09-15-2017, 07:08 PM
You think X_4AD_84 is a neocon? That might explain why he calls himself a conservative, I guess. Certainly nothing he's ever posted has seemed conservative to me.
(09-15-2017, 07:02 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ](09-15-2017, 10:57 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ](09-15-2017, 08:46 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Anti-fascists range from conservatives to communists by way of liberals and socialists. Fascism is nothing but thuggery with a thin veneer of appeal to tradition. Most conservatives recognize the thinness of the veneer and insist upon more than the veneer.
Exactly. I'm a Rightist who's also an Anti Fascist.
Then you should be all primed to support the President, considering that a mere 20 years ago he would be a business democrat, or do you actually buy all the bullshit Clinton News Network has to sell?
Quote:Note: That question is rhetorical. I don't actually care, I've already figured out what your problem with Trump is. He's neither a Neocon nor a Neolib.
(09-14-2017, 09:42 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]If the Alt Right and Antifa want to duke it out, I might call the police slowly. Neither are my favorite people. However, many of both seem to be seeking out verbal ugliness and violence. Let them have joy of one another.
But the Alt Right and allies want to be ugly to everyone. That I don't want. If that means you don't think you have free speech, so be it. Your delusion, not mine. Negative rights never guaranteed a right to harm. You think this a fine exception to a general rule, while I don't.
Any negative right implies an organization that prevents it from being taken away. Any negative right that can be abused, that its exercise can cause harm, needs somebody to enforce it. Some think this is a major reason why "Governments were instituted among Men." Why is this one special? Are you suddenly an all out anarchist?
(09-15-2017, 07:08 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]You think X_4AD_84 is a neocon? That might explain why he calls himself a conservative, I guess. Certainly nothing he's ever posted has seemed conservative to me.
(09-15-2017, 07:09 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ](09-15-2017, 07:02 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ](09-15-2017, 10:57 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ](09-15-2017, 08:46 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Anti-fascists range from conservatives to communists by way of liberals and socialists. Fascism is nothing but thuggery with a thin veneer of appeal to tradition. Most conservatives recognize the thinness of the veneer and insist upon more than the veneer.
Exactly. I'm a Rightist who's also an Anti Fascist.
Then you should be all primed to support the President, considering that a mere 20 years ago he would be a business democrat, or do you actually buy all the bullshit Clinton News Network has to sell?
It's what he is now that matters, and not what he was 20 years ago. In 1938, did it matter that twenty years ea4rlier that Mussolini was a socialist?
Quote:Note: That question is rhetorical. I don't actually care, I've already figured out what your problem with Trump is. He's neither a Neocon nor a Neolib.
He is a mean-spirited demagogue.
(09-16-2017, 12:43 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ](09-15-2017, 07:09 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ](09-15-2017, 07:02 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ](09-15-2017, 10:57 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ](09-15-2017, 08:46 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Anti-fascists range from conservatives to communists by way of liberals and socialists. Fascism is nothing but thuggery with a thin veneer of appeal to tradition. Most conservatives recognize the thinness of the veneer and insist upon more than the veneer.
Exactly. I'm a Rightist who's also an Anti Fascist.
Then you should be all primed to support the President, considering that a mere 20 years ago he would be a business democrat, or do you actually buy all the bullshit Clinton News Network has to sell?
It's what he is now that matters, and not what he was 20 years ago. In 1938, did it matter that twenty years ea4rlier that Mussolini was a socialist?
Quote:Note: That question is rhetorical. I don't actually care, I've already figured out what your problem with Trump is. He's neither a Neocon nor a Neolib.
He is a mean-spirited demagogue.
Ha ha. Yes, and he is BOTH a Neo-con and a Neo-lib, especially the latter.
(09-13-2017, 01:23 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ](09-13-2017, 12:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ](09-13-2017, 10:08 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ](09-12-2017, 11:52 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]A competitive free market always provides what customers on the whole actually prefer. This may not be to your liking if, for example, you prefer a roof over gasoline that is 2c/gal cheaper, while everyone else prefers the cheaper gasoline, but regulating to your preference against the preferences of everyone else is worse for everyone but you.
