a majority, this reactionary organizing is likely to grow ever more serious.
Racist and anti-immigrant politics not only represent a direct assault on the civil rights of millions (in the form of voter disenfranchisement, harassment and deportation of undocumented workers, and hate crimes, to name a few), but also serve as an effective tool that economic elites can employ to divide sections of the working class (who, by focusing on racial/ethnic fear and hatred, are unable to forge ties of solidarity around shared economic struggles against the capitalist class).
In the absence of powerful multiracial coalitions capable of connecting the struggles of working people across race and ethnicity, appeals to racism and fear will continue to gain traction among economically and socially insecure white voters — particularly men, who face the erosion of traditional gender prominence due to the gains of the feminist movement — and the possibility of expanding desperately needed programs to assist the most vulnerable people in our society (let alone more ambitious programs pushing in the direction of democratic socialism) will be further diminished.
In their current form, however, the Left and progressive movements are not well positioned to build the multiracial organizations and coalitions necessary to confront the scourge of right-wing racism and anti-immigrant politics.
Historically the Left has been, and, despite the best intentions of many, continues to be dominated by white activists (often middle class men).
Organizations of the Left (including DSA) generally reflect the interests, aspirations, and cultural assumption of white working- and middle class individuals more than people of color.
Several other factors have also played an important role in limiting the development of multiracial leftist organizations and multiracial coalitions that include a significant leftist presence.
These include structural barriers that often constrain the participation of working-class and poor activists in political organizing (such as lack of time, energy and economic resources), the racial segregation of U.S. society that is typically reflected in the demographic makeup of activist organizations, and an individualistic national conversation about race that omits any discussion of class.
Leftists and progressives also face a staggering array of additional challenges: we must defend a woman’s right to abortion and confront a wide range of gender inequities that persist in our male dominant society, even as neoliberalism increasingly divides working and professional women through the rhetoric of meritocracy and “leaning-in.”
We must curtail the United States’ often illegal and generally counterproductive military adventures and “democracy promotion” efforts around the world.
We must fight to win citizenship for the millions of immigrants who contribute massively to our national prosperity but who are forced to live in constant fear of deportation, and who do not enjoy the political and economic benefits of citizenship.
We must find a way to forge deeper cross-national ties among an increasingly global working class with diverse and often conflicting material interests and, perhaps most critically of all given the grave implications of inaction, we must build a progressive coalition capable of forcing the U.S. government to take dramatic action around the effects of human-caused climate change.
Despite these challenges, once in a generation opportunities currently exist for taking the offensive and launching an assertive anti-capitalist politics in the United States.
end quotes
And again, that is all quite clear and easy to understand and very much out in the open now, as the NEW DAWN rises.
Perhaps the Democrats at this meeting would be courteous to share their feelings and thoughts on this new political vision for America to replace capitalism, which obviously is not working for them.
The areas I would like them to touch on from that new agenda are as follows:
Our vision entails nothing less than the radical democratization of all areas of life, not least of which is the economy.
Under capitalism we are supposed to take for granted that a small, largely unaccountable group of corporate executives should make all fundamental decisions about the management of a company comprised of thousands of people.
This group has the power to determine how most of us spend the lion’s share of our waking hours, as well as the right to fire anyone for basically any reason, no matter how arbitrary.
Under democratic socialism, this authoritarian system would be replaced with economic democracy.
This simply means that democracy would be expanded beyond the election of political officials to include the democratic management of all businesses by the workers who comprise them and by the communities in which they operate.
Very large, strategically important sectors of the economy — such as housing, utilities and heavy industry — would be subject to democratic planning outside the market, while a market sector consisting of worker-owned and -operated firms would be developed for the production and distribution of many consumer goods.
In this society, large-scale investments in new technologies and enterprises would be made on the basis of maximizing the public good, rather than shareholder value.
Crucially, investments in renewable energy and efficient technologies would be prioritized to guarantee ecological sustainability and the future existence of life on Earth.
