Trump may inadvertently veto UFO task force

[UM-Bot 10,119]

The US President is threatening to veto a defence bill that includes funding for the Pentagon's UFO task force.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/341174/trump-may-inadvertently-veto-ufo-task-force

[Seti42 1,386]

We shouldn't have bases named after confederate leaders, and the rebel battle flag is a symbol of hate.

[Desertrat56 19,654]

At this late date does it matter what a Lame Duck president says?  All they have to do is hold it until February and he can't do anything.

[Buzz_Light_Year 4,016]

23 minutes ago, Seti42 said:

We shouldn't have bases named after confederate leaders, and the rebel battle flag is a symbol of hate.

Just remember the Stars and Stripes flew over the slave states longer then any of the assorted flags of the Confederacy. People seem to forget that little fact.

[ChrLzs 21,732]

2 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

At this late date does it matter what a Lame Duck president says?  All they have to do is hold it until February and he can't do anything.

Unfortunately it does.  He can, and already has, undertake a process rather like a petulant and angry child who trashes their own room...  That's why he installed those flunkies into Defence and other positions.  He just wants to poison the country as revenge for being tossed into the trash.  Note that he is also doing things that will be hard to undo, or take years - eg look up the somewhat related recent decisions relating to "Open Skies"...

 

[Mr Walker 6,373]

10 hours ago, Seti42 said:

We shouldn't have bases named after confederate leaders, and the rebel battle flag is a symbol of hate.

I am not an American and thus dont have a dog in the fight  But you cant rewrite history 

While one side lost the civil war, there were heroes and villains  on both sides, and all were part of the fabric of America  Taking down statues  of rebel leaders or taking away the right to fly the rebel flag is trying to deny they were as much a part of history as the winning side.

It is a divisive policy not one designed to heal. 

It is  shades of animal farm and 1984. ie renaming things to be "politically correct" 

  It is like taking down statues  of early explorers or settlers because the y  stole the land from  the native Americans, and tried to wipe them out,  or renaming colonial places because the y were settled and named by the British French or Spanish  (or indeed using English place  names rather than the original native American ones )

[Mr Walker 6,373]

8 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Unfortunately it does.  He can, and already has, undertake a process rather like a petulant and angry child who trashes their own room...  That's why he installed those flunkies into Defence and other positions.  He just wants to poison the country as revenge for being tossed into the trash.  Note that he is also doing things that will be hard to undo, or take years - eg look up the somewhat related recent decisions relating to "Open Skies"...

 

had to look tha t one up.

Its incredible that any nation would allow  observation by other states (although satellite technology probably makes aerial observation redundant )  Its an exercise in trust with a noble intent, but could be very badly misused  

In the event, it does seem that  few of the allowed flights (the quota) were ever used.

It  also seems to be a more sensitive issue among European nations than in America, because the y rely on overflights of Russia to gain intelligence  and Russia might respond by also withdrawing  

[Dr. Zodiac 4]

Mr walker, they lost. Why have statues or bases named after losers? It's like having our German military base Named Hitler Base.

[Mr Walker 6,373]

28 minutes ago, Dr. Zodiac said:

Mr walker, they lost. Why have statues or bases named after losers? It's like having our German military base Named Hitler Base.

Losing isn't a crime. In any war there are brave men and cowards heroic deeds and embarrassing defeats  etc  on BOTH sides 

Australia's greatest military  commemoration (ANZAC day) commemorates a  defeat by Turkish forces in the Dardanelles in ww1  (8 Victoria crosses were awarded to Australian soldiers during that  campaign)  

There were many reasons for the civil war, and while the ending of slavery is often used to justify it, that wasn't the prime issue 

 

Our aboriginal people and your ? native Americans lost  their war with European  colonisers, also.

Do you suggest their heroes and battles not be commemorated because the y lost ?

It is a more rational reason to not commemorate   people who were 'evil' or who held destructive  beliefs, but, even there, moralities change.

