(04-13-2020, 05:04 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I'm aligned with an American based ideology but I'm not an ideologue as you claim.
At least what you present on this sight is focused on presenting a political ideology. That makes you in my book an ideologue. The difference is a political canned way of perceiving things rather than comparing against reality. Thus, no truth, no integrity. This separates you from a scientist, engineer or professor. Of course, we need all types.
(04-13-2020, 05:04 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Do we need New England for anything other than its historical significance and as an ally during times of world war like Canada? Now, you live in a region that's way more populated than Canada and way smaller than Canada land mass wise.
The less populated sections of the country could drop a few denser regions without too much trouble, but overall the two sections of the country need each other. Some areas have a surplus of food. Others generate manufactured goods. The forces holding us together seem to more potent than a few ideologues who try to pull us apart.
I do agree that sending many jobs abroad was hardly ideal for the American worker, but more for the American elites. Still, for years the rest of the world was exploited by colonial imperialism. The American blackmail to open all colonial ports or the Lend Lease aid would not be forgiven ended that. That made America great and all that. The shifting of jobs to spread opportunity made sense to more than the elites.
(04-13-2020, 05:04 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (04-13-2020, 03:22 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-13-2020, 02:16 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Nope. I'm not used to communicating with a robot that's been programmed with a scientific world view and a theory to use to advance an ideology associated with the former Soviet Union that China is now benefiting from today.
I thought so. You are clearly an ideologue and don’t know how to handle someone who is focused on learning from reality.
You also are not speaking truth, again, showing your lack of integrity. The old meme, saying all Democrats are Communist going with the opposite all Republicans are Fascists have been left behind even by most American extremist ideologues. Even the communists don’t believe in communism anymore. Communism has been replaced by an odd hybrid of capitalists running the equivalent of corporations and autocrats dominating the government. My arrow of progress suggests even more change is coming. Thus, I am not advocating for the long dead system of government.
Your ideology is quite obsolete and inaccurate. Anyone who is paying the least attention to what I say would know that. But that suggests that you care about reality not your ideology. This again counts as spouting ideology and ignoring reality, which I already warned you is not effective against the scientific mind.
I'm aligned with an American based ideology but I'm not an ideologue as you claim. I'm not a Neo Conservative or a Neo Liberal. I'm not a compassionate conservative or a bleeding heart liberal. I'm not a born again Christian/Evangelical or a devoted agnostic or atheist. I'm not a Marxist Communist or a Marxist Fascist. I don't have a preference for any particular group associated with the Democratic Party these days. I'm a Classical Liberal or small r Republican who believes in free and fair trade who wouldn't have signed the trade deals that gutted the country. Do we need New England for anything other than its historical significance and as an ally during times of world war like Canada? Now, you live in a region that's way more populated than Canada and way smaller than Canada land mass wise.
People don't often agree to the labels people attach to them. But I would definitely put you in the neo-liberal camp, as it is usually defined. Neo-liberalism as enacted by Reagan, Bush and Thatcher is the ideology that primarily says laziness or lack of character causes personal economic failure, so taxes should be limited or repealed for welfare programs.
I wouldn't have signed those trade deals either, so that opinion of yours does nothing to define the difference between you and such liberals as myself.
You falsely label your ideology as "American," and then ask whether we need New England. Last time I checked, they were among the most American of all parts of the USA, given that they started the Revolution and were some of the first colonial settlements. If anything is most-truly American, it is the Native American settlements that have been restricted to federally-dominated reservations. "America" is not any particular race, ancestry or religion or any particular political party or ideology. The USA is the constitution and declaration of independence, and it is liberal values.
You have definite opinions, but you don't know how to label or define them.
(04-13-2020, 05:45 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-13-2020, 05:04 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I'm aligned with an American based ideology but I'm not an ideologue as you claim.
At least what you present on this sight is focused on presenting a political ideology. That makes you in my book an ideologue. The difference is a political canned way of perceiving things rather than comparing against reality. Thus, no truth, no integrity. This separates you from a scientist, engineer or professor. Of course, we need all types.
(04-13-2020, 05:04 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Do we need New England for anything other than its historical significance and as an ally during times of world war like Canada? Now, you live in a region that's way more populated than Canada and way smaller than Canada land mass wise.
The less populated sections of the country could drop a few denser regions without too much trouble, but overall the two sections of the country need each other. Some areas have a surplus of food. Others generate manufactured goods. The forces holding us together seem to more potent than a few ideologues who try to pull us apart.
