Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[pbrower2a]

You are reported for a vile insult. I do not report people for the mere use of the F-word, but I do when the second-person accusative pronoun follows.

I would be wary of saying that you want the freedom to shoot someone. I excuse literal self-defense and defense of loved ones from murder and other violent crime, but for offenses not posing the threat of death or serious injury?

Murder, kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery merit lethal force as a response. Mere theft? No. Pulling a gun on a burglar? OK. But all in all, your gun creates danger to yourself and loved ones should the criminal wrest it from you.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-20-2019, 07:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Well, I think the smaller countries that we liberals and democratic socialists or greenies want to be more like (which have to some extent united into a "country" larger than the USA, in other words, the European Union), do a much better job of providing for peoples' needs and solving problems than the USA does. That's because they are mixed private/public economies, and don't live under a Reaganomics regime that allows the wealthy leaders of this private sector in the USA to pollute, export jobs, make lousy products, pay low wages, etc., if they want to.

Some liberals believe that they themselves or that others need services from the government. But the government is not the same as "wealthy people or corporations or institutions or other powerful interest groups." The most wealthy and powerful people in these groups support the Republican Party, because they know it looks out for their interests, lowers their taxes and regulations, hampers unions, gives them subsidies and provides their paid lobbyists with all the attention they want so they can gain favors and be appointed to positions of power by Republican presidents like Trump, and provides them the ability to acquire and spend all the campaign spending money they want so they can buy elections.

Well, I guess you could call Churchill a conservative, but not a Trump-like one. And I don't think you could call FDR a conservative, because he brought in all these "socialist" programs you don't like. General Eisenhower later ran for president as a Republican, but by today's standards, as brower points out, he might be a Democrat today like Barack Obama. On the other front, Hitler faced his staunchest resistance of the war from Soviet communists, who certainly affected what he was able to do in The West, and were supported by The West. So I'm not sure your attribution of who Hitler faced is accurate, ha ha.

FDR didn't support all the "socialist" programs that LBJ brought in during the 60's. FDR set a record with the amount of veto's that he used to keep the socialist wing of the Democratic party in check back then. FDR wouldn't have set the record had he been a liberal like yourself and he wouldn't have signed off on legislation that eliminated the Constitutional rights of a certain ethnic group (Japanese Americans), rounded them up and had them shipped to internment camps either had he been a liberal either.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-20-2019, 11:59 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(04-20-2019, 11:32 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: You are reported for a vile insult. I do not report people for the mere use of the F-word, but I do when the second-person accusative pronoun follows.

I would be wary of saying that you want the freedom to shoot someone. I excuse literal self-defense and defense of loved ones from murder and other violent crime, but for offenses not posing the threat of death or serious injury?

Murder, kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery merit lethal force as a response. Mere theft? No. Pulling a gun on a burglar? OK. But all in all, your gun creates danger to yourself and loved ones should the criminal wrest it from you.

I actually have to agree with this. I do not think being an illegal is right, but shooting someone who is not trying to kill you is cold blooded murder. I rather guns stay as defence against someone wanting to kill you, a threat to you and your loved ones and tighter regulations on people who have them. I do not think its right going around shooting illegals. Let the system sort them out.

What just happened in your country? I don't want what just happened in your country to start happening in my country a lot down the road. When governments don't have their priorities straight, don't have the interests of the American people placed above their own and refuse to address an obvious issue like illegal immigration that has resulted in the death, rape, serious injury and issues related to them and loss of property involving lots of American citizens and causing lots of other issues relating to increasing poverty levels in American cities, causing issues with American schools, causing issues like shortages with pubic housing that were built to house American poor. People loose faith in them and begin making statements. There's a boiling point, we all have a boiling point. I've seen the nicest kindest people you will ever meet reach their boiling point. Now, I have a long fuse or relatively high boiling point. It takes a lot to really set me off.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-20-2019, 11:32 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: You are reported for a vile insult. I do not report people for the mere use of the F-word, but I do when the second-person accusative pronoun follows.

