How can you blame Hitler?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I would like to talk about people who have no empathy at all for others whatsoever (narcissist sociopaths).

Empathy don't exist, it's a lie, or something with not even a good definition. Otherwise, everybody has empathy. But even the worse internet psichologys woul say that with the labels you said (narcisists, and sociopaths) those people have feelings and can understand other people feelings. Psichopaths (not very used definition in psichiatry, not well defined either) are the ones who sometimes don't have some kind of feelings. the same for some autistic people.

Some would say that you can still be a good person even if you are one and help out others anyway, but I find this to be an unrealistic expectation because doing such deeds presupposes empathy in the first place which the narcissist sociopath does not have.

No. Being good or bad for other people is a matter of what you do, not a matter of what you feel. Being good with other people can be useful to people who can't feel things like the simplification usually called "friendship" or things like that. Even if you don't want to use a human as a friend, you can exchange things with that person, and it's better to see that person functional. Most of people do their jobs with no empathy. And avoiding conflict is usually a good think. Of course, if nobody is going to catch them, they can lie. But with that measure... more than half of the world are psichopahts.

Really, it would be no different than going up to someone and harming him/her when you were just fine and happy with that individual. There had to be a reason for you doing that. You must of had some anger or resentment towards that person, otherwise there would be no reason for you harming him/her. Same thing applies to the situation of a narcissist sociopath.

Not at all. You can want a person to fear you, so that you can take controll, or avoid future attacks from that person. But as I said, sociopaths are not psichopaths. And sociopaths and narcisists are different things too. (Also, bad defined...). A narcisist person is one who think that he or she deserve to do everything, and is obsessed with attention, social standards, etc. A socipath is someone who have a non accepted behavoiur in society that cause harm to people. They can be sociopaths in the name of altruism or natureand don't want any recognition, many of them are that way.

In other words, if the narcissist sociopath is going to help others, make the world a better place, etc. then there had to be a reason for him/her doing that. He/she must of had some empathy in doing these deeds, otherwise there would be no reason for him/her doing these deeds at all. Or he/she could just be doing it for his/her own personal gain.

Everybody do everything for his (evidently own) personal gain. If you are in a bar, keep the waitress happy.

So how can you blame people like Hitler if these types of people truly had no empathy at all? To expect him to change, not harm the Jews, and do good in the world presupposes empathy which he does not have. So really, he did not have the choice in the matter and if he did do so anyway, then he would either be doing it for no reason at all or he would just be doing it for his own personal gain.

Hitler was not very different to the common human. And people can blame him like this, take a look: "I blame you!"

Sadists have plenty of 'empathy', they just enjoy the suffering of others. They know exactly what they are inflicting. I'm not sure if the top echelons of the nazis necessarily enjoyed the suffering they caused. They were indifferent to it, because their ideology told them that they were only wiping out insect vermin. They also didn't have to do any of the dirty work themselves. That can make a big difference. Numbers on a piece of paper are quite different from living, breathing humans. They had real sadists to do that for them.

[Philosophy Explorer]

I would like to talk about people who have no empathy at all for others whatsoever (narcissist sociopaths).

Empathy don't exist, it's a lie, or something with not even a good definition. Otherwise, everybody has empathy. But even the worse internet psichologys woul say that with the labels you said (narcisists, and sociopaths) those people have feelings and can understand other people feelings. Psichopaths (not very used definition in psichiatry, not well defined either) are the ones who sometimes don't have some kind of feelings. the same for some autistic people.

Some would say that you can still be a good person even if you are one and help out others anyway, but I find this to be an unrealistic expectation because doing such deeds presupposes empathy in the first place which the narcissist sociopath does not have.

No. Being good or bad for other people is a matter of what you do, not a matter of what you feel. Being good with other people can be useful to people who can't feel things like the simplification usually called "friendship" or things like that. Even if you don't want to use a human as a friend, you can exchange things with that person, and it's better to see that person functional. Most of people do their jobs with no empathy. And avoiding conflict is usually a good think. Of course, if nobody is going to catch them, they can lie. But with that measure... more than half of the world are psichopahts.

Really, it would be no different than going up to someone and harming him/her when you were just fine and happy with that individual. There had to be a reason for you doing that. You must of had some anger or resentment towards that person, otherwise there would be no reason for you harming him/her. Same thing applies to the situation of a narcissist sociopath.