We cant pull down and rename things, just because our own ethics and moralities have changed over the years  

I think that,  in Australia for example, we have gone far enough in having dual names for places ie a European name and a native peoples name 

It wouldnt be right to remove the European names entirely and revert to the Aboriginal place names   

During ww1 many German settled towns in South Australia with German names,  were renamed  with English ones  but luckily this was eventually  seen to be unfair, and the original names  were  sometimes reinstated 

Ps the English lost the American war of independence  but Americans didnt rush out to change all the places named after Englishmen, or even English kings eg Jamestown   and Charleston. 

Edited November 26, 2020 by Mr Walker

[HSlim 209]

On 11/25/2020 at 12:35 AM, Mr Walker said:

I am not an American and thus dont have a dog in the fight  But you cant rewrite history 

While one side lost the civil war, there were heroes and villains  on both sides, and all were part of the fabric of America  Taking down statues  of rebel leaders or taking away the right to fly the rebel flag is trying to deny they were as much a part of history as the winning side.

It is a divisive policy not one designed to heal. 

It is  shades of animal farm and 1984. ie renaming things to be "politically correct" 

  It is like taking down statues  of early explorers or settlers because the y  stole the land from  the native Americans, and tried to wipe them out,  or renaming colonial places because the y were settled and named by the British French or Spanish  (or indeed using English place  names rather than the original native American ones )

I'm from the southern part of the US .... "confederate" land.   Those flags and statues belong in a museum or confederate cemeteries.  Nowhere else, and we have plenty of American heroes who didn't turn traitor and fight the nation in defense of slavery.  We can sugar coat it all we want, but that's what we fought for.   Do you think there should also be statues of Hitler on government grounds in Germany?  You know, just because those guys were German too? 

Edited December 1, 2020 by HSlim

[Mr Walker 6,373]

12 hours ago, HSlim said:

I'm from the southern part of the US .... "confederate" land.   Those flags and statues belong in a museum or confederate cemeteries.  Nowhere else, and we have plenty of American heroes who didn't turn traitor and fight the nation in defense of slavery.  We can sugar coat it all we want, but that's what we fought for.   Do you think there should also be statues of Hitler on government grounds in Germany?  You know, just because those guys were German too? 

You are entitled to your opinion.

I'm not American and so have no emotional attachment.

I do know  history and sociology 

Trying to enforce values like those you just express,  on other people with very different values  and beliefs will only cause further division and conflict.

Education and generational social change would be much better. 

   Historically the civil war was more about maintaining the union than ending slavery  

Its up to the Germans what they put in public places The y are understandably sensitive to international opinion  

Funny tha t Japan has a very different  attitude.

  it 's war heroes remain heroes 

i dont have problems with statues of  white Australian  pioneers and explorers   who did things we might NOW consider repugnant 

Like i said we cant judge people  from the past by our values or we we will have people from the future judging the way we think and behave 

eg we have a statue of a horse which won the Melbourne cup 3 times on our town foreshore. In generations to come this will quite likely be seen a s repugnant, after horse racing is banned for its cruelty and the deaths of  many horses   

Should the horse statue, and all memories attached to it, be removed, because peoples '  values changed ? 

Right now in Australia thee is a big debate about removing unit honours for all forces in Afghanistan after  2007 because of some alleged atrocities 

While individuals found guilty must be punished, one cannot  treat a  whole group  of people by the actions of a few  

Do we take down the statues  in every Australian town  to our returned service men and women?  Do we allow people who vandalise them to go unpunished ?  

Ps the south tried to secede from  the union and( arguably)  had a legal and  political right to do so.

Thus, the y were not traitors but secessionists.  It was prevented from  doing so by the northern states ,using force

(Thats another legitimate perspective on the civil war ) 

quote 

Did the Southern states have a legal right to secede from the Union? ... Secession was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, which means secession was not a violation of the Constitution. There was no law against secession. There was no Supreme Court ruling on the issue prior to the Civil War.

Why wasn’t Confederate President Jefferson Davis ever tried for treason? According to a new book, it’s because the Union thought there was a strong possibility that his case would raise troubling questions about the constitutionality of secession, and that a possible acquittal would signal that the Union’s war effort had been unjustified.

