14 Year Old Facing Murder Charges after Confessing to Killing 5 Relatives

[mrdeltoid]

To over simplify somewhat, I draw the line between "Patriot" and "Nationalist" at whether the person is supporting the government of their own country when that government is doing something that is contrary to what the children of civilized countries are taught their country stands for. A "Nationalist" will support their country no matter how repugnant to those ideals the actions of their country are while a "Patriot" will oppose their country's actions.

As far as the Marines fighting in Vietnam are concerned, the demographics of the US (ground) forces in Vietnam were almost identical to the demographics of the NVA/VC. There were many "Patriots" on both sides. There were many who were "Patriots" on both sides because they simply had bought into the PR campaigns that justified the war and didn't know what the war was actually all about - unfortunately the percentage of those who were on the US side was much higher than it was on the NVA/VC side. (The motivations of "Draftees" really wasn't a factor in Vietnam any more than it was in the American Civil War where around 13% of the northern forces were either draftees or substitutes and around 21% of the southern forces were either draftees or substitutes. I think that you'd find "Conscription") and "Inside the VC and the NVA: The Real Story of North Vietnam's Armed Forces" - Texas A&M University Press; 1st Texas A&M University Press Ed edition (July 23, 2008) [ISBN-10: 1603440593 / ISBN-13: 978-1603440592] interesting.




What happens in those colleges is the final cutting up into retail sizes of a corpse that has been well and truly slaughtered previously.

"Up To 60 Percent Of College Students Need Remedial Classes."​

If you want to see high school graduation rates plummet, make passing Grade 12 English mandatory and base the tests on McGuffey's Sixth Eclectic Reader (published in the 1840s).

PS - The difference between the motivations of the NVA/VC and the ARVN forces in Vietnam can be traced to the fact that the northern Vietnamese forces were fighting for what they viewed as "Vietnamese freedom from foreign rule" (something that they had been doing for generations [and had succeeded in achieving when they defeated their French colonial rulers {until the US government stepped in to assist the formerly French backed puppet government <in payment for French backing in NATO> and, in effect, establishing American colonial rule}] ) while the southern Vietnamese forces weren't so clearly motivated to support a venal and corrupt government that was backed by foreigners.

PPS - As far as "defeating slavery" as being a motivator for the northern American forces is concerned, please allow me to be rather skeptical that that was anything more than the "public PR face" of the war (mostly sold after the war at that) due to the fact that the Union government DID NOT manumit the tens of thousands of slaves in Union territory - not even those who had escaped from Confederate territory. Admittedly the Union government did, eventually, allow SOME of those slaves to BUY their freedom (and the freedom of their immediate [i.e. "wives and children only"] families by serving in the military forces of the Union, but those who were unable to BUY their freedom enjoyed the legal status of "slave" until the ratification of the 13[sup]th[/sup] amendment to the US constitution.

Certainly there were many Union troops that may have not been "thrilled" over freeing of slaves. However there's no doubt, as brother against brother, and cousin against cousin clearly demonstrated, the clear majority of Union troops opposed slavery. The 300,000 that died to end it, is a testament to their dedication and sacrifice to the cause. The idea that all men are created equal is found in American documents such as The Declaration of Independence.
Oh, BTW, I fear left wing extremists have our education system now. From day 1 our children are under their control. Saul Alinsky would be proud. When someone tells me they have a masters or Phd., etc, I ask, "Oh! Where did you receive your indoctrination?":lol:

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Certainly there were many Union troops that may have not been "thrilled" over freeing of slaves.

If the soldier was a conscript then what they felt about ending slavery is NOT why they fought. They fought because their government FORCED them to fight.

One of the biggest concerns in the northern states over "freeing the slaves" was the possibility that those slaves might move to the northern states. As long as the "Negro Isn't Moving Beside You" the northerners were quite happy to see them freed.

However there's no doubt, as brother against brother, and cousin against cousin clearly demonstrated, the clear majority of Union troops opposed slavery.

While they may have "opposed slavery" that wasn't what the recruiters pitched. What was pitched was "saving the Union".

The 300,000 that died to end it, is a testament to their dedication and sacrifice to the cause.

Except that that was NOT "the cause" for a lot of them.

The idea that all men are created equal is found in American documents such as The Declaration of Independence.

It most certainly is. However that "all men" didn't actually include females and non-whites until one heck of a long time afterwards.