Not at all. You can want a person to fear you, so that you can take controll, or avoid future attacks from that person. But as I said, sociopaths are not psichopaths. And sociopaths and narcisists are different things too. (Also, bad defined...). A narcisist person is one who think that he or she deserve to do everything, and is obsessed with attention, social standards, etc. A socipath is someone who have a non accepted behavoiur in society that cause harm to people. They can be sociopaths in the name of altruism or natureand don't want any recognition, many of them are that way.

In other words, if the narcissist sociopath is going to help others, make the world a better place, etc. then there had to be a reason for him/her doing that. He/she must of had some empathy in doing these deeds, otherwise there would be no reason for him/her doing these deeds at all. Or he/she could just be doing it for his/her own personal gain.

Everybody do everything for his (evidently own) personal gain. If you are in a bar, keep the waitress happy.

So how can you blame people like Hitler if these types of people truly had no empathy at all? To expect him to change, not harm the Jews, and do good in the world presupposes empathy which he does not have. So really, he did not have the choice in the matter and if he did do so anyway, then he would either be doing it for no reason at all or he would just be doing it for his own personal gain.

Hitler was not very different to the common human. And people can blame him like this, take a look: "I blame you!"

Sadists have plenty of 'empathy', they just enjoy the suffering of others. They know exactly what they are inflicting. I'm not sure if the top echelons of the nazis necessarily enjoyed the suffering they caused. They were indifferent to it, because their ideology told them that they were only wiping out insect vermin. They also didn't have to do any of the dirty work themselves. That can make a big difference. Numbers on a piece of paper are quite different from living, breathing humans. They had real sadists to do that for them.

And what makes you think the top echelon weren't sadists such as Himmler "The Hangman?"

The reason why they didn't have to do the" dirty work" themselves is they gave orders to have it done.

Here's an example of one with some ranking who directly did the dirty work:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Dirlewanger

PhilX

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Empathy don't exist, it's a lie, or something with not even a good definition. Otherwise, everybody has empathy. But even the worse internet psichologys woul say that with the labels you said (narcisists, and sociopaths) those people have feelings and can understand other people feelings. Psichopaths (not very used definition in psichiatry, not well defined either) are the ones who sometimes don't have some kind of feelings. the same for some autistic people.


No. Being good or bad for other people is a matter of what you do, not a matter of what you feel. Being good with other people can be useful to people who can't feel things like the simplification usually called "friendship" or things like that. Even if you don't want to use a human as a friend, you can exchange things with that person, and it's better to see that person functional. Most of people do their jobs with no empathy. And avoiding conflict is usually a good think. Of course, if nobody is going to catch them, they can lie. But with that measure... more than half of the world are psichopahts.


Not at all. You can want a person to fear you, so that you can take controll, or avoid future attacks from that person. But as I said, sociopaths are not psichopaths. And sociopaths and narcisists are different things too. (Also, bad defined...). A narcisist person is one who think that he or she deserve to do everything, and is obsessed with attention, social standards, etc. A socipath is someone who have a non accepted behavoiur in society that cause harm to people. They can be sociopaths in the name of altruism or natureand don't want any recognition, many of them are that way.


Everybody do everything for his (evidently own) personal gain. If you are in a bar, keep the waitress happy.



Hitler was not very different to the common human. And people can blame him like this, take a look: "I blame you!"

Sadists have plenty of 'empathy', they just enjoy the suffering of others. They know exactly what they are inflicting. I'm not sure if the top echelons of the nazis necessarily enjoyed the suffering they caused. They were indifferent to it, because their ideology told them that they were only wiping out insect vermin. They also didn't have to do any of the dirty work themselves. That can make a big difference. Numbers on a piece of paper are quite different from living, breathing humans. They had real sadists to do that for them.

And what makes you think the top echelon weren't sadists such as Himmler "The Hangman?"

The reason why they didn't have to do the" dirty work" themselves is they gave orders to have it done.

Here's an example of one with some ranking who directly did the dirty work:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Dirlewanger

PhilX

I meant Hitler Goerring and Goebbels. I think Himmler was a sadistic bastard, and Mengele certainly was.

[TSBU]

Sadists have plenty of 'empathy', they just enjoy the suffering of others. They know exactly what they are inflicting. I'm not sure if the top echelons of the nazis necessarily enjoyed the suffering they caused. They were indifferent to it, because their ideology told them that they were only wiping out insect vermin. They also didn't have to do any of the dirty work themselves. That can make a big difference. Numbers on a piece of paper are quite different from living, breathing humans. They had real sadists to do that for them.

