Norman Rockwell's America is on life support ...

[dogtag]

and failing fast. President Trump is pumping it full
of Adrenaline for now, but how long can that last ?
The democrats, aka liberals, aka socialists aka communists
are determined and will do anything to win the upcoming
election. They'll flood the polls with illegals, dead, dying,
the illiterate and shop window dummies. Asylum escapees
like Bernie Sanders and Maxine Waters are drawing crowds
of whooping followers who probably can't count further than
eleven but are excited by the promise of everything being free.
Florida and Arizona are now toss-ups instead of being solid
Republican enclaves, and Texas is under attack with immigrants
being shipped in. Never underestimate your enemy, so even
though Trump's support seems solid, enough conniving by
the libs could upset things and bring his campaign promises
to an abrupt halt. Then we'll have nothing but chaos and maybe
my earlier prediction that Trump would hand the reins to his VP
and get the Hell out of Dodge could come true.
And I wouldn't blame him one bit for if the people don't appreciate
what he's doing enough to vote then why bother.


https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...mocrats-219008

Actually, Norman Rockwell's America vanished years ago along with Route 66.

[togor]

DT, did you know that Rockwell was a liberal? His art style embraced a certain cultural populism, but you won't find any paintings critical of Roosevelt's New Deal, and among his output you find some like those below. And also check out his Four Freedoms Series, which is directly inspired by Roosevelt's 1942 Speech with the same theme, which is really the basis for America's role as a driver of freedom in the postwar world. I note that most here have decided that this theme no longer matters.

So you may be right, DT, but not in the way you think. Rockwell would surely not approve of the creeping darkness that is Trumpism. He would not be happy painting scenes at government-run child internment centers.

[Bill D]

Ahh, yes! But Norman Rockwell liberalism back then would now be fairly solid conservatism. Today’s liberals are looney birds that I doubt Rockwell would even want to illustrate.

[togor]

So Bill D which facets of the New Deal do you support? That should be an easy one.

[clintonhater]

He would not be happy painting scenes at government-run child internment centers.

Nobody but the Trump-hating media is happy about that. But it's a situation foreign invaders have FORCED on those attempting, against great odds, to preserve some semblance of law & order at our border.

And that "Golden Rule" painting was never intended to be an endorsement for destroying the national character & culture of this country! Look it up--it was a generalized depiction of FOREIGN peoples & cultures living in their own countries, not invading western nations.

[togor]

However you parse it, CH, Rockwell's painting is hardly an endorsement of America First. And Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, put to canvas by Rockwell, you no longer believe in those either. So why not just concede the point? If your beliefs don't jibe with Rockwell, just say so. Maybe we can get Trump to tweet about it, so that it's abundantly clear--you hate Rockwell too.

[clintonhater]

If your beliefs don't jibe with Rockwell, just say so.

That's what was clearly implied, but for the benefit of the dense, I'll say so loud & clear! Roger that?

Not sharing his beliefs doesn't mean anyone hates him, but like many other artists, his understanding of the REAL world was infantile.

As for "freedom of religion," it's maybe the best possible example of a reasonable idea taken to such a radical extreme that it becomes UNreasonable. A dramatic & pernicious demonstration--as when Satanism becomes in some places a "recognized religion"--of unintended consequences. Anyway, freedom of religion was never meant to extend beyond the private practice of religion--it included no "right" to be represented in the public sphere, as when ragheads demand their symbols be exhibited anytime Christian symbols are publically displayed.

And freedom of religion has never been absolute! Animal sacrifice is illegal (though of course it goes on secretly), though it's a part of many religions, including ragheadism.

[Tuna]

Togor you do have to remember that FDR was NOT a liberal Democrat. By todays standards he would have been a bit right of center. For example he was fine with the way things were with the Blackman in the south. He saw no need to change that. It was his wife who was the most liberal end of their family and turned out to be a reputed lesbian. She was the one who was pushing FDR to make the Blackman equal in all things. He gave her a few tidbits to help keep her quite and out of his hair. Now Norman Rockwell was a Democrat but by todays standards he was a middle of the road moderate. Nothing wrong with that at all. By todays standards only about 20% of the Democratic party is of the ultra liberal standing. They run the party but only because they control the money for the party. Now they are going on a gutting spree to replace those in Congress who they feel are not enough liberal for them. So say good bye to the likes of Diane Feinstein who was going for her 5th term as a US senator. I understand Chucky was told to get more liberal or he is next too. Nancy Pelosi in the mix too I was told so it looks like the party may be getting gutted of it's top people in Washington. If they turn around an run as Independents then will their replacements get elected? Will the replaced get elected or will the people swing to a Republican come the mid terms? Time will tell and it very well may be interesting.

