(04-15-2019, 01:05 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2019, 11:05 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Does anyone have a problem with Donald Trump, having praised Wikileaks to the heavens during his campaign, saying now that he knows nothing about it? Talk about an Orwellian memory hole!
Sorry, Mr. President, and I have read Nineteen Eighty Four several times since adolescence... and it fits you well, especially on linguistic fraud.
I assume that you are unable to see the signs and associate the blue regime that you currently support as being similar to the one that you read about/ learned about by reading "1984".
Unless one tries to be witty, clever, or poetic, one should keep language as simple as possible. Profound wisdom can express itself in simple raiment, yet utter nonsense can proclaim itself with arrogant use of pomposity. on the one side is the late Bertrand Russell, who expresses himself in ways that a fairly-smart high-school student can understand (if he so cares). In contrast one finds incomprehensible balderdash in the official explanations of Nazi racism, especially in Alfred Rosenberg's
Myth of the Twentieth Century. All I could respond to about a paragraph of its translation is that that is the purest
Scheiss that anyone could have ever written.
Have you ever heard of the Sokal affair?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
Quote:The Sokal affair, also called the Sokal hoax,[1] was a scholarly publishing sting perpetrated by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University and University College London. In 1996, Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal of postmodern cultural studies. The submission was an experiment to test the journal's intellectual rigor and, specifically, to investigate whether "a leading North American journal of cultural studies—whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross—[would] publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions".[2]
The article, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity",[3] was published in the Social Text spring/summer 1996 "Science Wars" issue. It proposed that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct. At that time, the journal did not practice academic peer review and it did not submit the article for outside expert review by a physicist.[4][5] Three weeks after its publication in May 1996, Sokal revealed in Lingua Franca that the article was a hoax.[2]
The hoax sparked a debate about the scholarly merit of commentary on the physical sciences by those in the humanities; the influence of postmodern philosophy on social disciplines in general; academic ethics, including whether Sokal was wrong to deceive the editors and readers of Social Text; and whether Social Text had exercised appropriate intellectual rigor.
I do not have a graduate degree, but I got to see the article and recognized it as patent nonsense -- as is much postmodernist gibberish. I am fully satisfied that nobody needs to transcend the conventions of English to find some higher truth in English. Maybe some specialized material in science and technology is difficult material by its nature -- but on occasion I enjoy reading such material.
Get this straight: there is no higher truth than objective reality. Anyone who claims otherwise lies. Although knowledge and technology may advance, basic truth does not change. The methods that the pre-Christian Greek philosophers used in discerning truth from nonsense remain useful. Human nature does not change, which explains why classical Greek drama remains relevant to this day.
Whenever someone can remember something that Donald Trump says such as "I love Wikileaks" from 2019 and three years later hears him saying that he knows nothing about it. one can recognize him as a liar, a fool, or both. It was useful in 2016, but he denies using it in 2019. Honest people do not do that. Trump is a liar, and he is a fool for believing that there aren't large numbers of people who can juxtapose two contradictory statements and recognize a liar.
I try to keep my communications as simple as I can get away with. I write complex sentences solely because ideas that I deem worthy of discussion are themselves complex. I have talked myself out of two speeding tickets and a parking ticket, but I did not lie. I admitted to mistakes of perception or interpretation of the meaning of a sign.
(04-15-2019, 03:13 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2019, 10:22 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]The polls are likely not to be accurate yet about who will win the nomination and presidency. No prediction about who will win will be relevant until the Democratic nominee is chosen. The skill and strength of the nominee will be critical. The Democrats often blow this, because liberals like us think the country wants what we want: someone who is smart and has the right policies. That's not enough. Americans need to be impressed that the candidate is a strong leader. Skill in connecting with the voters is needed, at the heart and gut levels as well as the head level. That is the pattern I see in looking at who wins and loses presidential elections in the USA.
Actually, this is the argument for Mayor Pete. It's notable that he became more than a bit dyspeptic with the Democrats when he was a college student, wrote a paper about it, and is following his own advice today: forget positions and policy statements and rely on telling a narrative that aligns with people's lives. He's now third n the early polling -- coming out of nowhere. Even if he's not the one, and he's incredibly impressive, his strategy of narrative first should be followed by whoever gets the nod.
It's true, the ability to tell stories has been cited as the trait of winning presidential candidates. He's not the one, but lots of folks are impressive who may not be what Americans look for in a president.