I would be wary of saying that you want the freedom to shoot someone. I excuse literal self-defense and defense of loved ones from murder and other violent crime, but for offenses not posing the threat of death or serious injury?

Murder, kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery merit lethal force as a response. Mere theft? No. Pulling a gun on a burglar? OK. But all in all, your gun creates danger to yourself and loved ones should the criminal wrest it from you.

I'm sorry, I forgot to take you and your sensibilities into account and conform to your rules again. I should have said, SCREW YOU LIBERAL INSTEAD. I guess, I'm going to have to final a complaint management and demand that all offensive material that liberals post that may upset anyone for any reason be eliminated from here on. We can't have two set of rules. BTW, that wasn't directed at you. That was directed at your leadership and your elites and those who may be connected to them. It's their asses that are going to be on the line one way or another. It's a pity that innocent people may have to suffer and deal with crap they shouldn't have to deal with as their leadership and elites go through the process of being taught and subjected to the pain of learning to respect the values of others the hard way.

[pbrower2a]

(04-21-2019, 05:15 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-20-2019, 11:32 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: You are reported for a vile insult. I do not report people for the mere use of the F-word, but I do when the second-person accusative pronoun follows.

I would be wary of saying that you want the freedom to shoot someone. I excuse literal self-defense and defense of loved ones from murder and other violent crime, but for offenses not posing the threat of death or serious injury?

Murder, kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery merit lethal force as a response. Mere theft? No. Pulling a gun on a burglar? OK. But all in all, your gun creates danger to yourself and loved ones should the criminal wrest it from you.

I'm sorry, I forgot to take you and your sensibilities into account and conform to your rules again. I should have said, SCREW YOU LIBERAL INSTEAD. I guess, I'm going to have to final a complaint management and demand that all offensive material that liberals post that may upset anyone for any reason be eliminated from here on. We can't have two set of rules. BTW, that wasn't directed at you. That was directed at your leadership and your elites and those who may be connected to them. It's their asses that are going to be on the line one way or another. It's a pity that innocent people may have to suffer and deal with crap they shouldn't have to deal with as their leadership and elites go through the process of being taught and subjected to the pain of learning to respect the values of others the hard way.

The F-bomb is unacceptable in polite discourse, and that has nothing to do with your political views. Children could be reading some of this material.

...We liberals are not so easy to herd as Trump supporters are. We believe in freedom of conscience, the rule of law, and a long heritage of responsible government. Most of us have the sort of education that makes deceit, demagoguery, and despotic rule unacceptable. We have tests of character, and we have can contrast what someone says in two different places and at two different times. I excuse differences of emphasis, but if what is said in two different times and places together make a logical contradiction, then either someone has changed his mind or the world has changed -- or the person who said those very different things is an unreliable fool or liar.

Donald Trump has taken over conservatism, and he has poisoned it badly. That is the tragedy.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-22-2019, 05:43 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The F-bomb is unacceptable in polite discourse, and that has nothing to do with your political views. Children could be reading some of this material.

...We liberals are not so easy to herd as Trump supporters are. We believe in freedom of conscience, the rule of law, and a long heritage of responsible government. Most of us have the sort of education that makes deceit, demagoguery, and despotic rule unacceptable. We have tests of character, and we have can contrast what someone says in two different places and at two different times. I excuse differences of emphasis, but if what is said in two different times and places together make a logical contradiction, then either someone has changed his mind or the world has changed -- or the person who said those very different things is an unreliable fool or liar.

Donald Trump has taken over conservatism, and he has poisoned it badly. That is the tragedy.