I do agree that sending many jobs abroad was hardly ideal for the American worker, but more for the American elites. Still, for years the rest of the world was exploited by colonial imperialism. The American blackmail to open all colonial ports or the Lend Lease aid would not be forgiven ended that. That made America great and all that. The shifting of jobs to spread opportunity made sense to more than the elites.
I'm not the one who was using someone else's theory as a means to advance a Marxist agenda. Just a reminder, I pay attention to what you and others write here. I'd say that you're more of the true ideologue of the two of us. Me, I'm just one of the Americans who are going to destroy you. But what do I know, I'm just a dumb backward minded redneck who lives in the sticks that's not as intelligent as liberals right. According to the last election, our populations are about equal in size. Hint: I shouldn't see a court of public opinion like the witch trials of old streaming live across the United States these days. One would think that shit would've ended HERE in the land of DUE PROCESS a long time ago. Now, my Senator may be acceptable to you bit she seems like just another liberal cunt to me. You see, cunts do what she did and cunts only appeal to other cunts. I'm not associated with your group or your groups version of the arrow of progress either. Now, you can preach to me about integrity or truthfulness as you're having truth shoved in your face and stick with your scientific world view and the only value that you seem to have left (pet theory).
(04-13-2020, 01:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (04-13-2020, 03:04 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]I may be excessively literal in my understanding of many things, but telling someone to commit suicide goes far beyond the line of decency. I was not the only person offended.
I can do that too. I can hammer you for anything that's remotely offensive to anyone. I can even make stuff up and accuse you of anything. I don't want to be a liberal but I can pretend to be just like one anytime. It's not like I have more important things to do right now or the foreseeable future.
Making derogatory stuff up about someone and publishing it is either slander or libel. It's good for a profit-eating lawsuit, and bad for one's credibility.
(04-13-2020, 07:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]People don't often agree to the labels people attach to them. But I would definitely put you in the neo-liberal camp, as it is usually defined. Neo-liberalism as enacted by Reagan, Bush and Thatcher is the ideology that primarily says laziness or lack of character causes personal economic failure, so taxes should be limited or repealed for welfare programs.
I wouldn't have signed those trade deals either, so that opinion of yours does nothing to define the difference between you and such liberals as myself.
You falsely label your ideology as "American," and then ask whether we need New England. Last time I checked, they were among the most American of all parts of the USA, given that they started the Revolution and were some of the first colonial settlements. If anything is most-truly American, it is the Native American settlements that have been restricted to federally-dominated reservations. "America" is not any particular race, ancestry or religion or any particular political party or ideology. The USA is the constitution and declaration of independence, and it is liberal values.
You have definite opinions, but you don't know how to label or define them.
I don't have much of a stake in the global economy. I don't do any business with China. I know that the cost of a Honeywell product remained the same and increased annually as it did before after they uprooted and moved they're factories to Mexico. Yes, New England still has historical significance as mentioned. Right now, we are doing what's right to keep loved ones alive like we did after 9/11. I figure we'll be back at it again and fucking each other over as much as we can and continue having it both ways until progressive system can no longer function. It looks like the stars were right. I have to give credit for being right. I think the progressives are going to drag their feet and cause all kinds of issues and problems.
(04-14-2020, 12:15 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not the one who was using someone else's theory as a means to advance a Marxist agenda.
Again, I am not pursuing a Marxist agenda. Marxism resulted in an autocratic system that ignored human rights and multi party democracy. Moving towards that would be against the arrow of progress. That has not been what I have been advocating. Thus you show your lack of integrity and truthfulness by continuing to slander. Is that all you can do? Slander? Is that all your ideology has come to stand for? Falsehood? Correcting your obvious lies is tedious, but no where near what I have to do with others.
(04-14-2020, 12:16 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Making derogatory stuff up about someone and publishing it is either slander or libel. It's good for a profit-eating lawsuit, and bad for one's credibility.
Really??? Do the liberals know that is true or possible? I've never seen that stop a liberal from doing it to me. Did you know that I was the force that got the moderator that you used against me FIRED? Like I said, you have to be careful about who you mess with these days. You messed with the popular leader of a powerful group of individuals.
Do you remember when I had to intervene on your behalf because you said something stupid in the presence of a social justice warrior and one of my group joined in just for shits and giggles? I helped you out because I felt somewhat responsible and see the panic in your responses and understood that you were unable to defend yourself from a vicious adversary. Hint: I did that after you had me banned and I even intervened and took on a real racist fascist for you too.