Many of the top echelons wrote for themselves that they felt bad after seeing concentration camps ir things like that. But they said to themselves "it is necesary". I agree with you. It's usefull to read Solschenizyn about evil.

Sadist people are nearly always people with no many brain dedicated to see the implications of their actions in other minds, for what I've seen. They feel free when they cause harm, they feel that they have the power (something that they usually don't feel). That are prison people includind majority of guards, many policemen, etc

[Walker]

Walker wrote:

Look what happened to Obama. Same propaganda now, but with a track record rather than hope bs, reduces him to caricature grasping for conspiracy theories to preserve a smidgen of credibility.

I missed this cheap political shot as you had avoided alerting me with a quote. Criticising Obama while remaining silent on the disaster of Republican GWB does not reflect well on your sense of proportionality.

Cheap? Haw haw. It's simply reporting the news that must have missed your Yoda translator.

Not sure what you mean about alerting you with a quote, since it happened so long ago. But I don’t think even meeting requirements would be enough, sharp Greta. Bush-talk merely states the tribal/gang colors. Obama is interesting. Like an actor he has some studied mannerisms that made him the repository of dreams and hopes, whatever they may be for gullible folks. Obvious duplicity with logical leaps of which The Wan is well aware. Heavy use of straw men, false dichotomies, ad hominems and cornpone, and great big lies. Some folks think it insulting and shameful that folks fall for the jive enough to even emulate by wallowing in such assaults upon intellectual integrity, but the sad fact is, many are lulled by sonorous presidentiality, regardless of the lyrics. Most of those double-talk methods would tie up a Bush’s tongue in knots.

Speaking of war and armed conflict, check out the Democrats who made the Warring decision. Maybe pronounce The Bushes, Dem Bushes, philosophically speaking.

WWI: Wilson-Democrat
WWII: Roosevelt-Democrat
Korea: Truman-Democrat
Vietnam: Kennedy/Johnson-Democrats (ended with Nixon-R)
Carter-Democrat/Clinton-Democrat: inept use of power escalating anti-US aggression.

[Greta]

Bush-talk merely states the tribal/gang colors.

Hardly. He committed the worst war crime I've ever known from a western government in my lifetime. I and many others wee shocked at the time at the sheer blatant corruption and destructiveness of it. A million lives, millions displaced, trillions wasted. Given the seriousness of the problem, dismissing this war criminal's misdeeds with airy dismissals is much more an indicator of tribal colours.

[TSBU]

Wasn't this about how to blame people? You can see it very well in the posts

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Bush-talk merely states the tribal/gang colors.

Hardly. He committed the worst war crime I've ever known from a western government in my lifetime. I and many others wee shocked at the time at the sheer blatant corruption and destructiveness of it. A million lives, millions displaced, trillions wasted. Given the seriousness of the problem, dismissing this war criminal's misdeeds with airy dismissals is much more an indicator of tribal colours.

It would be hard to beat Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but there have been so many horrors it's very difficult to find a 'worst'.

[Greta]

Bush-talk merely states the tribal/gang colors.

Hardly. He committed the worst war crime I've ever known from a western government in my lifetime. I and many others wee shocked at the time at the sheer blatant corruption and destructiveness of it. A million lives, millions displaced, trillions wasted. Given the seriousness of the problem, dismissing this war criminal's misdeeds with airy dismissals is much more an indicator of tribal colours.

It would be hard to beat Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but there have been so many horrors it's very difficult to find a 'worst'.

That was before my time

Good point TSBU about blame. Yes, who knows what was wrong with GWB, Cheney, Wolfowitz etc to lead them to the Iraq invasion. Who knows what makes Walker prefer one side of politics and me the other? Studies suggest that the reasons people give for political affiliations tend to be post hoc rationalisations and to a fair extent the preferences come down to one's sense of identification, the kind of person you are in some areas.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

That was before my time

I missed the 'my lifetime' part.

[Walker]

Wasn't this about how to blame people? You can see it very well in the posts

Nit picker.

You blame people with morality.

Speaking of which ...

