JackRiddler
JackRiddler's JournalTripathi's name has been removed from the Christopher Wight web site.
There is no longer any "campaign manager" listed, but a new "press officer," Carlisle Williams.
There is no explanation of the change on the site.
The campaign office number still doesn't work.
Carlisle's number works. I called and asked why Tripathi was no longer listed. Also, when will Wight issue a statement on this matter? Also, when will Wight be resigning from the campaign, given this matter? Also, shouldn't Carlisle Williams go ahead and quit, to save her own career?
Christopher R. Wight for Congress
Campaign Office
122 East 83rd Street
New York, NY 10028
Office Hours:
Monday-Saturday: 9:00am – 9:00pm
Sunday: 9:00am – 6:00pm
Telephone: 212-988-9880
Press Contact:
Carlisle Williams
Email: [email protected]
Office: 212-988-9880
Mobile: 310-804-8418
Oh, so SAD!
Way to go - nobody here announced made-up disasters in the middle of a real one. This asshole Tripathi did. He spread fear to millions. So don't be trying to shift the moral blame to someone else's thoughtcrime.
Who says they're going to be controlled from 500 miles away?
In less than 20 years they'll be coming up with excuses why it's so great for national security to have these run by computer-animal hybrid brains with autonomy over battlefield decisions. They'll program the Geneva protocols right into'em and claim a higher rate of compliance with international law than with live soldiers.
But anyway, the eventual deployment isn't going to be on foreign battlefields. It's going to be right here at home, and the targets - you lot - are going to be pretty easy to deal with.
Sorry, you have it exactly the wrong way around.
The Wyoming vote counts much more than yours!
Wyoming: 400,000/3 = 133,333 pop. per electoral vote.
Florida: 18,801,310/29 = 648,321 pop. per electoral vote.
Wyoming vote is worth 5 (4.8) times a Florida vote!
On senators, even more obvious:
Wyoming: 200,000 people per senator.
Florida: 9.4 million people per senator.
Wyoming vote is worth FORTY-SEVEN times a Florida vote.
If we were preparing a legal suit we'd have to find precise Census counts of eligible electorate and registered voters and show the figures for those, but obviously they'd be similar outcomes.
Economically the South was in decline.
A war was inevitable because both the Northern and Southern economic systems required expansion. The North was the overwhelmingly superior system economically. The Civil War was as much about whether the Western states would be slave or "free," and saw a prelude with armed conflict in Kansas prior to 1860 over the question of whether the state would be slave or "free."
Culturally, the Southern elites would have denied the economics and would have never surrendered an inch on slavery without war. In the face of decline and slave rebellion they would have been capable of attempting an extermination policy.
Without the immediate perceived threat of Lincoln, I believe a war would have come inevitably within two decades of 1860, likely triggered by contests over Western territories but then necessarily enveloping the whole country in a total war. Assuming a united North - big assumption - such a conflict would have seen the South in an even weaker condition than in 1861.
Another possibility, however, would have been a Southern turn to conquest of Mexico, Cuba, and other Latin American territories as the field of expansion.
Finally, we can imagine that the slaves would have outnumbered the whites at some point... it's not completely out of the question that a widespread slave rebellion would have seen a Northern administration (if sufficiently racist) supporting the South in suppressing it!
So, in short, don't know, but we can probably agree on the likeliest scenario: War within 20 years of 1860, with the South defeated.
.
Correction to OP: Fort Sumter.
So what about the House?
From this board you'd almost think it doesn't matter.
Is there any chance of a new majority in the House? What do the more solid data say?
(EDIT: typo.)
If true, that would merely put him on the level of the Joint Chiefs.
They pressured JFK to have a nuclear confrontation and to invade Cuba. They even came up with a plan to commit terrorist acts in the United States and blame Cuba as a pretext for an invasion (the Northwoods project). Did Cuba ever attack the US, by the way? No, it did not. The US sponsored an invasion of Cuba by hired mercenaries the year before the missile crisis. The US had imposed and supported a series of dictatorships in Cuba prior to the 1959 revolution. The US was trying to assassinate Castro and sabotaging the Cuban economy. You seem to specialize in selective omission.
Now go be a mercenary for plantation owners, like your namesake, Zorro.
He killed three women.
And he is responsible. He is to blame. Nevertheless, his act occurs in the context of a culture that tolerates misogyny and trains males in macho culture, that excuses rape, that glorifies male jealousy and male violence.
Your caricature of what I said shows nothing other than denial. Denial doesn't help.
Since the homicide statistics do differ by era and country and place, and since there are different forms of homicide that are more or less common at different times, culture and training and socioeconomic factors self-evidently make a difference.
And you're right, most murder victims are men. And 90+ percent of murderers are men.
Beyond that, there are categories of murder. War, for example (where since WWII civilians have always the majority killed). Murder in the course of other crimes. Competition over territory in businesses, like drugs.
And femicide is a category. Don't practice denial. It's a specifically male violence against women in particular. It is a form of terrorism against women.
Was Castro eating babies while doing these crimes, in your dream?
It's been 50 years, so you figure everyone's forgotten 1962 and you can just make up the most outrageous lies? Nah.
You probably really believe the nonsense you just wrote.
Sure, but this is misogyny at work - a femicide. Something specific.
There are different kinds of murders. This is one of a specific and important kind.
Murderers of any kind are usually men. Women-hating men murder thousands of women. (Man-hating women, insofar as they exist, don't kill almost any men.) This is a specific form of misogynistic murder. It is enabled and encouraged by misogynistic training (he expects to own and control "his" woman) and by misogynist culture. It contributes to the fear and terror of misogynist culture. It's a weapon against all women who are subject to male violence - the fear that they might meet this fate if they resist, like this woman did. Death for her and her friends, apparently.
Denial of this doesn't help anyone.
Profile Information
Member since: 2002Number of posts: 24,979