(04-14-2020, 12:56 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (04-13-2020, 07:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]People don't often agree to the labels people attach to them. But I would definitely put you in the neo-liberal camp, as it is usually defined. Neo-liberalism as enacted by Reagan, Bush and Thatcher is the ideology that primarily says laziness or lack of character causes personal economic failure, so taxes should be limited or repealed for welfare programs.
I wouldn't have signed those trade deals either, so that opinion of yours does nothing to define the difference between you and such liberals as myself.
You falsely label your ideology as "American," and then ask whether we need New England. Last time I checked, they were among the most American of all parts of the USA, given that they started the Revolution and were some of the first colonial settlements. If anything is most-truly American, it is the Native American settlements that have been restricted to federally-dominated reservations. "America" is not any particular race, ancestry or religion or any particular political party or ideology. The USA is the constitution and declaration of independence, and it is liberal values.
You have definite opinions, but you don't know how to label or define them.
I don't have much of a stake in the global economy. I don't do any business with China. I know that the cost of a Honeywell product remained the same and increased annually as it did before after they uprooted and moved they're factories to Mexico. Yes, New England still has historical significance as mentioned. Right now, we are doing what's right to keep loved ones alive like we did after 9/11. I figure we'll be back at it again and fucking each other over as much as we can and continue having it both ways until progressive system can no longer function. It looks like the stars were right. I have to give credit for being right. I think the progressives are going to drag their feet and cause all kinds of issues and problems.
I figure so too, thanks. It is interesting how you manage to use labels to represent their opposite meaning.
Progressives by definition and by policy don't drag their feet; they are pushing for real solutions, in other words,
progress. Our current system is conservative neo-liberalism, and its advocates currently stand in the way of solutions. So, we'll see which side ends up no longer functioning. I have predicted that our side will win, as it always does in 4Ts, but whether my prediction or yours ends up being correct, we'll just have to see. I don't claim to be infallible, or that humans necessarily do the right things.
(04-14-2020, 01:57 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2020, 12:16 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Making derogatory stuff up about someone and publishing it is either slander or libel. It's good for a profit-eating lawsuit, and bad for one's credibility.
Really??? Do the liberals know that is true or possible? I've never seen that stop a liberal from doing it to me. Did you know that I was the force that got the moderator that you used against me FIRED? Like I said, you have to be careful about who you mess with these days. You messed with the popular leader of a powerful group of individuals.
Do you remember when I had to intervene on your behalf because you said something stupid in the presence of a social justice warrior and one of my group joined in just for shits and giggles? I helped you out because I felt somewhat responsible and see the panic in your responses and understood that you were unable to defend yourself from a vicious adversary. Hint: I did that after you had me banned and I even intervened and took on a real racist fascist for you too.
Defenses against libel and slander include (1) no damage to the plaintiff and (2) the truth. As two examples Benedict Arnold, who had moved to England, was able to point that derogatory stuff about him was false. But even in England his reputation was so bad that he could not establish that he had been damaged. In a lawsuit by the late Reverend Jerry Falwell against pornographer Larry Flynt in which Flynt created a mock-ad accusing Falwell of incestuous sex with his mother, Falwell lost the case because no reasonable person could believe the smear.
The second is obvious. Journalists are careful as a rule to rely upon two sources or official sources (which are generally recognized as definitive), and their employers usually employ fact-checkers to verify stories. This is especially true when the story might be derogatory. Newspapers typically make corrections to articles when something is amiss -- even a misspelling of a name.
So here's how I see it: "outing" me as gay would not constitute slander or libel even if it were false because I could still hold all jobs that I have ever held (including as a substitute school teacher) because homosexuality
per se is perfectly legal. In contrast, outing me as a child abuser or a drug addict if such is false would cause me to have lost the job as a substitute teacher. If someone fabricated such about me and released it I would sue the Hell out of him. Accusing someone convicted of espionage wrongly of drug trafficking would be libelous or slanderous if such were false, but the reputation would of the spy would be worthless.
You are free to fabricate a story at any time; just make sure to identify it as fiction.
(04-13-2020, 03:22 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-13-2020, 02:16 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Nope. I'm not used to communicating with a robot that's been programmed with a scientific world view and a theory to use to advance an ideology associated with the former Soviet Union that China is now benefiting from today.