Cynthia Nicoletti, a legal history professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, looks at the quandary in “Secession on Trial: The Treason Prosecution of Jefferson Davis,” published this month by Cambridge University Press.

Davis’ trial, which would have served as a test case for the legality of secession, was delayed for four years before ultimately being dropped. Among government officials, there was concern that the prosecution could backfire.

“Davis’ argument would go: ‘When my state, Mississippi, seceded from the Union in 1861, that removed my United States citizenship,’” Nicoletti said. “And treason is a crime of loyalty; in order to commit it, you need to be a U.S. citizen. So everybody thought at the time that this case was going to raise the question of whether secession is constitutional, and there was worry about whether or not Davis was going to be convicted.”

https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/201710/was-secession-legal

 

quote

The adage that the victors of war write the history is all too true. From the pages of school history books to the dramatic and award-winning recounting of the Civil War in Ken Burns documentary, the Confederate states are always depicted as the spoilers and traitors who were justly punished and humiliated for their evil acts.

However, nothing is further from the truth as the southern states had every legal right to secede and determine their own destiny. As heretical as it might seem, Abraham Lincoln was dead wrong (emphasis on “dead”) in declaring war against his fellow states and citizens. It was his decision to employ military force which resolved what should have been a constitutional question to be pondered at the time.

There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution which prohibits a state from seceding from the union. This is made clear by a proposal which was made at the 1787 Constitutional Convention to grant the new federal government the specific power to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, widely acknowledged as the key founding father of the Constitution and scholar, rejected this proposal stating, “A Union of states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.” 

https://www.lubbockonline.com/opinion/20180520/its-debatable-do-states-have-right-to-secede-from-union

 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Mr Walker

[the13bats 11,877]

I grew up being a gear head when things like dorks of hazard and Smokey and bandit were "cool" ( both cars wore confederate flags ) and "southern pride" didnt mean "racist" the flag just didnt for most drip hate, it hid it due to ignorance.

I saw thoughts and meanings change over time only a certain type would fly the confederate flag and that was fine, more WP to them.

Then about 4 years back trump made racism okay and the confederate flag started to be seen pretty much as a swastika flag would be seen, a middle finger cocking a snook at "those people" a symble of racism and hate.

its pretty much gone from view in my little tiny southern town, i realize not eveyone was happy to see it go but as they learned not how they saw it but how others saw it and saw them for flying it they stopped flying it, for most racism isnt popular most people dont have hate filled hearts.

Sure, stick it in museums or perhaps cemeteries, but do not deny what it symbolizes to the majority whether you agree or like it or not.

 

[HSlim 209]

5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You are entitled to your opinion.

I'm not American and so have no emotional attachment.

I do know  history and sociology 

Trying to enforce values like those you just express,  on other people with very different values  and beliefs will only cause further division and conflict.

Education and generational social change would be much better. 

   Historically the civil war was more about maintaining the union than ending slavery  

Its up to the Germans what they put in public places The y are understandably sensitive to international opinion  

Funny tha t Japan has a very different  attitude.

  it 's war heroes remain heroes 

i dont have problems with statues of  white Australian  pioneers and explorers   who did things we might NOW consider repugnant 

Like i said we cant judge people  from the past by our values or we we will have people from the future judging the way we think and behave 

eg we have a statue of a horse which won the Melbourne cup 3 times on our town foreshore. In generations to come this will quite likely be seen a s repugnant, after horse racing is banned for its cruelty and the deaths of  many horses   

Should the horse statue, and all memories attached to it, be removed, because peoples '  values changed ? 

Right now in Australia thee is a big debate about removing unit honours for all forces in Afghanistan after  2007 because of some alleged atrocities 

While individuals found guilty must be punished, one cannot  treat a  whole group  of people by the actions of a few  

Do we take down the statues  in every Australian town  to our returned service men and women?  Do we allow people who vandalise them to go unpunished ?  

Ps the south tried to secede from  the union and( arguably)  had a legal and  political right to do so.

Thus, the y were not traitors but secessionists.  It was prevented from  doing so by the northern states ,using force

(Thats another legitimate perspective on the civil war ) 

quote 

Did the Southern states have a legal right to secede from the Union? ... Secession was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, which means secession was not a violation of the Constitution. There was no law against secession. There was no Supreme Court ruling on the issue prior to the Civil War.