(04-15-2019, 08:34 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Unless one tries to be witty, clever, or poetic, one should keep language as simple as possible. Profound wisdom can express itself in simple raiment, yet utter nonsense can proclaim itself with arrogant use of pomposity. on the one side is the late Bertrand Russell, who expresses himself in ways that a fairly-smart high-school student can understand (if he so cares). In contrast one finds incomprehensible balderdash in the official explanations of Nazi racism, especially in Alfred Rosenberg's Myth of the Twentieth Century. All I could respond to about a paragraph of its translation is that that is the purest Scheiss that anyone could have ever written.
Have you ever heard of the Sokal affair? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
Well, I'm not poetic and I keep it simple. You should listen yourself and take your own advice and stop posting crap/shit/Scheiss like this. Here's the deal, if you are unable to recognize the obvious signs of an oppressive regime and the activities and unwavering ideals associated with oppressive regimes then you shouldn't be propping yourself up with a book that you have read but don't seem have learned anything from doing it several times.
(04-15-2019, 03:18 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Liberals haven't run the government since Lyndon Johnson, so I assume you're referring to liberal dominance of the culture. What can any politician do to change that? The culture is driven by many things, almost none of them tied to the government. You should be happy. It's the model you claim to support.
I agree, the liberals are only capable of dominating blue culture and Democratic voters and politicians these days. Like I said, liberals should be concerned about liberal fatigue setting in among it's own voters. As a suburban woman, I don't know which would be worse, voting for a new Republican ( a female if deemed necessary) who prioritizes lowering the cost of healthcare for everyone and every company that provide it above all or the Democrat who was elected to do it but can't because they're controlled by liberals.
(04-15-2019, 11:55 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2019, 03:13 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2019, 10:22 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]The polls are likely not to be accurate yet about who will win the nomination and presidency. No prediction about who will win will be relevant until the Democratic nominee is chosen. The skill and strength of the nominee will be critical. The Democrats often blow this, because liberals like us think the country wants what we want: someone who is smart and has the right policies. That's not enough. Americans need to be impressed that the candidate is a strong leader. Skill in connecting with the voters is needed, at the heart and gut levels as well as the head level. That is the pattern I see in looking at who wins and loses presidential elections in the USA.
Actually, this is the argument for Mayor Pete. It's notable that he became more than a bit dyspeptic with the Democrats when he was a college student, wrote a paper about it, and is following his own advice today: forget positions and policy statements and rely on telling a narrative that aligns with people's lives. He's now third n the early polling -- coming out of nowhere. Even if he's not the one, and he's incredibly impressive, his strategy of narrative first should be followed by whoever gets the nod.
It's true, the ability to tell stories has been cited as the trait of winning presidential candidates. He's not the one, but lots of folks are impressive who may not be what Americans look for in a president.
Is the Starbuck's dude the one? He's the best one I've seen so far. How is Beto doing? I see he finally figured out the fact he was born a privileged white male despite feeling like an Hispanic.
A democrat might gain an advantage by promising to wage trade wars more consistently and more ruthlessly than Trump.
(04-16-2019, 05:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2019, 03:18 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Liberals haven't run the government since Lyndon Johnson, so I assume you're referring to liberal dominance of the culture. What can any politician do to change that? The culture is driven by many things, almost none of them tied to the government. You should be happy. It's the model you claim to support.
I agree, the liberals are only capable of dominating blue culture and Democratic voters and politicians these days. Like I said, liberals should be concerned about liberal fatigue setting in among it's own voters. As a suburban woman, I don't know which would be worse, voting for a new Republican ( a female if deemed necessary) who prioritizes lowering the cost of healthcare for everyone and every company that provide it above all or the Democrat who was elected to do it but can't because they're controlled by liberals.
Really? The GOP hasn't had an idea in the healthcare or health insurance market since W got Medicare Part D passed with the proviso that the government could never negotiate drug prices under any circumstances -- period! What a sweetie! So if you're talking about something real, and not just some nonsense put out by Fox and Friends, I'm at a loss to figure out what it can possibly be.
(04-16-2019, 05:46 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Is the Starbuck's dude the one? He's the best one I've seen so far. How is Beto doing? I see he finally figured out the fact he was born a privileged white male despite feeling like an Hispanic.
Schultz is out, for all practical purposes. Beto is more theater than candidate. I doubt we know who is viable this early, but, then again, no one saw Trump coming in 2015 either. Check back in the Fall, when the people running for a cabinet post are ready to cash it in, and the field narrows.
(04-17-2019, 11:23 PM)gabrielle Wrote: [ -> ]Bernie Sanders triggers Trump as he seeks to win over his voters
Quote:At a Fox News town hall in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, on Monday night, Sanders mused to the moderators that President Donald Trump, who "watches your network a bit," might be tuned in for the festivities.