I thought so. You are clearly an ideologue and don’t know how to handle someone who is focused on learning from reality.
You also are not speaking truth, again, showing your lack of integrity. The old meme, saying all Democrats are Communist going with the opposite all Republicans are Fascists have been left behind even by most American extremist ideologues. Even the communists don’t believe in communism anymore. Communism has been replaced by an odd hybrid of capitalists oligarchs running the equivalent of corporations and autocrats dominating the government. My arrow of progress suggests even more change is coming. Thus, I am not advocating for the long dead system of government.
Your ideology is quite obsolete and inaccurate. Anyone who is paying the least attention to what I say would know that. But that suggests that you care about reality not your ideology. This again counts as spouting ideology and ignoring reality, which I already warned you is not effective against the scientific mind.
Close, but it needed some minor fixing.
(04-13-2020, 05:04 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (04-13-2020, 03:22 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-13-2020, 02:16 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Nope. I'm not used to communicating with a robot that's been programmed with a scientific world view and a theory to use to advance an ideology associated with the former Soviet Union that China is now benefiting from today.
I thought so. You are clearly an ideologue and don’t know how to handle someone who is focused on learning from reality.
You also are not speaking truth, again, showing your lack of integrity. The old meme, saying all Democrats are Communist going with the opposite all Republicans are Fascists have been left behind even by most American extremist ideologues. Even the communists don’t believe in communism anymore. Communism has been replaced by an odd hybrid of capitalists running the equivalent of corporations and autocrats dominating the government. My arrow of progress suggests even more change is coming. Thus, I am not advocating for the long dead system of government.
Your ideology is quite obsolete and inaccurate. Anyone who is paying the least attention to what I say would know that. But that suggests that you care about reality not your ideology. This again counts as spouting ideology and ignoring reality, which I already warned you is not effective against the scientific mind.
I'm aligned with an American based ideology but I'm not an ideologue as you claim. I'm not a Neo Conservative or a Neo Liberal. I'm not a compassionate conservative or a bleeding heart liberal. I'm not a born again Christian/Evangelical or a devoted agnostic or atheist. I'm not a Marxist Communist or a Marxist Fascist. I don't have a preference for any particular group associated with the Democratic Party these days. I'm a Classical Liberal or small r Republican who believes in free and fair trade who wouldn't have signed the trade deals that gutted the country. Do we need New England for anything other than its historical significance and as an ally during times of world war like Canada? Now, you live in a region that's way more populated than Canada and way smaller than Canada land mass wise.
You are welcome to state that you are an American. You are not welcome to assert that whatever differs from you, to the extent that it differs from you, is not American. Yes, you really are an ideologue in the sense that someone who drinks large amounts of alcoholic beverages often is an alcoholic despite claims to the contrary. I do not question that evangelical or fundamentalist Christians in America are American if they say that they are American. On the other hand, the Nation of Islam is just as American as you or I.
I accept that you are not a Marxist -- but the mirror-image Marxist, the sort of person who accepts that capitalism is by necessity a cruel and inequitable order capable only of enriching and indulging elites, and disagreeing with honest-to-Lenin (or Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, or Pol Pot -- Yuck!) commies only in endorsing what Commies see wrong with capitalism.
I am a liberal with some conservative tendencies on law and order, drugs, and educational content... but I feel some sorrow about conservatives who have found themselves out in the cold in American politics because the Republican Party has gone from a small-government group whose low-tax and free-enterprise stances favor small business. The GOP has become a right-wing Big Government party that no longer recognizes the validity of reason and education.
As for New England -- New England settlers established much of what is American, with descendants of those settlers moving generally west with the southern border of their mass settlement roughly the path of Interstate 80; although New England is no longer a WASP preserve the people who moved in adopted New England institutions and practices other than religion and cuisine as they replaced New Englanders headed west to places such as Rochester, Buffalo, Cleveland, Grand Rapids, Chicago,
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Omaha, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, and Seattle. Two of their earliest establishments were Harvard University (1636!) and the General Curt of Massachusetts, from its inception an elected, deliberative body... and the oldest continuous such institution in the world.
(04-14-2020, 02:28 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (04-13-2020, 03:22 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-13-2020, 02:16 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Nope. I'm not used to communicating with a robot that's been programmed with a scientific world view and a theory to use to advance an ideology associated with the former Soviet Union that China is now benefiting from today.
I thought so. You are clearly an ideologue and don’t know how to handle someone who is focused on learning from reality.