The F-bomb was a response to what you posted. If you don't want to see it, or can't handle seeing, hearing or reading FU or FHEAD or F'r or any variation of the F word when used with angry response's then I would suggest that you and other blues/liberals stop posting offensive material and stop using terms that may offend or insult others as well. I've spent years teaching blues manners and teaching blues what happens to peoples who's values aren't viewed as being quite up to par with the rest of America and showing blues how they're going to be taught and subjected to learning of the truth about themselves the hard way. Are you actually telling me, the liberals are harder to herd up than the conservatives today after years of conservatives showing blues how easy they are to herd up and easy it would be to herd them up. Fortunately, the conservatives have know interest in keeping or providing for the blues. Like I said, you don't have to worry about us. We don't want you to keep you, own you or place value on your wealth. One thing I have learned about liberals is whatever it is that others do/say that upsets liberals, the liberals themselves seem to believe they had nothing to do with it. BTW, that particular belief or attitude extends from those at the top to those at the bottom of the liberal herd or tribe so to speak.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-21-2019, 09:16 PM)taramarie Wrote: What happened in my country was a legal visitor from Australia who entered my country legally who got hold of guns from a place called Gun City. Three of the guns anyway. He was able to modify them all under our laws that allowed him to do this. A man who had done no earlier crimes at all who had been raised in Australia which has a reputation of being racist culturally and politically which clearly had some impact on him to which he agreed and aligned with white supremacy groups and individuals he believes represent the rise of white supremacy. He managed to get hold of these guns here in NZ legally and shoot up those he despises which are Muslims who by the way are here legally. They are legal and have families here. Some who were shot were wee children. This is what happened. He has written much of what I just told you in his manifesto and this is going by facts of what happened here. What needed to happen was tighter regulation on certain guns being allowed to the public which has in fact now happened thankfully as he was able to massacre so many more people in such a short amount of time due to the nature of the guns allowed to him. What we cannot monitor though are people like that who have no background on crime whatsoever but its also beneficial to do a full psychological test on each person who wants a gun just to at least attempt to prevent something like that happening ever again.

So, the horrific action of a foreigner that your government allowed to enter the country and legally purchase firearms was basically used as a valid reason to eliminate a right associated with all citizens of New Zealand. The radical Islamic's who attacked us and killed three thousand of us, some of whom were wee wee children too, entered the country legally too. A fact that our liberal groups, liberal politicians and liberal judges who opposed Trump flat out ignored and refused to take into account prior to a recent travel ban that was imposed on travelers and refuges coming in from certain war torn countries and certain state sponsors of terrorism located within the Middle East.

[David Horn]

(04-21-2019, 01:24 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: FDR didn't support all the "socialist" programs that LBJ brought in during the 60's. FDR set a record with the amount of veto's that he used to keep the socialist wing of the Democratic party in check back then. FDR wouldn't have set the record had he been a liberal like yourself and he wouldn't have signed off on legislation that eliminated the Constitutional rights of a certain ethnic group (Japanese Americans), rounded them up and had them shipped to internment camps either had he been a liberal either.

FDR was the most socialist President we've ever had in office. He had to be. The GD was beating the citizens of the country into the ground, so FDR created the WPA, CCC and other make-work agencies and put people to work. That's socialism. What LBJ did was social policy, but at the cultural level. Socialism isn't cultural, it's economic.

And yes, FDR made some horrendous mistakes: the internment of Japanese Americans was one and refusing the St. Louis the right to dock and disgorge it's refugees was another. Mistakes and all, he was still a great man. LBJ did some great things too, but he also got us bogged down in the Vietnam War. In short, both men were human beings. Both had good intentions. Both did good and some not-good.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-22-2019, 12:07 PM)David Horn Wrote: FDR was the most socialist President we've ever had in office.  He had to be.  The GD was beating the citizens of the country into the ground, so FDR created the WPA, CCC and other make-work agencies and put people to work.  That's socialism.  What LBJ did was social policy, but at the cultural level.  Socialism isn't cultural, it's economic.

And yes, FDR made some horrendous mistakes: the internment of Japanese Americans was one and refusing the St. Louis the right to dock and disgorge it's refugees was another.  Mistakes and all, he was still a great man.  LBJ did some great things too, but he also got us bogged down in the Vietnam War.  In short, both men were human beings.  Both had good intentions.   Both did good and some not-good.