The morning after and again on Tuesday night, Trump confirmed Sanders' well-founded suspicion with a series of snappish tweets, alleging the network had "stuffed" the room, which applauded many of the Vermont independent's answers, "with Bernie supporters," after initially -- about 10 hours earlier -- calling it "so weird to watch Crazy Bernie on Fox News."
Indeed, the sight of any Democrat -- much less a democratic socialist running for the party's presidential nomination -- in a venue so closely aligned with the Trump administration, is an unusual one. Sanders' decision to tread those uneven boards upset more than a few liberals commentators, who worried that his presence alone might gift the network some undeserved credibility. For Trump, though, the notes of aggravation in his tweets pointed to a broader new conflict: Here, for the first time, one of the candidates vying to deny him a second term had stood up on his stage, in front of an audience Trump views as his own, and delivered an unflinching case against him.
It's good to see that a few of the Dems are willing to spar with Trump on his chosen ground. That may be the badge of honor that separates the brave from the timid, and timidity has about run its course, don't you think?
(04-17-2019, 05:47 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (04-16-2019, 05:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I agree, the liberals are only capable of dominating blue culture and Democratic voters and politicians these days. Like I said, liberals should be concerned about liberal fatigue setting in among it's own voters. As a suburban woman, I don't know which would be worse, voting for a new Republican ( a female if deemed necessary) who prioritizes lowering the cost of healthcare for everyone and every company that provide it above all or the Democrat who was elected to do it but can't because they're controlled by liberals.
Really? The GOP hasn't had an idea in the healthcare or health insurance market since W got Medicare Part D passed with the proviso that the government could never negotiate drug prices under any circumstances -- period! What a sweetie! So if you're talking about something real, and not just some nonsense put out by Fox and Friends, I'm at a loss to figure out what it can possibly be.
The GOP hasn't transitioned/adjusted to it's new role of representing the interests and serving the needs of middle class voters/ working people in general. Well, you have Medicare Part B available to you today thanks to Bush. Would you be upset or negatively impacted if it was taken away or declared unconstitutional by a conservative court? Once again, we run into the issue that blues are having with living in America with an American government that's limited by the American Constitution.
(04-18-2019, 09:51 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (04-17-2019, 11:23 PM)gabrielle Wrote: [ -> ]Bernie Sanders triggers Trump as he seeks to win over his voters
Quote:At a Fox News town hall in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, on Monday night, Sanders mused to the moderators that President Donald Trump, who "watches your network a bit," might be tuned in for the festivities.
The morning after and again on Tuesday night, Trump confirmed Sanders' well-founded suspicion with a series of snappish tweets, alleging the network had "stuffed" the room, which applauded many of the Vermont independent's answers, "with Bernie supporters," after initially -- about 10 hours earlier -- calling it "so weird to watch Crazy Bernie on Fox News."
Indeed, the sight of any Democrat -- much less a democratic socialist running for the party's presidential nomination -- in a venue so closely aligned with the Trump administration, is an unusual one. Sanders' decision to tread those uneven boards upset more than a few liberals commentators, who worried that his presence alone might gift the network some undeserved credibility. For Trump, though, the notes of aggravation in his tweets pointed to a broader new conflict: Here, for the first time, one of the candidates vying to deny him a second term had stood up on his stage, in front of an audience Trump views as his own, and delivered an unflinching case against him.
It's good to see that a few of the Dems are willing to spar with Trump on his chosen ground. That may be the badge of honor that separates the brave from the timid, and timidity has about run its course, don't you think?
You're more willing to spar with Trump on his so called ground when you know that the audience is packed with loyal supporters and potential or likely supporters. From what I saw, I thought the moderators did a decent job making him look like an old fool who doesn't seem to realize how far American society has advanced in it's understanding of how the world works these days. I can tell this, the folks who eagerly raised their hands when asked who would be willing to give up the health insurance they have to receive government health insurance didn't go through crap that I and most business's did with Obamacare.
(04-17-2019, 01:05 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: [ -> ]A democrat might gain an advantage by promising to wage trade wars more consistently and more ruthlessly than Trump.
I doubt that will happen. The Democrats are reliant upon tax dollars and millions in campaign contributions and political funding from all kinds of wealthy people and the idea of causing financial disruption and hardship related to them scares the crap out of most Democrat's these days.