A democratic socialist society would also guarantee a wide range of social rights in order to ensure equality of citizenship for all.
Vital services such as health care, child care, education (from pre-K through higher education), shelter and transportation would be publicly provided to everyone on demand, free of charge.
Further, in order to ensure that the enjoyment of full citizenship was not tied to ups and downs in the labor market, everyone would also receive a universal basic income — that is, a base salary for every member of society, regardless of the person’s employment status.
Finally, the work week would be gradually reduced and vacation time would be expanded to guarantee that everyone in society benefited from increasingly efficient technologies that decrease the overall amount of labor needed in the economy (and also to ensure that all who wish to find employment are able to do so).
Economic democracy would be complemented in the political sphere by a new system that combined an overhauled form of representative democracy (our current system) with direct democracy, a system in which individuals participate directly in the making of political decisions that affect them.
In this system, the Senate (an extremely unrepresentative political body in which states with very small populations have the same level of representation as the most populous states) would be abolished, and a system of proportional representation would be established so that Congress actually reflects the political will of the electorate.
A democratic socialist government would also implement new referenda and recall mechanisms to hold elected officials accountable during their tenure in office, and a vast system of local participatory institutions would be set up to ensure individuals had a direct voice in political decision-making beyond the ballot box.
These institutions would include citizen boards for various government services, program councils (at the national, state and local levels) for those who receive government services, and municipal and state-level citizen assemblies that would be open to all and would be tasked with making budget decisions (much like participatory budgeting processes currently in use around the world today).
Finally, individual civil and political rights (freedom of speech, assembly, the right to vote, etc.), which are currently routinely violated, would be strengthened, and public resources would be devoted to the development of a genuinely free press and a democratically administered mass media.
end quotes
I would like to know their perceived timeframe for implementing these new policies, and how they see them being implemented, given their radical nature, like doing away with the senate.
Wouldn’t that take a Constitutional amendment?
And then there is this:
Finally, racial/ethnic and sex/gender-based oppressions may well continue in a socialist society.
Hence a wide range of programs to dismantle the privileges associated with whiteness, maleness and heteronormativity would have to be developed, and antidiscrimination policies in the workplace and in social organizations would have to be intensified.
end quotes
There is what has me especially curious, given my own “whiteness, maleness and heteronormativity,” which are traits I was born with, not something I chose.
So when the Democrats talk about “(H)ence a wide range of programs to dismantle the privileges associated with whiteness, maleness and heteronormativity would have to be developed,” I truly would like to hear some more details as to what that means and how that is going to happen, and I wouldn’t think I was the only one in here with those questions on their mind.
Paul Plante says
And in all truth, at least to those of us who remember the role Virginia and courageous Virginians like Patrick Henry with his Virginia Resolves and the Virginia House of Burgesses played in winning us our freedom as a people from the tyranny of an English king who was plundering our seas, ravaging our coasts, burning our towns, and destroying the lives of our people, at that time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation, while constraining our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands, while exciting domestic insurrections amongst us, and endeavouring to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions, marking him out to be a Tyrant, unfit to be the ruler of a free people, we see this February meeting of the NCDC to address the committee’s plans and agenda for the coming year and indeed most importantly, what with this “NEW DAWN” for America now rising in the west as the Democrats and Democratic Socialists who have gained control of the United States House of Representatives and put Nancy Pelosi back in charge, to hear from Phil Hernandez, a Democrat and former Obama White House staffer who will be running for Delegate for the 100th District in the upcoming election, as one of the most important political meetings of this new year, and thus, everybody in Northampton County concerned with the future of our nation is urged to attend.
As a former staffer for Obama, what position will Phil Hernandez take on implementation of this NEW DAWN agenda for America, if elected?
Where, for example, does he stand on abolishing the United States Senate, called in the Democratic NEW DAWN agenda “an extremely unrepresentative political body in which states with very small populations have the same level of representation as the most populous states, with a system of proportional representation being established instead so that Congress actually reflects the political will of the electorate?
As a former Obama staffer, is he for the radical democratization of all areas of life here in America, not least of which is the economy?