FDR was the greatest Keynesian president we've had in office. Hint... If FDR was a socialist as you say, we would most likely be a socialist country today. He would've have set the record for Veto's like he did and he wouldn't have insisted on work related programs only. What LBJ did was open the door to socialist policies being set into place and established at the cultural level within impoverished areas at a time when all workers viewed working as essential which resulted in the establishment of a permanent welfare state and Democratic voting block today. IF I'm aware of it, why aren't blues aware of it and continue acting as if the permanent welfare state and the voting block that they've created and largely support, do not exist today. Now, I'm not sure if LBJ knew what he was doing or not, he's not around to ask or see the results either these days. I'd like to ask him about the crooks who took over the social movements after King, Malcolm X and the Kennedy's were assassinated and ask why so many of them are so rich and powerful these days. The truth is that Obama was the 1st socialist minded, socialist educated, socialist influenced person elected President of the United States and we both know how quickly American culture responded and how well American culture was able to control him politically. I doubt a white Obama would do better or have better result but I suppose it makes sense to give it a try.

[pbrower2a]

(04-22-2019, 11:52 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-21-2019, 09:16 PM)taramarie Wrote: What happened in my country was a legal visitor from Australia who entered my country legally who got hold of guns from a place called Gun City. Three of the guns anyway. He was able to modify them all under our laws that allowed him to do this. A man who had done no earlier crimes at all who had been raised in Australia which has a reputation of being racist culturally and politically which clearly had some impact on him to which he agreed and aligned with white supremacy groups and individuals he believes represent the rise of white supremacy. He managed to get hold of these guns here in NZ legally and shoot up those he despises which are Muslims who by the way are here legally. They are legal and have families here. Some who were shot were wee children. This is what happened. He has written much of what I just told you in his manifesto and this is going by facts of what happened here. What needed to happen was tighter regulation on certain guns being allowed to the public which has in fact now happened thankfully as he was able to massacre so many more people in such a short amount of time due to the nature of the guns allowed to him. What we cannot monitor though are people like that who have no background on crime whatsoever but its also beneficial to do a full psychological test on each person who wants a gun just to at least attempt to prevent something like that happening ever again.

So, the horrific action of a foreigner that your government allowed to enter the country and legally purchase firearms was basically used as a valid reason to eliminate a right associated with all citizens of New Zealand.  The radical Islamic's who attacked us and killed three thousand of us, some of whom were wee wee children too, entered the country legally too. A fact that our liberal groups, liberal politicians and liberal judges who opposed Trump flat out ignored and refused to take into account prior to a recent travel ban that was imposed on travelers and refuges coming in from certain war torn countries and certain state sponsors of terrorism located within the Middle East.

Terrorism is abominable no matter what the purpose and what the ideological or culture (religion and culture are usually connected. There is absolutely no connection between the Australian nutcase who killed people practicing their religion in a religious service and the mass killers of 9/11 except for the shared inexcusability of their crimes.

As I understand, refugees have a strong stake in good behavior where they end up because their good behavior by our standards put them in harm's way. People leaving countries that sponsor state terrorism? Why would most people leave such states? Could it be that such states are generally brutal to their own subjects? Maybe we can screen such people for untrustworthy people such as people pretending to be refugees but in fact agents of the gangster states that they leave.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-22-2019, 05:52 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(04-22-2019, 11:52 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-21-2019, 09:16 PM)taramarie Wrote: What happened in my country was a legal visitor from Australia who entered my country legally who got hold of guns from a place called Gun City. Three of the guns anyway. He was able to modify them all under our laws that allowed him to do this. A man who had done no earlier crimes at all who had been raised in Australia which has a reputation of being racist culturally and politically which clearly had some impact on him to which he agreed and aligned with white supremacy groups and individuals he believes represent the rise of white supremacy. He managed to get hold of these guns here in NZ legally and shoot up those he despises which are Muslims who by the way are here legally. They are legal and have families here. Some who were shot were wee children. This is what happened. He has written much of what I just told you in his manifesto and this is going by facts of what happened here. What needed to happen was tighter regulation on certain guns being allowed to the public which has in fact now happened thankfully as he was able to massacre so many more people in such a short amount of time due to the nature of the guns allowed to him. What we cannot monitor though are people like that who have no background on crime whatsoever but its also beneficial to do a full psychological test on each person who wants a gun just to at least attempt to prevent something like that happening ever again.