Oh, BTW, I fear left wing extremists have our education system now. From day 1 our children are under their control. Saul Alinsky would be proud. When someone tells me they have a masters or Phd., etc, I ask, "Oh! Where did you receive your indoctrination?":lol:

Actually you should be more worried about "Educational Theorists" who "just know" that their own pet project "should" work 100%, provided that the kids do what they "should" do and provided that the teachers do what they "should" do and the school boards do what they "should" do (while totally ignoring the fact that the "test" of their own pet project was carried out with carefully selected students using specially trained teachers with access to specially provided materials and analyzed without the slightest regard to "the observer effect" [oh yes, and while also totally ignoring the fact that their own pet project had been tried in general application before and failed miserably]).

PS - The "(American) left-wing extremists" and the "(American) right-wing extremists" have one ESSENTIAL thing in common - they do NOT want children to be taught to analyze information independently and critically.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Decency is subjective, humanity is not.

Maybe if you had the right intellectual upbringing this would go better?

I can smell the exasperation.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

Subjective nonsense.

Projected ad hom.

No doubt.

 

[Hatuey]

Subjective nonsense.

Projected ad hom.

No doubt.

Imitation is both the best and cheapest form of flattery, however the truth remains.

Remember, I decide when attention is given.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

 

[mrdeltoid]

If the soldier was a conscript then what they felt about ending slavery is NOT why they fought. They fought because their government FORCED them to fight.

One of the biggest concerns in the northern states over "freeing the slaves" was the possibility that those slaves might move to the northern states. As long as the "Negro Isn't Moving Beside You" the northerners were quite happy to see them freed.



While they may have "opposed slavery" that wasn't what the recruiters pitched. What was pitched was "saving the Union".



Except that that was NOT "the cause" for a lot of them.



It most certainly is. However that "all men" didn't actually include females and non-whites until one heck of a long time afterwards.



Actually you should be more worried about "Educational Theorists" who "just know" that their own pet project "should" work 100%, provided that the kids do what they "should" do and provided that the teachers do what they "should" do and the school boards do what they "should" do (while totally ignoring the fact that the "test" of their own pet project was carried out with carefully selected students using specially trained teachers with access to specially provided materials and analyzed without the slightest regard to "the observer effect" [oh yes, and while also totally ignoring the fact that their own pet project had been tried in general application before and failed miserably]).

PS - The "(American) left-wing extremists" and the "(American) right-wing extremists" have one ESSENTIAL thing in common - they do NOT want children to be taught to analyze information independently and critically.

Interesting opinion. You may be right about that. I want my children to be taught to read, write, math, history, science and God forgive me, civics, objectively. They don't teach civics any longer!? They have a brain, and are curious by nature. Political doctrine of one stripe or the other should be left out of it. .

 

[mrdeltoid]

If the soldier was a conscript then what they felt about ending slavery is NOT why they fought. They fought because their government FORCED them to fight.

One of the biggest concerns in the northern states over "freeing the slaves" was the possibility that those slaves might move to the northern states. As long as the "Negro Isn't Moving Beside You" the northerners were quite happy to see them freed.



While they may have "opposed slavery" that wasn't what the recruiters pitched. What was pitched was "saving the Union".



Except that that was NOT "the cause" for a lot of them.



It most certainly is. However that "all men" didn't actually include females and non-whites until one heck of a long time afterwards.



Actually you should be more worried about "Educational Theorists" who "just know" that their own pet project "should" work 100%, provided that the kids do what they "should" do and provided that the teachers do what they "should" do and the school boards do what they "should" do (while totally ignoring the fact that the "test" of their own pet project was carried out with carefully selected students using specially trained teachers with access to specially provided materials and analyzed without the slightest regard to "the observer effect" [oh yes, and while also totally ignoring the fact that their own pet project had been tried in general application before and failed miserably]).

PS - The "(American) left-wing extremists" and the "(American) right-wing extremists" have one ESSENTIAL thing in common - they do NOT want children to be taught to analyze information independently and critically.

Interesting opinion. You may be right about that. I want my children to be taught to read, write, math, history, science and God forgive me, civics, objectively. They don't teach civics any longer!? They have a brain, and are curious by nature. Political doctrine of one stripe or the other should be left out of it. .

 

[3leftsdoo]

Imitation is both the best and cheapest form of flattery, however the truth remains.

Remember, I decide when attention is given.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

OMG

:lamo

:thumbs:

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

This kind of behavior has been going on forever. It started with Cain killing his brother.

What we do know is that their are 330 million people in this country. I you don't think some of them are A-holes, you must live in a bubble. I would bet that this kid was some spoiled brat who always got his way. When he was denied his wish he flipped out because he never learned to handle rejection.