Why wasn’t Confederate President Jefferson Davis ever tried for treason? According to a new book, it’s because the Union thought there was a strong possibility that his case would raise troubling questions about the constitutionality of secession, and that a possible acquittal would signal that the Union’s war effort had been unjustified.

Cynthia Nicoletti, a legal history professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, looks at the quandary in “Secession on Trial: The Treason Prosecution of Jefferson Davis,” published this month by Cambridge University Press.

Davis’ trial, which would have served as a test case for the legality of secession, was delayed for four years before ultimately being dropped. Among government officials, there was concern that the prosecution could backfire.

“Davis’ argument would go: ‘When my state, Mississippi, seceded from the Union in 1861, that removed my United States citizenship,’” Nicoletti said. “And treason is a crime of loyalty; in order to commit it, you need to be a U.S. citizen. So everybody thought at the time that this case was going to raise the question of whether secession is constitutional, and there was worry about whether or not Davis was going to be convicted.”

https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/201710/was-secession-legal

 

quote

The adage that the victors of war write the history is all too true. From the pages of school history books to the dramatic and award-winning recounting of the Civil War in Ken Burns documentary, the Confederate states are always depicted as the spoilers and traitors who were justly punished and humiliated for their evil acts.

However, nothing is further from the truth as the southern states had every legal right to secede and determine their own destiny. As heretical as it might seem, Abraham Lincoln was dead wrong (emphasis on “dead”) in declaring war against his fellow states and citizens. It was his decision to employ military force which resolved what should have been a constitutional question to be pondered at the time.

There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution which prohibits a state from seceding from the union. This is made clear by a proposal which was made at the 1787 Constitutional Convention to grant the new federal government the specific power to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, widely acknowledged as the key founding father of the Constitution and scholar, rejected this proposal stating, “A Union of states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.” 

https://www.lubbockonline.com/opinion/20180520/its-debatable-do-states-have-right-to-secede-from-union

 

 

 

Actually, when that past involves enslaving people and for the reasons we did so, we absolutely CAN judge people by their past.  Again, this is coming from a southerner from the deep south whose ancestors fought for the Confederacy.   I'm not going to argue with you about the legality of secession, but sorry, my argument stands.  Those statues that are being torn down weren't put up immediately after the end of the war.  They were installed in the early 1900s, and they served to remind black Americans that, while they may be free, they still live in territory where they are considered less than equal.... a belief that we have consistently shown throughout the entire 20th century and even into the 21st.   So, while I respect YOUR opinion from what you read in books, I'll go by real world experience. 

Edited December 2, 2020 by HSlim

[Guyver 4,349]

On 11/24/2020 at 10:39 AM, Seti42 said:

We shouldn't have bases named after confederate leaders, and the rebel battle flag is a symbol of hate.

It’s only a symbol of hate to the hateful.

[Guyver 4,349]

On 11/24/2020 at 10:18 AM, UM-Bot said:

The US President is threatening to veto a defence bill that includes funding for the Pentagon's UFO task force.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/341174/trump-may-inadvertently-veto-ufo-task-force

Good.  They should shut it down.  Our money gets wasted and we never learn anything anyway.

[HSlim 209]

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

It’s only a symbol of hate to the hateful.

You mean the people that don't stand for bigotry?

[the13bats 11,877]

3 hours ago, Guyver said:

It’s only a symbol of hate to the hateful.

You post some okay stuff and you post some dog sh.. and this was the latter,

Try not to mistake my lack of patience with ignorance or out right stupity with hate, 

Here you go this fellow explains it very well,

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_7625040

[Mr Walker 6,373]

10 hours ago, HSlim said:

Actually, when that past involves enslaving people and for the reasons we did so, we absolutely CAN judge people by their past.  Again, this is coming from a southerner from the deep south whose ancestors fought for the Confederacy.   I'm not going to argue with you about the legality of secession, but sorry, my argument stands.  Those statues that are being torn down weren't put up immediately after the end of the war.  They were installed in the early 1900s, and they served to remind black Americans that, while they may be free, they still live in territory where they are considered less than equal.... a belief that we have consistently shown throughout the entire 20th century and even into the 21st.   So, while I respect YOUR opinion from what you read in books, I'll go by real world experience. 