So, the horrific action of a foreigner that your government allowed to enter your country was basically used to eliminate a right of all citizens of New Zealand. The radical Islamic's who attacked us and killed three thousand of us some of whom were wee wee children entered the country legally too. A fact that our liberal groups, liberal politicians, liberal judges opposed to Trump flat out  ignored and refused to take into account during their opposition to a recent travel ban that was imposed on travelers and refuges coming in from certain countries located in the Middle East.

A Republican government that was American based wouldn't have eliminated your right to purchase a firearm that could be used by you for your own defense or the defense of others because a foreigner took advantage of your gun laws that didn't restrict newly or recently arrived foreigners from purchasing them legally.

No, his motive was to eliminate Muslims. He literally went tearing around in a car targeting mosques all around Christchurch. He shot up one then moved onto the one in my region of the city. Killed people there, and was on his way to a third mosque before the cops rammed his car and arrested him. Well I have no idea about what the libs are doing regarding a legal citizen shooting up a whole group of people but yes it certainly happens and was the case here in Christchurch. I also am well aware that shooters do not necessarily have to be located in that region but can be all sorts of colours, religions or no religion. Insanity and radicalism has no defined location in the world. Its everywhere. So, I would be interested in the why exactly that location when its a fact it can come from anyone anywhere in the world and does in fact happen even in your country from people who were born and raised American. I am quite interested what your thoughts are. What we can agree on is that we do not want this sort of thing happening. I am sure you do not want the shootings to continue. The only disagreement is how to minimalize the problem. Our government has actually not stopped your right of owning a gun for defence. It is only applied to certain types of guns. We still can purchase guns and we have more sensible laws around owning a gun now.

Why? I think 3,000 deaths and thousands more injured within a few hours should be enough of a reminder for anyone who was old enough to witness the 9/11 attack and automatically understand why that area of the world would still be our primary focus today. You're government has no say over our gun rights. So, my gun rights weren't affected by the decisions of your lawmakers. I'm not a fan of slaughtering innocent people. I have no idea what goes on in the minds of mass murders either.

[Eric the Green]

(04-22-2019, 03:43 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-22-2019, 12:07 PM)David Horn Wrote: FDR was the most socialist President we've ever had in office.  He had to be.  The GD was beating the citizens of the country into the ground, so FDR created the WPA, CCC and other make-work agencies and put people to work.  That's socialism.  What LBJ did was social policy, but at the cultural level.  Socialism isn't cultural, it's economic.

And yes, FDR made some horrendous mistakes: the internment of Japanese Americans was one and refusing the St. Louis the right to dock and disgorge it's refugees was another.  Mistakes and all, he was still a great man.  LBJ did some great things too, but he also got us bogged down in the Vietnam War.  In short, both men were human beings.  Both had good intentions.   Both did good and some not-good.

FDR was the greatest Keynesian president we've had in office. Hint... If FDR was a socialist as you say, we would most likely be a socialist country today. He would've have set the record for Veto's like he did and he wouldn't have insisted on work related programs only. What LBJ did was open the door to socialist policies being set into place and established at the cultural level within impoverished areas at a time when all workers viewed working as essential which resulted in the establishment of a permanent welfare state and Democratic voting block today. IF I'm aware of it, why aren't blues aware of it and continue acting as if the permanent welfare state and the voting block that they've created and largely support, do not exist today. Now, I'm not sure if LBJ knew what he was doing or not, he's not around to ask or see the results either these days. I'd like to ask him about the crooks who took over the social movements after King, Malcolm X and the Kennedy's were assassinated and ask why so many of them are so rich and powerful these days. The truth is that Obama was the 1st socialist minded, socialist educated, socialist influenced person elected President of the United States and we both know how quickly American culture responded and how well American culture was able to control him politically. I doubt a white Obama would do better or have better result but I suppose it makes sense to give it a try.