If the preference is instant gratification (cheap gas, for instance), but well hidden long term costs make that option bad, should it be allowed? For decades, we wanted cheaper products delivered quickly, so we ignored intentional pollution that eventually lead to thousands of superfund sites that have had to be mitigated at greatly inflated taxpayer expense. Of course, those taxpayers were not the same people who benefitted from the cheap products produced decades earlier. Today, the EPA is trying to prevent a repeat of that experience, but industry is wailing about the cost to their businesses. If they win, then we get cheaper products and our children get the mess to correct later ... if they even can.
The problem isn't about whether costs are long term or hidden; they are about whether costs are borne by the consumer. In the case of the gas, the consumers that pay for the cheaper gas are the ones that stand in the rain, so that isn't an issue.
A better example than superfund sites, which have little impact on most Americans' everyday lives, would be the original purposes of the EPA: clean air and clean water. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, Lake Erie was so polluted it caught fire regularly, and the air in most major cities was so unhealthy it stank. This was because consumers who bought goods got the benefit of low prices, but the costs of production processes that polluted were borne by the general population, and not just by the consumers that bought the low priced goods.
In that situation, there's room for government intervention. Ideally, it would be through taxes that made the consumer pay for the pollution caused by production of his goods.
There are any number of examples of Federal intervention that began in response to some failing in the private sector. Look at the airlines. They are pushing more and more people on planes because they can. Travel is worse than uncomfortable, especially on long flights, and they want to push even more. It's already life threatening to some people, but who cares. Right? This will lead to a resumption of Federal regulation at some point, because that's the only way to protect the public. Don't blame the government when that happens.
Quote:Warren Dew Wrote:David Horn Wrote:This is only one of many similar examples in all fields of endeavor. It's why our medical care is so expensive and piss-poor to boot. The market is not a perfect vehicle, not by a long shot.
The problem with our health care system is too much government intervention, not too little.
I'm on Medicare and it works really well. There's even room for private insurance for those who want it. Part D is bad, but it was the mandate that drug prices could not be negotiated that makes it bad. I'll be happy to kill that requirement. So what involvement would you end? How about the FDA drug approval process. We can go back to believing what the drug companies say. Or maybe you wish to kill the requirement that keeps every medical practice from operating an MRI, making them impossibly expensive to use. Give me an example or two.
(09-15-2017, 07:14 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]Bob, I'm starting to wonder what you're smoking and where I can get some.
1. I for one do not want the left or the right duking it out in the streets--as for calling the police, feel free to. But in Blue Cities it seems there are stand down orders from the political leadership so it always devolves into a riot.
2. I disagree with you on your negative rights position. This concept is really simple, so simple it is actually beyond most people really. Either one has the right to say whatever the fuck they want, not including incitement, or slander/libel or they do not. It is a binary a hard binary it is either on or off.
If the price of freedom is speech is that someone gets their fee fees hurt so be it. Life is tough, get a helmet.
3. I wouldn't say that the first amendment is special. I am also pretty partial to the second too. The kid found me a nifty tee-shirt about it.
https://teespring.com/shop/get-shall-not...&sid=front
(09-17-2017, 01:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]It seems like you, as well as the Nazi and Confederates, are embracing harm.
(09-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ](09-17-2017, 01:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]It seems like you, as well as the Nazi and Confederates, are embracing harm.
Implying that Kinser is basically a Nazi, as you just did, looks like hate speech to me. But hey, it's always been clear that you're fine with hate speech when you're the one speaking.
(09-17-2017, 03:35 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ](09-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ](09-17-2017, 01:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]It seems like you, as well as the Nazi and Confederates, are embracing harm.