(04-18-2019, 11:17 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]The GOP hasn't transitioned/adjusted to it's new role of representing the interests and serving the needs of middle class voters/ working people in general. Well, you have Medicare Part B available to you today thanks to Bush. Would you be upset or negatively impacted if it was taken away or declared unconstitutional by a conservative court? Once again, we run into the issue that blues are having with living in America with an American government that's limited by the American Constitution.
A lot to respond to here:
- The GOP has been the business party since day one, and that hasn't changed. Under Trump, it's all business interests all the time, so representing the interests of middle class voters is not in their wheelhouse. Since the advent of Reagan, the Dems aren't any better, though that seems to finally be changing.
- Medicare Part B is part of the original Medicare from the Lyndon Johnson era. Bush added Part D, which is a give away to the private market on more than one level. Other countries negotiate drug prices directly.
- I can't see the Supremes having a problem with Part D, which is, after all, a GOP program. Why would they? It's so far in their wheelhouse, it's manning the helm.
- And let's not forget that it's Trump who can't seem to stay inside the lines, not the Dems. If the Supremes kill the ACA, which might happen out of partisan pique, you can be sure that the replacement will follow the Medicare rules: make it tax based and universal.
(04-18-2019, 12:40 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2019, 09:51 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]It's good to see that a few of the Dems are willing to spar with Trump on his chosen ground. That may be the badge of honor that separates the brave from the timid, and timidity has about run its course, don't you think?
You're more willing to spar with Trump on his so called ground when you know that the audience is packed with loyal supporters and potential or likely supporters. From what I saw, I thought the moderators did a decent job making him look like an old fool who doesn't seem to realize how far American society has advanced in it's understanding of how the world works these days. I can tell this, the folks who eagerly raised their hands when asked who would be willing to give up the health insurance they have to receive government health insurance didn't go through crap that I and most business's did with Obamacare.
For once, Fox didn't operate in full Trumpian mode, and the results show it. Sorry, but Murdock Media are hyper partisans everywhere they have a presence. That a little, and I do mean little, balance emerged is heartening, if highly limited in scope. Fox is now hiring a real Dem (Donna Bazile) as a commentator -- not a host, mind you. MSNBC has many Reps as commentators and one, Nicole Wallace, has her own show. Fox is still Unfair and Imbalanced. Why are the conservatives so afraid of other opinions?
(04-18-2019, 04:29 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2019, 12:40 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2019, 09:51 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]It's good to see that a few of the Dems are willing to spar with Trump on his chosen ground. That may be the badge of honor that separates the brave from the timid, and timidity has about run its course, don't you think?
You're more willing to spar with Trump on his so called ground when you know that the audience is packed with loyal supporters and potential or likely supporters. From what I saw, I thought the moderators did a decent job making him look like an old fool who doesn't seem to realize how far American society has advanced in it's understanding of how the world works these days. I can tell this, the folks who eagerly raised their hands when asked who would be willing to give up the health insurance they have to receive government health insurance didn't go through crap that I and most business's did with Obamacare.
For once, Fox didn't operate in full Trumpian mode, and the results show it. Sorry, but Murdock Media are hyper partisans everywhere they have a presence. That a little, and I do mean little, balance emerged is heartening, if highly limited in scope. Fox is now hiring a real Dem (Donna Bazile) as a commentator -- not a host, mind you. MSNBC has many Reps as commentators and one, Nicole Wallace, has her own show. Fox is still Unfair and Imbalanced. Why are the conservatives so afraid of other opinions?
Fox News already has quite a few Democratic commentators/contributors on its payroll. You just don't see many irrational liberals who are more interested in screaming and yelling and being rude and drawing attention to themselves these days. I assume that you're not a regular viewer. I assume if you were, you would know Fox News has several and you wouldn't view the hiring of another as a big deal. Me, I think Fox News is pretty fair and balanced compared to CNN and MSNBC.
Conservatives aren't afraid of other opinions. We may not be interested in them or view them as legitimate or applicable or relevant but we aren't afraid of them. How many conservatives are you aware of who couldn't handle opinions and placed a liberal on ignore? Have I ever cowered to your opinion or a liberal group who shared your opinion or a rather large forum that was packed with liberals who shared the same negative opinions as you about conservatives?
(04-18-2019, 08:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2019, 04:29 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2019, 12:40 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2019, 09:51 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]It's good to see that a few of the Dems are willing to spar with Trump on his chosen ground. That may be the badge of honor that separates the brave from the timid, and timidity has about run its course, don't you think?