*

January 7, 2017

Liberals Awake from 8-Year Moral Coma
By Jeffrey T. Brown

For eight years, the voices of what passes for morality on the left were utterly silent as the values of generations of Americans were flushed down the drain. Those Americans whose desires, experiences and values differed from the leftist elite were treated as worthless garbage, no longer necessary to the imminent liberal utopia, except as a source of revenue. Christianity was treated like a virus to be extinguished, or revised and controlled to accommodate leftist ideology. Speech that offended the shameless was branded as hateful, and those daring to openly object to the onslaught of vice and immorality were falsely smeared with every vile epithet the liberals could conjure. Rights were relegated to what Democrats were willing to grant their enemies, but we were never going to be entitled to privileges they reserved to themselves.

Our nation has been assaulted for eight long years by those who contributed nothing of substance to its successes, but were eager to pillage its resources to fund and advance their political agenda. Every means possible to offend and marginalize their political opposition was employed, so that decent people were called racists, “phobes,” haters, deniers, liars, morons, bullies, and many unprintable things, all for wishing to have a say in what was being done to them by the left, and for possibly stopping the moral, philosophical and physical violence that have always been tools of leftist overthrow.

Few, if any, leftists/liberals/socialists/Democrats seemed troubled by what was done by them, or on their behalf by those they put into political office, or by those who appointed themselves cultural spokesmen. It was perfectly American, as they saw it, to smear, defame, slander, coerce, intimidate, fine and even jail those who refused allegiance to a movement premised upon anarchy and social collapse. They were winning, after all, so they got to be the team and the referee, and they made up the rules. In their minds, nothing existed of the United States before eight years ago, and this country consisted only of what they turned it into. With their president at the helm, they tried to remake America into a giant version of themselves, soulless and amoral. They tried to make it un-American.

Suddenly, however, with their political triumph derailed, they have emerged from their self-induced moral coma to pretend they have conscience. Now, after eight years of neglect, fraud, manipulation, scandal, deception, cheating and tyranny, they have found their voices. Now we are treated to an endless chorus of newly virtuous voices, uniting in purity to stop the coming disaster of representative government under the sway of someone other than an America-hating, Israel-hating, Constitution-hating, Iran-loving, terrorist-enabling ruler with a pen and a phone, willing to do anything as long as it was destructive to this country and all it has stood for over generations.

We are awash in leftist, progressive, liberal mystics, telling us through tears and in panicked tones exactly what Donald Trump’s presidency will look like and how it will end, before he has held the job for even one second. In hysterics, they speak of the un-American things Trump will do in the future, and how “afraid” the leftists are of someone whose personal history shows no hint of the things they predict. Bruce Springsteen expresses his concerns about competence, and the newly dark dynamic that Trump allegedly brings to politics. Robert Reich produces instructional videos for mindless liberals about how Trump controls the media message, which is a harbinger of tyranny. Where have these people been for eight years?

As we hear each of these predictions, some of us are struck by a recurring sense of deja vu. It’s as if we’ve already seen all the chaos and mayhem that they predict will occur, not just once but innumerable times. Indeed, it almost feels like we can trace the beginning of our deja vu back eight years, before a man with no identifiable accomplishments to his name other than being half-black and hip eluded all scrutiny before his election as president; before race relations were destroyed for political profit; before people lost their livelihoods for not bending to government coercion; before people lost their health insurance on the basis of lies; before anti-white racism became fashionable; before the press was merely an extension of the Democratic Party; before our military and security were sacrificed to social justice; before our college students became simpering toddlers without an original thought; before our country sold out to Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood; before science was rendered meaningless in order to advance political goals; before we ignored laundry lists of felonies by Democrats; before it was cool to assassinate police; before our southern border was erased; before those same liberals tacitly invited every terrorist who could walk or say “refugee” to enter our country, plant roots, and plan the inevitable attacks; and before our president and his followers became the laughingstock of the civilized world.

Suddenly, after eight years in which their secret mantra seems to have been “Make America Hate Again,” they protest that the notion of stopping their immoral destruction of our country is itself immoral and hateful. Many of us have noticed that the damage they forecast, the shredding of our national fabric, has been well underway for eight years, and that their unhinged reaction to being stopped from finishing the job is far more morally disgusting than anything Donald Trump could do to make us the United States again.