You also are not speaking truth, again, showing your lack of integrity. The old meme, saying all Democrats are Communist going with the opposite all Republicans are Fascists have been left behind even by most American extremist ideologues. Even the communists don’t believe in communism anymore. Communism has been replaced by an odd hybrid of capitalists oligarchs running the equivalent of corporations and autocrats dominating the government. My arrow of progress suggests even more change is coming. Thus, I am not advocating for the long dead system of government.
Your ideology is quite obsolete and inaccurate. Anyone who is paying the least attention to what I say would know that. But that suggests that you care about reality not your ideology. This again counts as spouting ideology and ignoring reality, which I already warned you is not effective against the scientific mind.
Close, but it needed some minor fixing.
Same thing. Some people are interested in calling them something different, but they play the same role. They own the means of production and profit over the labor of the workers.
(04-14-2020, 01:33 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2020, 12:15 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not the one who was using someone else's theory as a means to advance a Marxist agenda.
Again, I am not pursuing a Marxist agenda. Marxism resulted in an autocratic system that ignored human rights and multi party democracy. Moving towards that would be against the arrow of progress. That has not been what I have been advocating. Thus you show your lack of integrity and truthfulness by continuing to slander. Is that all you can do? Slander? Is that all your ideology has come to stand for? Falsehood? Correcting your obvious lies is tedious, but no where near what I have to do with others.
Are you sure that you aren't/haven't been pursuing a Marxist agenda? You sure seem like you have been doing it to me. You're still half Marxist right. Yes, Marxism (Democratic Socialism as Bernie referred to it) would result in an autocratic system like China's, the former Soviet Union, Vietnam, Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba these days. Of coarse, it would be voted for initially like in Venezuela instead of imposed by victors of civil wars and revolutions like the other countries. Do you know what I've been doing as you've been doing your thing? I've spent well over a decade listening to progressives of all sorts telling me what they want, what they're going to be able to do, what they're going to get rid of, who they're going to punish and what's going to happen to the Americans who oppose them. I've been exposing them to other American and showing other people who and what they really are and making it possible for them to make proper decisions for themselves and the future of their children and reminding them that they're picking on a WARRIOR culture that has very few pussies and very few people who are incapable of fighting their own battles.
(04-14-2020, 04:45 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Are you sure that you aren't/haven't been pursuing a Marxist agenda? You sure seem like you have been doing it to me.
Quite sure. Again, socialist is a word with many different definitions. Democratic Socialists like those you find in western Europe or Bernie are quite different from socialist in name only such as the Communists wound up. Bernie is socialist in that he believes the government should serve the people. You would have a hard time arguing with that. Marxism evolved in practice to the government serving the members of the government, their elites. That is quite different. I prefer systems which favor the People, like human rights, like multi party democracy, dislike the extreme division of wealth.
I don’t like to use the word socialist as there is too much confusion as to its meaning these days, but I do believe the government should serve the People rather than the elites.
I do see the European diversions into fascism and communism as their attempt to maintain the autocracy of the hereditary nobility with the advantages from allowing the advance of technology. They also kept the tendency to start wars whenever they thought they had the advantage, to gather resources using military force. This last ended only with nukes.
These diversions never took place in the new world’s northern hemisphere. Oh, a few elites flirted with the fascist leaders. As came out in McCarthy’s time, quite a few thinking folks had thought the capitalist and democratic system had failed, and the evils of the Gilded Age and Great Depression proved the need for a revolution. I just think they were wrong. The New Deal leading into the progressive era is proof they were wrong, but I don’t blame them for working in the People’s direction. The Gilded Age and Great Depression were ugly. It was easy to perceive the system as not working.
Now none of this is new. If you had bothered to read what I have actually said you would know this. My views har hardly hidden from regular members of the forum. Instead you are locked into your ideology, and believe what your ideology has to say about liberals. If your ideology says something, it must be true? Um. You have just proven your ideology is garbage. We will have to see if you are a true ideologue. Can you learn from reality, or will you stick to a fixed system which is known to be flawed?
I am more with Will Rodgers and his famous quote. “I am not a member of any organized political party. I’m a Democrat.” It is an old quote, but still true enough. There is a diverse number of views represented under their big tent. Any claim that they are all pulling in any one direction almost has to be wrong.