It is quite possible.

PS: Are you Bahama Bob because you're based in the Bahamas or because you like the place.
If the former, how are you holding up, given the mass devastation?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I don't disagree. My view of patriotism was formed as a young marine, many years ago. I carry those beliefs where ever I go. The way I look at it, I have my brother's back. What ever he does in public, I back up. My MC, which has quite a few veterans lives by the same principle. In public, in a dispute, my brother is right. Even if he's wrong, he's right, PUBLICLY. When we hash it out behind closed doors, it may be much different. I f he is wrong, you better believe, he will be "aggressively educated". But in public, a united front. To me, that is by definition "nationalism". A nationalist believes, however imperfect our country may be, it is the best on the planet. We have done great things, we have done disgusting things. But the #1 job of the government is to keep our country secure as possible. We live in dangerous times, where millions of religious zealots are dedicated to the destruction of our way of life. We must always, when using diplomacy, be coming from a position of power. And in the US, the word "nationalist", to the democrat party, is synonymous with "racist". I disagree.

Sorry but with all due respect, YOUR definition of "nationalism" is not the generally accepted one, it is something you've crafted for your own use and it is somewhat unique.

What you described (above) as "nationalism" is, in reality, patriotism, a form of patriotism.
A patriot is the one who "believes, however imperfect our country may be, it is the best on the planet."

Nationalists never admit to any imperfections, AND...(and this is key to the definition) they believe that not only are there never any imperfections, but also that other countries and their people are vastly inferior, and unacceptable.
That's not the same as thinking your country is the best, because one can think their country is the best while still having respect for other countries. Nationalism does not allow for such an idea, because nationalism is identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

It has nothing to do with racism other than the fact that, down through history, the MOST nationalistic countries seem to also have serious racial or ethnic issues, particularly where hostility toward other foreign races and cultures are concerned.
Few things incense real actual nationalists more than the very thought of "outsiders" taking up residence in their country.
Is it a negative when Democrats recognize this issue as a core part of nationalism? I don't think so, because if it is, then owning a dictionary is problematic.

So you see, I am attempting to explain to you that you might have your terms switched around somewhat.
You described healthy patriotism, which is perfectly just and honorable.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The bastardization of the English language over the past 50 years is achieving the same thing - although I don't think that there is, or has been, any concrete plan to do that (just people taking advantage of it happening [which has tended to accelerate its happening]).

Oh but there is an orwellian plan.
Just read Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism" and you'll have the needed epiphany on that.
Trust me, there's no way you can come away from reading that book without coming to the conclusion that the Right is purposely destroying and manipulating the meaning of words in a way which is eerily reminiscent of NewSpeak and Doublethink.

 

[Felis Leo]

Sorry but with all due respect, YOUR definition of "nationalism" is not the generally accepted one, it is something you've crafted for your own use and it is somewhat unique.

What you described (above) as "nationalism" is, in reality, patriotism, a form of patriotism.
A patriot is the one who "believes, however imperfect our country may be, it is the best on the planet."

Nationalists never admit to any imperfections, AND...(and this is key to the definition) they believe that not only are there never any imperfections, but also that other countries and their people are vastly inferior, and unacceptable.
That's not the same as thinking your country is the best, because one can think their country is the best while still having respect for other countries. Nationalism does not allow for such an idea, because nationalism is identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

It has nothing to do with racism other than the fact that, down through history, the MOST nationalistic countries seem to also have serious racial or ethnic issues, particularly where hostility toward other foreign races and cultures are concerned.
Few things incense real actual nationalists more than the very thought of "outsiders" taking up residence in their country.
Is it a negative when Democrats recognize this issue as a core part of nationalism? I don't think so, because if it is, then owning a dictionary is problematic.

So you see, I am attempting to explain to you that you might have your terms switched around somewhat.
You described healthy patriotism, which is perfectly just and honorable.

The distinction between nationalism and patriotism was most succinctly stated by Charles De Gaulle:

"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first."

 

[Hatuey]

OMG

:lamo

:thumbs:

I don't speak emoji?

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

 

[AProudLefty]

I don't speak emoji?

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

Translation: Oh My Gawd he's so right! I'm so busted.
*nervously laughs at himself*
You get my approval. Thumbs up.

 

[Hatuey]

Translation: Oh My Gawd he's so right! I'm so busted.
*nervously laughs at himself*
You get my approval. Thumbs up.

I feel like I know 3LG from before. Can't quite put my finger on it. Something about him beelining to me once he woke up from his sabbatical feels very familiar.




Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

 

[Scrabaholic]

I hope he gets the death penalty.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The distinction between nationalism and patriotism was most succinctly stated by Charles De Gaulle:

"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first."

Why thank you, sir! Really, thank you VERY much for that! I have to admit that I should have known that quote because we did touch on de Gaulle on more than one occasion in World History, Social Studies, Current Events and what not.
First time I've ever heard it and it is so deliciously succinct.

Monsieur de Gaulle, c'est ca!
Monsieur Leo, merci!

Donald Trump needs to hear this...in fact, he needs to see it carved in fifty foot high granite letters on the South Lawn of the White House.

 

[Nickyjo]

Money spent by America on national defense has made America a relatively safe place to live, especially compared to so many other nations around the world. That does not stop some Americans from thinking America would have been just as safe without defense spending. Thankfully, that assumption has never taken deep root in any significant numbers of America's political leaders in its entire history.

How do nuclear weapons or aircraft carriers prevent me from being shot by a robber who has easy access to guns? We spend more money on defense than the next several nations combined, yet have higher homicide rates than any of them.

 

[TurtleDude]

How do nuclear weapons or aircraft carriers prevent me from being shot by a robber who has easy access to guns? We spend more money on defense than the next several nations combined, yet have higher homicide rates than any of them.

and if you factor out FIVE COUNTIES, all run by Democrats, we rank about 135th in the world in terms of murders

 

[Nickyjo]

and if you factor out FIVE COUNTIES, all run by Democrats, we rank about 135th in the world in terms of murders

Huh? Have to assume these are urban areas. I presume the same might be true in other societies, or in our own in years gone by. But your point is that more defense spending would prevent the violence in those counties?

 

[3leftsdoo]

I don't speak emoji?

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

 

[3leftsdoo]

I feel like I know 3LG from before. Can't quite put my finger on it. Something about him beelining to me once he woke up from his sabbatical feels very familiar.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

Luke, I am your...

 

[3leftsdoo]

Oh but there is an orwellian plan.
Just read Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism" and you'll have the needed epiphany on that.
Trust me, there's no way you can come away from reading that book without coming to the conclusion that the Right is purposely destroying and manipulating the meaning of words in a way which is eerily reminiscent of NewSpeak and Doublethink.

Only the right is fascistic...

:donkeyfla

 

[calamity]

:thumbs:

And for liberals to ghoulishy use the bodies of dead children to push any unconstitutional agenda is repugnant beyond words.

Send thoughts and prayers then

 

[marke]

How do nuclear weapons or aircraft carriers prevent me from being shot by a robber who has easy access to guns? We spend more money on defense than the next several nations combined, yet have higher homicide rates than any of them.

Democrat note to Americans, after winning both houses in Congress and the US presidency: 'We are going to confiscate your guns whether you like it or not. We are determined to end the gun violence and this is the only way. Once we get your guns away from you only then will crooks, thugs, murderers and the like give up their guns. Just deal with it. We are now in charge and you will do as we say.'

P.S. Donald Trump's execution date has been moved up to Tuesday.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

[/B]
Interesting opinion. You may be right about that. I want my children to be taught to read, write, math, history, science and God forgive me, civics, objectively. They don't teach civics any longer!? They have a brain, and are curious by nature.

I admit that

The first big problem with American education is that the children are taught that "The American Way" is the ONLY way. That means that absolutely no attention has to be paid to any potential solution to any problem if that potential solution has been tried anyplace else but the United States of America. The second big problem with American education is that the children are taught that 'myths' are, in fact, 'realities'. That means that, since the 'myths' portray America as 'perfect' (or so close thereto as to make no difference) no attention has to be paid to ACTUAL realities.​

is overstating the case, but it does sort of sum up some of the roots of the problems America currently faces.

Political doctrine of one stripe or the other should be left out of it. .

I have no issue with teaching children what the various political doctrines are, but I do have issues with teaching them falsely.

I have a REAL issue with teaching which is "political indoctrination" in the guise of teaching what "political doctrines" are.

Teaching

The Founding Fathers believed that all men were equal.​

without coupling that with,

And what they meant by that was that everyone - UNLESS you were NOT male, white, educated, and reasonably wealthy - was equal to everyone who WAS male, white, educated, and reasonably wealthy was equal to everyone else who WAS ALSO male, white, educated, and reasonably wealthy AND that it was those "equal" people who had the natural right to run the country. HOWEVER, we have progressed from that point and what we mean by "All men are equal" today means something completely different than it did to the Founding Fathers.​

creates a different outcome than it does if you do couple those two together.