No actually you cannot . You have no legal moral or other authority to pass any judgement on our ancestors 

We can learn from  them and improve on them, but we cant judge them.

The y lived within a specific set of scientific/technological, social ,economic etc parameters which determined their values and attitudes 

if you  wish to think of moralities as absolute then you need to examine our present attitudes 

eg is it ethically wrong to eat meat or keep animals as work recreation or pet animals 

Is it wrong to ever commit violence against another person.

Is it wrong to use fossil fuels and soon 

like our ancestors we are embedded in our social, economic and technological realities. Some things we can slowly change eg move from  fossil fuels to renewables and eat less meat  Others we dont even see as wrong  eg keeping another animal as our pet (slave)  

Change the people's attitudes Ensure equality under the law and in practice .

You will only harden and divide people by tearing down statues. 

we have a similar issue here but in reverse its more llke your relationship with native Americans

You dont solve such issues by removing statues.

that is an emotional, feel good response,  which does nothing practical and may even make the situation on the ground more difficult 

You solve them by providing  opportunities for education, access to heath and nutrition, equal  opportunities and rights under the law. and then measuring and ensuring certain outcomes are met . 

But mostly you change it by changing peoples' beliefs, one generation at a time, so you make such issues compulsory studies in schools, beginning with young children. 

 

 

[Mr Walker 6,373]

1 hour ago, the13bats said:

You post some okay stuff and you post some dog sh.. and this was the latter,

Try not to mistake my lack of patience with ignorance or out right stupity with hate, 

Here you go this fellow explains it very well,

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_7625040

Guyver is right 

Symbols are used and interpreted  emotionally by people How you  see and use them depends on your own emotional beliefs 

eg the confederate flag doess nothing for me but neither does the American flag   Both simply identify a certain group from a certain time 

I know the background of the nazi flag but it doesn't affect me personally i feel nothing special about the Japanese flag 

I have a little more attachment to our own flag, but its just a symbol.

Ps your source is persuasive and powerful, if a little subjective and  biased The civil war was never really about the  abolition of slavery in the US, but about whether the southern states could secede (and in doing so retain slavery) 

Slavery was an evil but whether  the civil war was worth the cost, when slavery could have been ended in other ways, with perhaps belter outcomes for African American people, is debatable.

Ps i find the term African American divisive. It divides Americans into two colour groups, rather than unifying them all as just Americans; but tha t s just an outsider's opinion.  Is a black person more proud of being black or being American?   I observed the black power movement of the 60s and seventies, and appreciate the need for African Americans to establish pride and confidence in them selves.

But should this   come from attachment to a race, or to ones own personal accomplishments and character ?  

When i see a person I dont see their colour  ie their colour has no effect on my emotions, or my thoughts about them. (and ican t even see why it should)  I see them as a human being and treat them according to what sort of person they are 

After it was fought at such a cost, of course politically and to Americans of the time  it HAD to be justified, and ending slavery was the justification used for all the death  destruction pain and suffering .

If it had served it's purpose, however, African Americans would never have suffered the injustices and inequalities the y did for the next century and more.  Want to stop that bloke in the car with a confederate  flag yelling abuse? You wont do it by making the flag illegal or pulling down statues (that will just make him more hateful and resentful)  You will do it by educating  the idiot in the car, or a t least his children. 

 

Edited December 3, 2020 by Mr Walker

[the13bats 11,877]

 

I dont care how you see things get over yourself, you are not as wise as your ego has tricked you into believing

Mr walker, your arrogance and ignorance is overwhelming you are back on my ignore list.

Further replies will not be seen

Edited December 3, 2020 by the13bats

[HSlim 209]

27 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

No actually you cannot . You have no legal moral or other authority to pass any judgement on our ancestors 

We can learn from  them and improve on them, but we cant judge them.