Morality, like truth, isn’t supposed to be a prop, trotted out when necessary to trick the gullible. Leftists are purveyors of subjective morality, which is a fungible entity, almost always being interchangeable with political expedience. For them, an act becomes “moral” as soon as it advances whatever goal they seek to accomplish. When treated to subjective morality from a member of the political party that has entirely eschewed objective morality, we should reject everything that person says the moment it leaves their lips. Like the limits and prescriptions of the Constitution, they only ever invoke objective morality when they are not in power, and seek to influence those whose emotions have outpaced their intellect.

There is much work to be done, but we needn’t pause to consider lectures on morality from amoral people. Those who are still Americans will rebuild what was wrecked by those who have become something else. While we do so, we would be wise to remember that those who are transitioning from Americans to “something else” are determined to finish the job. If given another chance, they will happily force us to live in their corrupt, coercive Orwellian zoo. They won’t rest until they control everything, and we are compelled to do whatever they want, for whatever reason they say. That is, they won’t rest until we are no longer free people living in the United States, but rather are just a means of funding the overthrow of a country designed to prevent the corruption and tyranny they showed us for eight long, morality-free years.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... _coma.html

[Walker]

Bush-talk merely states the tribal/gang colors.

Hardly. He committed the worst war crime I've ever known from a western government in my lifetime. I and many others wee shocked at the time at the sheer blatant corruption and destructiveness of it. A million lives, millions displaced, trillions wasted. Given the seriousness of the problem, dismissing this war criminal's misdeeds with airy dismissals is much more an indicator of tribal colours.

Then to elaborate, Bush was Dem wearing an elephant suit.

WWI: Wilson-Democrat
WWII: Roosevelt-Democrat
Korea: Truman-Democrat
Vietnam: Kennedy/Johnson-Democrats (ended with Nixon-R)
Carter-Democrat/Clinton-Democrat: inept use of power escalating anti-US aggression.

[TSBU]

Wasn't this about how to blame people? You can see it very well in the posts

Nit picker.

You blame people with morality.

Speaking of which ...

*

January 7, 2017

Liberals Awake from 8-Year Moral Coma
By Jeffrey T. Brown

For eight years, the voices of what passes for morality on the left were utterly silent as the values of generations of Americans were flushed down the drain. Those Americans whose desires, experiences and values differed from the leftist elite were treated as worthless garbage, no longer necessary to the imminent liberal utopia, except as a source of revenue. Christianity was treated like a virus to be extinguished, or revised and controlled to accommodate leftist ideology. Speech that offended the shameless was branded as hateful, and those daring to openly object to the onslaught of vice and immorality were falsely smeared with every vile epithet the liberals could conjure. Rights were relegated to what Democrats were willing to grant their enemies, but we were never going to be entitled to privileges they reserved to themselves.

Our nation has been assaulted for eight long years by those who contributed nothing of substance to its successes, but were eager to pillage its resources to fund and advance their political agenda. Every means possible to offend and marginalize their political opposition was employed, so that decent people were called racists, “phobes,” haters, deniers, liars, morons, bullies, and many unprintable things, all for wishing to have a say in what was being done to them by the left, and for possibly stopping the moral, philosophical and physical violence that have always been tools of leftist overthrow.

Few, if any, leftists/liberals/socialists/Democrats seemed troubled by what was done by them, or on their behalf by those they put into political office, or by those who appointed themselves cultural spokesmen. It was perfectly American, as they saw it, to smear, defame, slander, coerce, intimidate, fine and even jail those who refused allegiance to a movement premised upon anarchy and social collapse. They were winning, after all, so they got to be the team and the referee, and they made up the rules. In their minds, nothing existed of the United States before eight years ago, and this country consisted only of what they turned it into. With their president at the helm, they tried to remake America into a giant version of themselves, soulless and amoral. They tried to make it un-American.

Suddenly, however, with their political triumph derailed, they have emerged from their self-induced moral coma to pretend they have conscience. Now, after eight years of neglect, fraud, manipulation, scandal, deception, cheating and tyranny, they have found their voices. Now we are treated to an endless chorus of newly virtuous voices, uniting in purity to stop the coming disaster of representative government under the sway of someone other than an America-hating, Israel-hating, Constitution-hating, Iran-loving, terrorist-enabling ruler with a pen and a phone, willing to do anything as long as it was destructive to this country and all it has stood for over generations.