Implying that Kinser is basically a Nazi, as you just did, looks like hate speech to me. But hey, it's always been clear that you're fine with hate speech when you're the one speaking.
Kinser did not explicitly endorse the Nazi or Confederate positions, but he does seem to violently oppose Canadian and European speech laws intended to stop hate speech. This makes him... how do you say it politely... an odd duck. What is it that he advocates if not hate speech?
I'd like him to be explicit. Other countries oppose hate speech, and the alt red are vehemently against a few specific countries. Can the alt right at least be explicit in the type of speech they are advocating? They like to dance around the issue. I'm opposed to the dance.
Of late I have been against the blue evening comedy people and the red daytime political radio pundits. Some of them do and some of them don't use dirty words. Just about all of them will vile stereotype, will poorly describe what their opponents actually want, will characterize opponent's motives and models poorly and maliciously. I oppose that, and believe I have said as much.
I would prefer honest evaluation and decent language. Working with others, it is impossible to get.
Could you give a few examples of what you perceive as my hate speech?
(09-17-2017, 03:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ](09-17-2017, 03:35 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ](09-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ](09-17-2017, 01:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]It seems like you, as well as the Nazi and Confederates, are embracing harm.
Implying that Kinser is basically a Nazi, as you just did, looks like hate speech to me. But hey, it's always been clear that you're fine with hate speech when you're the one speaking.
Kinser did not explicitly endorse the Nazi or Confederate positions, but he does seem to violently oppose Canadian and European speech laws intended to stop hate speech. This makes him... how do you say it politely... an odd duck. What is it that he advocates if not hate speech?
I'd like him to be explicit. Other countries oppose hate speech, and the alt red are vehemently against a few specific countries. Can the alt right at least be explicit in the type of speech they are advocating? They like to dance around the issue. I'm opposed to the dance.
Of late I have been against the blue evening comedy people and the red daytime political radio pundits. Some of them do and some of them don't use dirty words. Just about all of them will vile stereotype, will poorly describe what their opponents actually want, will characterize opponent's motives and models poorly and maliciously. I oppose that, and believe I have said as much.
I would prefer honest evaluation and decent language. Working with others, it is impossible to get.
Could you give a few examples of what you perceive as my hate speech?
Just gave you one. Seems like you managed to talk yourself into ignoring it.
If you actually wanted honest evaluation and decent language, you'd apologize and stop it instead. Alternatively, you could learn to ignore what you perceive to be others' hate speech, and count on them to ignore yours, too.
But really, it seems you don't want honest evaluation and decent language; you just want to confirm your biases.
(09-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ](09-17-2017, 01:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]It seems like you, as well as the Nazi and Confederates, are embracing harm.
Implying that Kinser is basically a Nazi, as you just did, looks like hate speech to me. But hey, it's always been clear that you're fine with hate speech when you're the one speaking.
(09-17-2017, 09:32 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ](09-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ](09-17-2017, 01:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]It seems like you, as well as the Nazi and Confederates, are embracing harm.
Implying that Kinser is basically a Nazi, as you just did, looks like hate speech to me. But hey, it's always been clear that you're fine with hate speech when you're the one speaking.
He is simply Eric Hoffer's True Believer, attracted to extremist, ruthless causes. He was recently a Stalinist and is now a Trump supporter. I can see him becoming a fanatical Muslim once he finds President Trump irrelevant or discredited.
(09-17-2017, 05:01 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]The stand down approach at Cal Berkeley is ending.
(09-15-2017, 07:21 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ](09-15-2017, 07:08 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]You think X_4AD_84 is a neocon? That might explain why he calls himself a conservative, I guess. Certainly nothing he's ever posted has seemed conservative to me.
It isn't a matter of think. Read what he posts, figure it out for yourself.
As for Neocons, well no they aren't conservative, not one bit. And one really shouldn't expect them to be. It is an outgrowth of Trotskyism, they just happen to be in the elephant party at the moment, the populists are slowly purging the party of them.