(04-14-2020, 12:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I figure so too, thanks. It is interesting how you manage to use labels to represent their opposite meaning. Progressives by definition and by policy don't drag their feet; they are pushing for real solutions, in other words, progress. Our current system is conservative neo-liberalism, and its advocates currently stand in the way of solutions. So, we'll see which side ends up no longer functioning. I have predicted that our side will win, as it always does in 4Ts, but whether my prediction or yours ends up being correct, we'll just have to see. I don't claim to be infallible, or that humans necessarily do the right things.
Do you represent progress to me? Where are you in relationship to me. Are you REALLY smarter than me? Do you have a moral advantage over me? Do you REALLY have any advantage over me at all? Oh, don't judge me by writing skills, my writing skills could be improved with some time and effort. If you REALLY did, you wouldn't be looking to empower government to give you it or provide it for you. That's the reality. Lets see, you blame me for the widening income gap as you and your politicians do whatever it takes to attract, keep, create and add more and more poor people and add more welfare programs. Sounds really stupid to me but the progressives claim to know more than me/us and their half of the country still seems to agree or not care because they believe that they're off the hook financially.
(04-14-2020, 04:45 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2020, 01:33 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2020, 12:15 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not the one who was using someone else's theory as a means to advance a Marxist agenda.
Again, I am not pursuing a Marxist agenda. Marxism resulted in an autocratic system that ignored human rights and multi party democracy. Moving towards that would be against the arrow of progress. That has not been what I have been advocating. Thus you show your lack of integrity and truthfulness by continuing to slander. Is that all you can do? Slander? Is that all your ideology has come to stand for? Falsehood? Correcting your obvious lies is tedious, but no where near what I have to do with others.
Are you sure that you aren't/haven't been pursuing a Marxist agenda? You sure seem like you have been doing it to me. You're still half Marxist right. Yes, Marxism (Democratic Socialism as Bernie referred to it) would result in an autocratic system like China's, the former Soviet Union, Vietnam, Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba these days. Of coarse, it would be voted for initially like in Venezuela instead of imposed by victors of civil wars and revolutions like the other countries. Do you know what I've been doing as you've been doing your thing? I've spent well over a decade listening to progressives of all sorts telling me what they want, what they're going to be able to do, what they're going to get rid of, who they're going to punish and what's going to happen to the Americans who oppose them. I've been exposing them to other American and showing other people who and what they really are and making it possible for them to make proper decisions for themselves and the future of their children and reminding them that they're picking on a WARRIOR culture that has very few pussies and very few people who are incapable of fighting their own battles.
You tell me who is a Marxist! I confess to having read the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, but at least I could see glaring holes in each. The Communist Manifesto is simply a bad piece of writing. Das Kapital may be tedious, but I see a pattern in which Marx sees history largely as progress from primitive poverty to classical slavery to feudalism to capitalism (in his time) with portents of "socialism" as Marx saw it (government ownership and operation of productive enterprise) toward the final ideal of Communism in which scarcity no longer exists and Man is truly free to live according to his nature. Marx oversimplifies history; most Romans were serfs, and the breakdown of the imperial power made taxation impossible while making the enforcement of peonage impossible. Serfdom returned (Vinogradoff) only when barbarian hordes such as the Magyars and Vikings proved enough of a menace for freehold farmers to submit to military organization, trading freedom and dignity permanently for some temporary safety. Slavery was the cornerstone of some of the economic orders in the New World while capitalism was beginning to take off without slavery.
Marxism does not succeed because it offers meaning to alienated intellectuals. Marxism succeeds politically because people are ready for revolutionary change in view of the cruelty, inequity, deprivation, madness, and tyranny of the existing order. Marxist intellectuals can hone a message to oppressed workers as effectively as an ad-man can make advertising for chairs and hats. In a healthy capitalist order the advertising for chairs and hats draws attention. In a thoroughly rotten order, chairs and hats are not available -- but dispossessing the exploitative elites is all that works.
The best support of a Marxist revolution is that the existing social order has nothing to offer the common man.
(04-14-2020, 06:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2020, 12:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I figure so too, thanks. It is interesting how you manage to use labels to represent their opposite meaning. Progressives by definition and by policy don't drag their feet; they are pushing for real solutions, in other words, progress. Our current system is conservative neo-liberalism, and its advocates currently stand in the way of solutions. So, we'll see which side ends up no longer functioning. I have predicted that our side will win, as it always does in 4Ts, but whether my prediction or yours ends up being correct, we'll just have to see. I don't claim to be infallible, or that humans necessarily do the right things.