The y lived within a specific set of scientific/technological, social ,economic etc parameters which determined their values and attitudes 

if you  wish to think of moralities as absolute then you need to examine our present attitudes 

eg is it ethically wrong to eat meat or keep animals as work recreation or pet animals 

Is it wrong to ever commit violence against another person.

Is it wrong to use fossil fuels and soon 

like our ancestors we are embedded in our social, economic and technological realities. Some things we can slowly change eg move from  fossil fuels to renewables and eat less meat  Others we dont even see as wrong  eg keeping another animal as our pet (slave)  

Change the people's attitudes Ensure equality under the law and in practice .

You will only harden and divide people by tearing down statues. 

we have a similar issue here but in reverse its more llke your relationship with native Americans

You dont solve such issues by removing statues.

that is an emotional, feel good response,  which does nothing practical and may even make the situation on the ground more difficult 

You solve them by providing  opportunities for education, access to heath and nutrition, equal  opportunities and rights under the law. and then measuring and ensuring certain outcomes are met . 

But mostly you change it by changing peoples' beliefs, one generation at a time, so you make such issues compulsory studies in schools, beginning with young children. 

 

 

... So you don't put those things on government ground, aka taxpayer funded property, and expect people who DO have an emotional issue with those symbols to pay for the maintenance and upkeep of said symbols, ESPECIALLY when those symbols are not a part of our government.  Those symbols have no place flying or standing on the grounds of the government that defeated them.  And you can talk about changing generations over time but homie, it's been 155 years.  You've got some abysmal beliefs my dude. 

Edited December 3, 2020 by HSlim

[ChrLzs 21,732]

Quote

Mr walker, your arrogance and ignorance is overwhelming you are back on my ignore list.

For those few who don't have Walker on ignore, can we please ask that if you must quote him, please EDIT the quote down to only the relevant part, so we don't have to endure his walls-of-text.

 

Thanks for making UM a better place.  

Edited December 3, 2020 by ChrLzs

[the13bats 11,877]

4 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

For those few who don't have Walker on ignore, can we please ask that if you must quote him, please EDIT the quote down to only the relevant part, so we don't have to endure his walls-of-text.

 

Thanks for making UM a better place.  

Aw, his going longer doesnt make it more epic?

( fixed ) I humbly apologize,  i had him on ignore then my mistake gave him a chance, he blew it.

So that walking pile of fertilizer is on my permanent ignore, again sorry for any inconvenience of subjecting you or others to his unadulterated tripe

[Mr Walker 6,373]

20 minutes ago, the13bats said:

 

Mr walker, your arrogance and ignorance is overwhelming you are back on my ignore list.

Further replies will not be seen

Wonderful So no attempt to  justify your opinions ?  There is no ignorance.  This is a matter of history and the variety of views on tha t history  

If stating an opinion different to your own is arrogance then mea culpa .  

[Mr Walker 6,373]

11 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Aw, his going longer doesnt make it more epic?

( fixed ) I humbly apologize,  i had him on ignore then my mistake gave him a chance, he blew it.

So that walking pile of fertilizer is on my permanent ignore, again sorry for any inconvenience of subjecting you or others to his unadulterated tripe

Words,  especially ignorant ones, cant hurt me, and only demonstrate the bias, ignorance, and sometimes emotional fragility, of some people 

What   some people are attempting to do is ignore opinions, views or standards, which they dont agree with, rather than debating them,  so that only their  own are echoed and reinforced   That is the precise opposite of the purpose of a forum like this.  It is what  I meant by emotional and intellectual fragility. You would not last a minute in a university or anywhere where you had to defend your pov.,using logic and facts

Plus you just ignore my comments about slavery being an evil . Of course it was.

But was a war like the civil war the best way to end it , and did it end racism, prejudice and repression ? 

Were all southerners evil (how many actually owned slaves) ?

Could a southerner who opposed slavery, but still fought for the south, be called a traitor ? 

Should the south (and southerners today)  still be held accountable for the war, without any exploration of the North's role and purpose ? 

Is taking away physical aspects of a persons identity going to make them more favourable to your pov or just make you feel woke ? (and more powerful than them)