Spem in alium nunquam habui
Praeter in te, Deus Israel
Qui irasceris et propitius eris
et omnia peccata hominum
in tribulatione dimittis... View MoreSpem in alium nunquam habui
Praeter in te, Deus Israel
Qui irasceris et propitius eris
et omnia peccata hominum
in tribulatione dimittis
Domine Deus
Creator caeli et terrae
respice humilitatem nostram.
(I have never put my hope in any other
but in You, O God of Israel
who can show both anger and graciousness,
and who absolves all the sins
of suffering man
Lord God,
Creator of Heaven and Earth
be mindful of our lowliness.)
CD: The Tallis Scholars sing Thomas Tallis / Spem In Alium
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT-ZAAi4UQQ
Spem In Alium (Thomas Tallis) - Tallis Scholars
Spem in alium nunquam habui
Praeter in te, Deus Israel
Qui irasceris et propitius eris
et omnia peccata hominum
in tribulatione dimittis
Domine Deus
Creator caeli et terrae
respice humilitatem nostram
Just a dagger in the gut.
No worse than anyone else's.
Everbody bleeds.
Everybody hurts.
Carry on, soldier.
[someone on my FB page]
David Treibs hopefully there are remedies!!
5h
Reply
David Treibs... View More[someone on my FB page]
David Treibs hopefully there are remedies!!
5h
Reply
David Treibs
[to person] The "remedy" depends somewhat on which problem you are addressing.
Teresa actually referenced the "remedy" when she said "attempting to overthrow the meeting."
That 100% misrepresentation was the remedy to Bruce violating Robert's Rules and refusing to allow the CEC to vote, which blocked the will of the majority, interfering with the CEC's right and duty to control the election, surrendering the Republican Party's control of most of the election to Jim Riley.
The "remedy" is found in Robert's Rules 62:8-9, which gives the CEC the means to properly override the chairman when the chairman is refusing to follow the will of the majority, which is what he is supposed to be doing.
Bruce refused to acknowledge Robert's Rules. (Bruce was the one breaking the rules and being out of order.)
Teresa was appointed by Bruce, so it is not surprising that she is defending him. But, it is disappointing.
What needed to happen was that a majority of CEC members needed to vote against Bruce's ruling.
Unfortunately, not enough members understood what was happening, or they didn't have the nerve to challenge Bruce, or they agreed with Bruce, or something. Also, I messed up at one point in that I failed to take the "nay" votes, and if anyone had abstained, we would have won.
As it was, Bruce called the police on me, presumably to remove me from the meeting. It is against the rules for Bruce to remove someone from the meeting using the police. Bruce also unilaterally put the meeting into recess, which I think is also against Robert's Rules. At one point Bruce ignored my points of order, which is also against the rules.
In short, the "remedy" to Bruce ignoring the majority was for the CEC to override Bruce, but that didn't happen. We have no one to blame but ourselves.
Until enough CEC members have the understanding and nerve to stand up against an out of control County Chairman, we will have no remedy.
Probably a better remedy is to elect a different County Chairman. We'll have that opportunity March 3.
A struggle has been occurring in the Gillespie Republican County Executive Committee for months.
Here are some points related to it:
The majority of the CEC wanted the 9-1-25 contract for election... View MoreA struggle has been occurring in the Gillespie Republican County Executive Committee for months.
Here are some points related to it:
The majority of the CEC wanted the 9-1-25 contract for election services with the county, and actually voted for it as it was presented.
Bruce Campbell, the County Chairman, didn't want the contract to pass, so he violated Robert's Rules of order to keep it from passing.
He violated the rights of the members to vote on motions.
He interfered with the CEC's authority to conduct the election.
That sounds to me like interfering with the conduct of an election.
He also ensured that non-transparent, vulnerable electronic voting machines that are connected to the internet are used in our election, contrary to the Republican Party Platform, which we supposedly support.
He also blocked the CEC from exercising control of most of a REPUBLICAN election.
Imagine that, it's a Republican election, but we have no say over most of it, and that was the position Bruce defended.
Our oath is to the Constitution and the law; not the Secretary of State. Did you know the SOS is also opposing us having a closed primary?
The law says we supervise the election, and not just part of it.
The law says Jim Riley is supposed to provide the services we request; not dictate to us how he wants it done.
According to the law, a governing body--that being the CEC--directs an administrator (Jim Riley) what to do, not the other way around, which is what Bruce was defending.
The SOS is supposed to uphold the law, not contradict it, as they did in their directive telling us that we don't control most of our own election. What an embarrassment that a Republican Chairman is preventing his own party from exercising control of our election.
True conservatives will stand up to government entities that violate the rights of citizens; a true conservative will not work with the establishment to squelch the voice of citizens. A true conservative understands his role as a lesser magistrate.
Bruce has been totally out of line, and needs to be replaced.
I always thought it was a terrible idea to call the US's involvement in the Middle East in the past couple decades as a Crusade.
But then I thought, why not?
Our motivations might have been wrong, a... View MoreI always thought it was a terrible idea to call the US's involvement in the Middle East in the past couple decades as a Crusade.
But then I thought, why not?
Our motivations might have been wrong, and misguided.
Someone wanted us to go there for ulterior motives.
Maybe it was so the military industrial complex could better control the world and/or seize resources.
Maybe it was because of weapons of mass destruction.
Maybe it was Mike Benz' line of reasoning about seize Eurasia.
At least one of the later Crusades was insanely stupid, that being the children's crusade. So, with ours being perhaps out of all bad motives, and not being particularly stupider than the Children's crusade, we nevertheless accomplished a few good things.
We wiped out a lot of Jihadis. Probably several generations of them. They felt the sting of Christian, capitalist power, and could not resist it. They took over again only after we left. Islam was defeated by Christianity as long as we bothered to engage them.
We did empower the spread of Jihad by removing the dictators who kept it in check, that is also another story.
The guys fighting there were able to protect a lot of people there. We won't mention what happened to those people after we withdrew, but while we were there, they had a better life. That was a noble thing.
The guys fighting there also protected their brothers in arms. When all other motivations failed, there was that. That is also noble.
I would agree that we shouldn't have gone there, but we did, so, why can't we call it a Crusade? Maybe the 10th one?
I'm open to discuss the topic.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/are-stupider-and-stupidest-real-words
page=2&profile_user_id=15354&year=&month=
Load More