You're more willing to spar with Trump on his so called ground when you know that the audience is packed with loyal supporters and potential or likely supporters. From what I saw, I thought the moderators did a decent job making him look like an old fool who doesn't seem to realize how far American society has advanced in it's understanding of how the world works these days. I can tell this, the folks who eagerly raised their hands when asked who would be willing to give up the health insurance they have to receive government health insurance didn't go through crap that I and most business's did with Obamacare.
For once, Fox didn't operate in full Trumpian mode, and the results show it. Sorry, but Murdock Media are hyper partisans everywhere they have a presence. That a little, and I do mean little, balance emerged is heartening, if highly limited in scope. Fox is now hiring a real Dem (Donna Bazile) as a commentator -- not a host, mind you. MSNBC has many Reps as commentators and one, Nicole Wallace, has her own show. Fox is still Unfair and Imbalanced. Why are the conservatives so afraid of other opinions?
Fox News already has quite a few Democratic commentators/contributors on its payroll. You just don't see many irrational liberals who are more interested in screaming and yelling and being rude and drawing attention to themselves these days. I assume that you're not a regular viewer. I assume if you were, you would know Fox News has several and you wouldn't view the hiring of another as a big deal. Me, I think Fox News is pretty fair and balanced compared to CNN and MSNBC.
Those irrational leftists are the sorts that FoX Newspeak Channel's reporters show (and programming editors) as examples of the horror of 'the Left'.
Quote:Conservatives aren't afraid of other opinions. We may not be interested in them or view them as legitimate or applicable or relevant but we aren't afraid of them. How many conservatives are you aware of who couldn't handle opinions and placed a liberal on ignore? Have I ever cowered to your opinion or a liberal group who shared your opinion or a rather large forum that was packed with liberals who shared the same negative opinions as you about conservatives?
The current right-wing elite prefers that liberalism become irrelevant so that Americans can accept that the only way in which to survive is to defer to the all-powerful elites of ownership and management. Such people are closer to the sorts of aristocratic elites who dominated political life in much of central Europe before World War II than to what I would consider conservatives -- and they were the backers of local fascists who destroyed democracy.
We liberals are usually far more polite than the bigots on race and religion that troll Forums such as this. We do not express racial or religious bigotry, and if we are white we like to consider such irrelevant to bigger things, like right and wrong. You ought to see some of the comment threads on YouTube on topics of World War II. There are people who will bring up the Holocaust and say that the Jews were thwarted of their plot to dominate and exploit the world. Such should be shameful.
The genuine conservatives slap down this stuff as I do -- such as telling some antisemite "I'd rather be a Jew than you". But note that this is genuine conservatives, people who endorse capitalism as the optimum never to be challenged by even a well-meaning and efficient welfare state.
I have big problems with people who deprecate formal learning, one of the few reliable ways to ensure that children are not condemned to repeat the poverty of their parents. I have big problems with people who would destroy unions just to have cheap labor that can be treated irresponsibly. I have big problems with homophobia and religious bigotry. I have big problems with people who see any international scrape having a solution that requires more weapons.
OK, this is what this thread is really about. The British put historical markers at sites of historical events such as "Here, Charles Darwin wrote
The Origin of Species", "Here was born General Bernard Montgomery", Here, Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin", or "Here the Beatles first held a concert".
Trump supporters don't seem to be the sorts who do much foreign travel as such would violate their ideas of comfort with the familiar. But if they did they would not like to see this marker:
![[Image: get?url=https%3A%2F%2Fscreenshotscdn.fir...=320&h=304]](https://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=https%3A%2F%2Fscreenshotscdn.firefoxusercontent.com%2Fimages%2Fa033001e-99cc-4d2c-998d-42d578d24bd3.png&key=kAsnYv-5LJq3BFTQeKZBLw&w=320&h=304)
(04-19-2019, 01:05 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]OK, this is what this thread is really about. The British put historical markers at sites of historical events such as "Here, Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species", "Here was born General Bernard Montgomery", Here, Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin", or "Here the Beatles first held a concert".
Trump supporters don't seem to be the sorts who do much foreign travel as such would violate their ideas of comfort with the familiar. But if they did they would not like to see this marker:
I'd prefer to purchase a really nice boat or some property than sacrifice/spend the same amount of money on a trip/some trips to Europe. Now, you can spend several thousands of dollars to see that stuff if you want and several thousands more seeing other places abroad as well. I don't care what you do with your money or what you prefer to spend it on and so forth. But here's the deal, if you spend your money on traveling abroad and run into financial issues down the road don't cry to me or blame the world for your situation or blame the Republicans or Republican because they're more practical and/or economically minded when it comes to spending their money and so forth.
I'll blame all poverty on you, Classic Xer!