Is he for replacing capitalism with economic democracy, defined as expanding democracy beyond the election of political officials to include the democratic management of all businesses by the workers who comprise them and by the communities in which they operate, wherein very large, strategically important sectors of the economy — such as housing, utilities and heavy industry — would be subject to democratic planning outside the market, while a market sector consisting of worker-owned and -operated firms would be developed for the production and distribution of many consumer goods?
Is he for a democratic socialist society which would also guarantee a wide range of social rights in order to ensure equality of citizenship for all so that vital services such as health care, child care, education (from pre-K through higher education), shelter and transportation would be publicly provided to everyone on demand, free of charge, and further, in order to ensure that the enjoyment of full citizenship was not tied to ups and downs in the labor market, everyone would also receive a universal basic income — that is, a base salary for every member of society, regardless of the person’s employment status?
If so, how does he see that being implemented and paid for?
And perhaps most importantly of all, does he believe in implementing new referenda and recall mechanisms to hold elected officials accountable during their tenure in office, while putting in place a vast system of local participatory institutions set up to ensure individuals had a direct voice in political decision-making beyond the ballot box, to include citizen boards for various government services, program councils at the national, state and local levels for those who receive government services, and municipal and state-level citizen assemblies that would be open to all and would be tasked with making budget decisions much like participatory budgeting processes currently in use around the world today?
These are questions the answers to which affect us all in this country, so please, citizens of Virginia, regardless of your political affiliation, get out there to this meeting to hear what the answers are going to be, because once a path forward is decided on, the fork in the road taken, there is no going back.
Ray Otton says
See, I told ya.
Paul Plante says
Never have their choices been so clear as they are right now, Mr. Otton – will they stand for liberty?
Or will they kneel to Nancy Pelosi?
The candid world waits with bated breath to see what their answer is going to be as it looks on Northampton County, Virginia as one of the last bastions of freedom in this country.
Will the Northampton Democrats step up to the plate in this, the hour of the nation’s need, and re-light the lamp of liberty?
Or will they walk by and leave its flame to gutter in the mud where Nancy Pelosi and her howling mob have trampled it down?
Which side will they be on?
Will they display the old-fashioned American courage that the people of Virginia were once known and revered for?
Or will they be craven cowards cringing before the might of Nancy Pelosi out of abject fear of her retaliation?
The road not taken, Mr. Otton, will make all the difference in the world.
Ray Otton says
“The road not taken”.
Rather apt don’t you think?
You could have just let it go but no you had to travel the well worn path of vilifying the other.
Got news for you, there are plenty of middle of the road Dems out there. I have them as neighbors, friends, family members and even my mate.
They are without a home right now and I wouldn’t mind welcoming a hefty bunch of them to Mr. Trump’s coalition. A 75% friend is better than a 100% enemy.
But that’s not going to happen with the like of you screaming in their ears about how horrible they are.
And before anyone starts, I am in 100% support of Mr. Trump. I just think we need to be smarter than the opposition.
And kinder, without being spineless.
Paul Plante says
You are hysterical and you are hyperventilating, Mr. Otton.
Get yourself a brown paper bag and breathe into it for a while, and while you are at it, take a good course in remedial reading, so that in the future, you will have the ability to recognize a question from an assertion.
In the English language as commonly employed by American people here in America, a “question” is a sentence worded or expressed so as to elicit information, or in other words, it is an inquiry or query, such as:
* Will they stand for liberty?
* Or will they kneel to Nancy Pelosi?
* Will the Northampton Democrats step up to the plate in this, the hour of the nation’s need, and re-light the lamp of liberty?
* Or will they walk by and leave its flame to gutter in the mud where Nancy Pelosi and her howling mob have trampled it down?
* Which side will they be on?
* Will they display the old-fashioned American courage that the people of Virginia were once known and revered for?
* Or will they be craven cowards cringing before the might of Nancy Pelosi out of abject fear of her retaliation?
end quotes
Those, Mr. Otton, are QUESTIONS!