Do you represent progress to me? Where are you in relationship to me. Are you REALLY smarter than me? Do you have a moral advantage over me? Do you REALLY have any advantage over me at all? Oh, don't judge me by writing skills, my writing skills could be improved with some time and effort. If you REALLY did, you wouldn't be looking to empower government to give you it or provide it for you. That's the reality. Lets see, you blame me for the widening income gap as you and your politicians do whatever it takes to attract, keep, create and add more and more poor people and add more welfare programs. Sounds really stupid to me but the progressives claim to know more than me/us and their half of the country still seems to agree or not care because they believe that they're off the hook financially.
Progress is a collective thing; it applies to the general state of the nation and the world. We were speaking about what "progressive" means. It means progress.
You are a conservative, which means that you are opposed to "looking to empower government to give... or provide", and you believe anyone who is a liberal must be looking for this. And you and your fellow conservatives of today don't want to be on "the hook financially" for those who are not better "than me" and want to be empowered by the government. This philosophy today is called neo-liberalism, so you are a neo-liberal. It means support for "free enterprise" as the only or principal basis of society. Neo-liberal means classical liberal in economics, legislated and enforced.
I and other progressives disagree. Yes, I blame you guys for the lack of progress in our country. By opposing government action to help those who need it, you elect Republicans who also oppose regulating business against pollution and climate change, who also oppose requiring business to pay fair wages, and who support condemning people to bankruptcy who can't afford health care. You don't realize, as a conservative, that it's not about you or me and whether an individual is better or more self-reliant than another. When we contribute to the state and provide help to those in need, we help ourselves, and provide safety for ourselves against capricious powers, and this and not trickle down economics for "job creaters" is what creates prosperity for all. Dog eat dog social darwinism and survival of the fittest and most well-armed does not provide this. It provides a banana republic.
(04-14-2020, 06:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Do you represent progress to me? Where are you in relationship to me. Are you REALLY smarter than me? Do you have a moral advantage over me? Do you REALLY have any advantage over me at all?
I won’t answer all of those questions, but the one about moral difference stands out. Are you able to sense other’s peoples problems, have sympathy, and try to do something about it? If not, there is a lack. If you look at the rural - urban divide, it would seem the people in the middle of the country have a lack in spades.
I don’t think it an absolute lack, but attribute it to tribal thinking. They care, but only about people like them. They are ready to throw people with skin pigmentation differences, people who immigrated more recently, or minorities in general, to the wolves.
I see it as one aspect of the red blue divide. It seems to be part of the S&H theory. The Unraveling is a time of maximum selfishness, of minimum commitment to the country, to the common good. Things change after the Trigger.
(04-14-2020, 09:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Progress is a collective thing; it applies to the general state of the nation and the world. We were speaking about what "progressive" means. It means progress.
You are a conservative, which means that you are opposed to "looking to empower government to give... or provide", and you believe anyone who is a liberal must be looking for this. And you and your fellow conservatives of today don't want to be on "the hook financially" for those who are not better "than me" and want to be empowered by the government. This philosophy today is called neo-liberalism, so you are a neo-liberal. It means support for "free enterprise" as the only or principal basis of society. Neo-liberal means classical liberal in economics, legislated and enforced.
I and other progressives disagree. Yes, I blame you guys for the lack of progress in our country. By opposing government action to help those who need it, you elect Republicans who also oppose regulating business against pollution and climate change, who also oppose requiring business to pay fair wages, and who support condemning people to bankruptcy who can't afford health care. You don't realize, as a conservative, that it's not about you or me and whether an individual is better or more self-reliant than another. When we contribute to the state and provide help to those in need, we help ourselves, and provide safety for ourselves against capricious powers, and this and not trickle down economics for "job creaters" is what creates prosperity for all. Dog eat dog social darwinism and survival of the fittest and most well-armed does not provide this. It provides a banana republic.
A progressive as you say should be ahead of me. A progressive as you shouldn't prefer minorities over whites. A modern progressive should have NO racial preference. A progressive shouldn't ignore or remove laws that pertain to illegal aliens only. Now, you can use the term and pat yourself on the back too and tell me how great you are because you're a progressive and I'm a lowly conservative and all that. I don't care and the other side doesn't seem to care either.
I'll take the model minorities over white losers any day as a business partner or even a spouse. Whatever privilege comes with being white, whiteness is not worth a meth or opiate habit -- or being under-educated.