We are awash in leftist, progressive, liberal mystics, telling us through tears and in panicked tones exactly what Donald Trump’s presidency will look like and how it will end, before he has held the job for even one second. In hysterics, they speak of the un-American things Trump will do in the future, and how “afraid” the leftists are of someone whose personal history shows no hint of the things they predict. Bruce Springsteen expresses his concerns about competence, and the newly dark dynamic that Trump allegedly brings to politics. Robert Reich produces instructional videos for mindless liberals about how Trump controls the media message, which is a harbinger of tyranny. Where have these people been for eight years?

As we hear each of these predictions, some of us are struck by a recurring sense of deja vu. It’s as if we’ve already seen all the chaos and mayhem that they predict will occur, not just once but innumerable times. Indeed, it almost feels like we can trace the beginning of our deja vu back eight years, before a man with no identifiable accomplishments to his name other than being half-black and hip eluded all scrutiny before his election as president; before race relations were destroyed for political profit; before people lost their livelihoods for not bending to government coercion; before people lost their health insurance on the basis of lies; before anti-white racism became fashionable; before the press was merely an extension of the Democratic Party; before our military and security were sacrificed to social justice; before our college students became simpering toddlers without an original thought; before our country sold out to Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood; before science was rendered meaningless in order to advance political goals; before we ignored laundry lists of felonies by Democrats; before it was cool to assassinate police; before our southern border was erased; before those same liberals tacitly invited every terrorist who could walk or say “refugee” to enter our country, plant roots, and plan the inevitable attacks; and before our president and his followers became the laughingstock of the civilized world.

Suddenly, after eight years in which their secret mantra seems to have been “Make America Hate Again,” they protest that the notion of stopping their immoral destruction of our country is itself immoral and hateful. Many of us have noticed that the damage they forecast, the shredding of our national fabric, has been well underway for eight years, and that their unhinged reaction to being stopped from finishing the job is far more morally disgusting than anything Donald Trump could do to make us the United States again.

Morality, like truth, isn’t supposed to be a prop, trotted out when necessary to trick the gullible. Leftists are purveyors of subjective morality, which is a fungible entity, almost always being interchangeable with political expedience. For them, an act becomes “moral” as soon as it advances whatever goal they seek to accomplish. When treated to subjective morality from a member of the political party that has entirely eschewed objective morality, we should reject everything that person says the moment it leaves their lips. Like the limits and prescriptions of the Constitution, they only ever invoke objective morality when they are not in power, and seek to influence those whose emotions have outpaced their intellect.

There is much work to be done, but we needn’t pause to consider lectures on morality from amoral people. Those who are still Americans will rebuild what was wrecked by those who have become something else. While we do so, we would be wise to remember that those who are transitioning from Americans to “something else” are determined to finish the job. If given another chance, they will happily force us to live in their corrupt, coercive Orwellian zoo. They won’t rest until they control everything, and we are compelled to do whatever they want, for whatever reason they say. That is, they won’t rest until we are no longer free people living in the United States, but rather are just a means of funding the overthrow of a country designed to prevent the corruption and tyranny they showed us for eight long, morality-free years.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... _coma.html

I blame people with no brain, like you, who don't understand a fucking word.

If someone reads your post, please put a line here so that I can anoy about a person reading so long shit.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Bush-talk merely states the tribal/gang colors.

Hardly. He committed the worst war crime I've ever known from a western government in my lifetime. I and many others wee shocked at the time at the sheer blatant corruption and destructiveness of it. A million lives, millions displaced, trillions wasted. Given the seriousness of the problem, dismissing this war criminal's misdeeds with airy dismissals is much more an indicator of tribal colours.

Then to elaborate, Bush was Dem wearing an elephant suit.

WWI: Wilson-Democrat
WWII: Roosevelt-Democrat
Korea: Truman-Democrat
Vietnam: Kennedy/Johnson-Democrats (ended with Nixon-R)
Carter-Democrat/Clinton-Democrat: inept use of power escalating anti-US aggression.

So both sides are warmongers. What's your point? What's wrong with Jimmy Carter?

[Walker]

The point is right there, plain as day (idiom). Keep looking. Start with symbol recognition. Figure out the recurring shape of the ideogram from your selection that grabbed your attention. Then, move on to the meaning of the symbol. In determining the fullness of the meaning, ask why, often. I think if you do this, you may discover new thoughts. And if not, ain't no blame.

From the Perspective of The Big Picture, why in the hell would U.S. History be removed as a course requirement for graduation as a history major from a U.S. University’s college of history? Makes one wonder.