As to an “assertion,” it is a confident and forceful statement of belief, or the action of stating something or exercising authority confidently and forcefully, and some very good examples of assertions, which do not have to be either true or correct, would be the following:
* You could have just let it go but no you had to travel the well worn path of vilifying the other.
* Got news for you, there are plenty of middle of the road Dems out there.
* I have them as neighbors, friends, family members and even my mate.
* They are without a home right now and I wouldn’t mind welcoming a hefty bunch of them to Mr. Trump’s coalition.
* A 75% friend is better than a 100% enemy.
* But that’s not going to happen with the like of you screaming in their ears about how horrible they are.
end quotes
That. of course, is you speaking, and those are your assertions, and it is obvious to the unbiased reader that yes, you are in fact quite hysterical, like Chicken Little who thought the sky was going to fall, because what I did say, Mr. Otton was this:
“The candid world waits with bated breath to see what their answer is going to be as it looks on Northampton County, Virginia as one of the last bastions of freedom in this country.”
end quotes
How you managed to convert that over into “But that’s not going to happen with the like of you screaming in their ears about how horrible they are” eludes the bejaysus out of me, and bewilders the hell out of all the English professors I ran these two posts by.
When queried, they all pointed out that the word “scream,” a verb, means “to cry or say something loudly and usually on a high note, especially because of strong emotions such as fear, excitement, or anger,” as in “A spider landed on her pillow and she screamed.”
And here you are screaming at me because I dared to ask these precious Democrats a series of serious questions.
Do they lack tongues?
Are they incapable of coming on to the Cape Charles Mirror and telling us who they are and what they really think?
Why do they need you as their protector?
Why are they hiding?
What do they have to hide?
Are they in act gutless?
And I stand by my statement that the road not taken, Mr. Otton, will make all the difference in the world, because it always does, each and every minute of each and every day, until eternity.
Paul Plante says
You simply could have said they won’t know what to think or how to think until they go to the meeting and find out what it is they are supposed to think and thereby saved yourself a lot of unnecessary histrionics, Mr. Otton.
Paul Plante says
An important question raised here by Mr. Otton’s assertion that “there are plenty of middle of the road Dems out there” is exactly what does it mean to be a Democrat, versus to be an American, for they are not at all the same thing, when it comes to values.
As to political parties, the dictionary defines them as groups of people “who control or seek to control a government.”
There is one key difference between a Democrat and an American.
The Democrats seek to control our governments so they can impose their will on others, while an American views that as a tyranny.
As to the views or beliefs of an American versus a Democrat, the American, who knows American history, as opposed to Puerto Rican history, or Venezuelan history, or Kenyan history, or Pakistani history, knows that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t even mention political parties and that President George Washington warned us about “the danger of parties,” and with good reason, as we can plainly see today in this country where each party blames the other for all the things going wrong as a result of their incompetence at actually governing, versus playing at partisan politics, or factionalism, with voters in turn growing disillusioned with a government that is constantly deadlocked.
But in the 1790s, a quarrel broke out between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton over how much power to grant the federal government, which argument split their followers into two separate groups – the beginning of U.S. political parties, known as the First Party system in America, and that argument still forms the underlying dispute between the Democrats and the Republicans today, which argument is destroying the fabric of our nation, turning it into another Democratic Republic of Congo, or Venezuela.
As to the Democratic Party today, their ideology, for they are ideologues (an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology; an impractical idealist) or they wouldn’t be Democrats in the first place, attracts immigrants, blue-collar workers, women, and minorities, and they tend to take a more liberal stand on important issues, believing that the federal government should take a more active role in people’s lives.
And there is where the split between an American and a Democrat begins.
The Democrats want to take control of all our governments, including local, county, state and federal, so they, like the pigs in Animal Farm, can be in control of every aspect of our lives, like the Commies in the Soviet Union were in Russia.
An American is opposed to that.
So what then is a “middle of the road” Democrat?
Which road is it that they are in the middle of?
And why?