@PBR
1. Yes it does matter. Fascism like communism is a creature of the left. The difference between the two is whether one focuses on a particular nation or preaches internationalism.
2. I could care less if the President is mean or a demagogue. He was elected to do the job, and provided he does it, any means he uses is justified.
Like I told Bobby life is tough get a helmet.
(09-18-2017, 06:10 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]1. Fascism and Communism are both equally evil. I can't for the life of me why people are always, always dissing Fascists , which is correct, but nothing, nothing about those evil motherfucking Antifa scum. Which ideology killed more people in the 20th century. Answer , it's the commies. I mean one can also look at Cynic Heroes list of his, uh heroes. So where's the damnation of the evils of Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Khmer Rough? I bet Antifas would love to suck off Stalin's cock. Where's the denunciation of Antifa's black/red flags and other symbols? They may as well be adorned with swastikas.
2. 21st century axis of evil: Neocons/Neoliberals.
3. Yeah, antifas are also stupid for their internationalism. They may as well go suck off McStain's cock. Mcstain has cancer and isn't long for this world. He deserves a treat of having his cock sucked by antifas.
4. Life is touch... Well... I guess I can print a picture stuff related to antifa and go burn it in the backyard to make myself to feel better. <- I know folks think it's weird, but burning shit is very relaxing.
(09-18-2017, 07:18 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ](09-18-2017, 06:10 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]1. Fascism and Communism are both equally evil. I can't for the life of me why people are always, always dissing Fascists , which is correct, but nothing, nothing about those evil motherfucking Antifa scum. Which ideology killed more people in the 20th century. Answer , it's the commies. I mean one can also look at Cynic Heroes list of his, uh heroes. So where's the damnation of the evils of Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Khmer Rough? I bet Antifas would love to suck off Stalin's cock. Where's the denunciation of Antifa's black/red flags and other symbols? They may as well be adorned with swastikas.
2. 21st century axis of evil: Neocons/Neoliberals.
3. Yeah, antifas are also stupid for their internationalism. They may as well go suck off McStain's cock. Mcstain has cancer and isn't long for this world. He deserves a treat of having his cock sucked by antifas.
4. Life is touch... Well... I guess I can print a picture stuff related to antifa and go burn it in the backyard to make myself to feel better. <- I know folks think it's weird, but burning shit is very relaxing.
There is an idea, a saying, usually expressed religiously, usually associated with the neo Wiccans, that varies around “Do as you will, but harm none.”
Now I try to run my values scientific first, political second, with religious a poor third. However, this one can become or illustrate political ideas. If you assume the Bill of Rights guarantees a right to what you want without interference from the government, from anyone, the first phase is a general and inclusive as you like. If one accepts that negative rights to not guarantee a protected right to do harm, the second phase is solid.
I guess ‘Do as you will, but harm none” could be the short version.
Thus one can ask, do we really need the Maelstrom of Violence?
I mean, I can admire Martin Luther King. Lots of folks do. Would he have got as far as he did without Malcom X lurking in the background?
Kinser has started to call out for folks to wear a helmet. As a Whig, can I ask if the idea of government is that people shouldn’t have to wear helmets? If the purpose of government is to subdue those who do harm, why should we embrace an idea of helmets for all?
This left me more than a little disturbed by Ragnarok’s recent post. There are lots of points I can agree with. I see lots of Agricultural Age government tainted by authoritarian tyrants, and the political struggles against tyranny as tightly tied with the struggles over industry. I see any appearance of re-establishing colonialism, which Bush 43 gave, as related to what the Neocons and Neoliberals might attempt. A lot of the conflicts Ragnarok raises are pertinent.
And, yes, I have a fireplace screen saver.
But I get cold feet. Do as you will, but harm none. Can those who would do harm, for whatever reason, be subdued without doing harm. Can the desire of each to do as he will be honored, not be answered by threats to coerce?
Fact aside, is Ragnarok’s tone necessary?
No answers. Some questions.