[Jiminvirginia]

So let me dumb this down so I can understand it. If you are single, have a kid, and do something illegal you may be arrested and go to jail. I assume your child does not go with you and eventually ends up in foster care.
Now if you are a citizen of country "X" and try to illegally enter this country with your child it is expected that your child stays with you?
The operative word I believe is illegal. As in against the law.

[togor]

FDR's Democratic party had northern democrats and southern democrats, this is true. They had little in common except for the fact that they both were Democrats. Yes, Roosevelt was not an obvious champion of civil rights, but when push came to shove, he did some new things, such as executive order 8802.

But consistently, Roosevelt was a champion of working people, and unafraid to put the power of the Federal Government on the side of working folks. What do you think Roosevelt would say to the idea that money = speech, and Corporations = people, but unions != people...? All bedrock concepts of modern conservatism, along with shrinking the safety net. If anyone backs Trump and yet somehow thinks that they've kept faith with FDR and what he believed in, they're kidding themself. Compare Roosevelt's Four Freedoms speech to Trump's inaugural address. The two could not be further apart in how they look at America's place in the world. Links to both texts below for your convenience.

http://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/fdr-the-four-freedoms-speech-text/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings...gural-address/

[bruce]

That's what was clearly implied, but for the benefit of the dense, I'll say so loud & clear! Roger that?

Not sharing his beliefs doesn't mean anyone hates him, but like many other artists, his understanding of the REAL world was infantile.

As for "freedom of religion," it's maybe the best possible example of a reasonable idea taken to such a radical extreme that it becomes UNreasonable. A dramatic & pernicious demonstration--as when Satanism becomes in some places a "recognized religion"--of unintended consequences. Anyway, freedom of religion was never meant to extend beyond the private practice of religion--it included no "right" to be represented in the public sphere, as when ragheads demand their symbols be exhibited anytime Christian symbols are publically displayed.

And freedom of religion has never been absolute! Animal sacrifice is illegal (though of course it goes on secretly), though it's a part of many religions, including ragheadism.

Re: Freedom of religion ... taken to radical extreme, etc. You are profoundly misinformed. There is nothing at all reasonable about the idea of freedom of religion. That is what makes it so very hard for so many to take. They want the free exercise of personal/corporate religious faith to be "reasonable," i.e., conceived and practiced within bounds prescribed by and acceptable to the general public. That is not freedom of religion. That is merely personal/corporate exercise of religious commitment within a prescribed social norm set by someone other than those who seek to practice their religious faith.

Freedom of religion was never intended to only have a personal private application. It was from the very start intended to protect the rights of individuals and of individuals acting together corporately. It was never at all in any way stated much less expected that religious practice either personal or corporate would not be in the "public sphere." Again, from the very start, religious practice was a normal part of everyday community life. Religious practice was not only one but many expressions, some of which were at times not well received to the point that individuals who followed those particular faith traditions were persecuted.

As with each of the other items referenced in the Bill of Rights, freedom of religion is not supreme to the exclusion of all else, the same as freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc., etc. But, freedom of religion is no more subject to the objection of those it inconveniences than is the freedom to keep and bear arms subordinate to the objections of those who find such freedom problematic.

When it comes to a grasp of reality, artist are often most capable of visualizing and conveying reality in a way that allows others to grasp what would otherwise at the least be difficult to understand. Sincerely. bruce.

[JohnPeeff]

TOGOR, FDR also signed Exec order 9066.

[S.A. Boggs]

Togor doesn't understand because Togor is "of the world" unlike people of faith who are "in the world" and understand the concept. Christians are bigots, hateful speech, mean spirited because we do not go along with the sin of the world. My Christian Faith will not kill you if you disagree, all I can do is to bring the message of Salvation. Other religions will kill you if you oppose them, as we have seen with 911. Togor is blind to the reality of sin and this is what makes Togor dangerous to those who will listen to Togor. In the past and present Christianity in an obtuse form has been used by Satan and his followers. Funny this conversation parallels that of our Sunday School lesson next week of Defending the Faith from the Gospel of Jude 3-4 as I was studying the lesson this morning.
Sam

[Bill E]

+1

[togor]

Togor doesn't understand because Togor is "of the world" unlike people of faith who are "in the world" and understand the concept. Christians are bigots, hateful speech, mean spirited because we do not go along with the sin of the world. My Christian Faith will not kill you if you disagree, all I can do is to bring the message of Salvation. Other religions will kill you if you oppose them, as we have seen with 911. Togor is blind to the reality of sin and this is what makes Togor dangerous to those who will listen to Togor. In the past and present Christianity in an obtuse form has been used by Satan and his followers. Funny this conversation parallels that of our Sunday School lesson next week of Defending the Faith from the Gospel of Jude 3-4 as I was studying the lesson this morning.
Sam

You mountain folk sure have a quaint way of looking at things. And I'll stack my history of posts here upholding basic norms of Christian decency against yours anytime, Sam.