Classic, isn't it a fact that the policies you so oppose today and call socialist, are the ones instituted by FDR? He did more than use government spending to stimulate the economy. He instituted social security and welfare programs, which includes disability payments and wage supports. He helped returning GIs and others buy houses, and instituted the power of labor unions. He created government jobs. JFK and LBJ extended this to black populations in his war on poverty. Are these the ones you refer to as the welfare state, and are they the voting bloc who support it? Or other ethnic groups? Immigrants?

JFK and LBJ also created Medicare, extended work safety regulations, and started restricting pollution, which Nixon took further. But the welfare state has been cut back so much by 40 years of your philosophy in power, that I don't think you are aware of this. You still think we live in the 1970s. Welfare is a tiny portion of the federal budget, though it is larger in some states like CA. I don't know any crooks who took over the 60s movements who are rich and powerful these days. The rich and powerful are billionaires who mostly support Republicans. That party represents their class, and no-one else. 

Obama's policies were quite mild and moderate, and mostly successfully resisted. Obama sought to enact health reform after many decades of resistance. It was not a new idea at all, had been proposed by Republicans, and it has been adopted more strongly in most other countries. According to you, those other countries are all socialists, and we are special and exceptional because we aren't. I'd say we are the most backward developed country because we aren't what you call "socialist."

[Classic-Xer]

(04-22-2019, 10:57 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(04-22-2019, 10:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-22-2019, 03:43 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-22-2019, 12:07 PM)David Horn Wrote: FDR was the most socialist President we've ever had in office.  He had to be.  The GD was beating the citizens of the country into the ground, so FDR created the WPA, CCC and other make-work agencies and put people to work.  That's socialism.  What LBJ did was social policy, but at the cultural level.  Socialism isn't cultural, it's economic.

And yes, FDR made some horrendous mistakes: the internment of Japanese Americans was one and refusing the St. Louis the right to dock and disgorge it's refugees was another.  Mistakes and all, he was still a great man.  LBJ did some great things too, but he also got us bogged down in the Vietnam War.  In short, both men were human beings.  Both had good intentions.   Both did good and some not-good.

FDR was the greatest Keynesian president we've had in office. Hint... If FDR was a socialist as you say, we would most likely be a socialist country today. He would've have set the record for Veto's like he did and he wouldn't have insisted on work related programs only. What LBJ did was open the door to socialist policies being set into place and established at the cultural level within impoverished areas at a time when all workers viewed working as essential which resulted in the establishment of a permanent welfare state and Democratic voting block today. IF I'm aware of it, why aren't blues aware of it and continue acting as if the permanent welfare state and the voting block that they've created and largely support, do not exist today. Now, I'm not sure if LBJ knew what he was doing or not, he's not around to ask or see the results either these days. I'd like to ask him about the crooks who took over the social movements after King, Malcolm X and the Kennedy's were assassinated and ask why so many of them are so rich and powerful these days. The truth is that Obama was the 1st socialist minded, socialist educated, socialist influenced person elected President of the United States and we both know how quickly American culture responded and how well American culture was able to control him politically. I doubt a white Obama would do better or have better result but I suppose it makes sense to give it a try.

Classic, isn't it a fact that the policies you so oppose today and call socialist, are the ones instituted by FDR? He did more than use government spending to stimulate the economy. He instituted social security and welfare programs. He created government jobs. LBJ extended it to black populations. Are these the ones you refer to as the welfare state, and are they the voting bloc who support it? Or other ethnic groups? Immigrants?

The welfare state has been cut back so much by 40 years of your philosophy in power, that I don't think you are aware of this. You still think we live in the 1970s. Welfare is a tiny portion of the federal budget, though it is larger in some states like CA. I don't know any crooks who took over the 60s movements who are rich and powerful these days. The rich and powerful are billionaires who mostly support Republicans. That party represents their class, and no-one else. 

Obama's policies were quite mild and moderate, and mostly successfully resisted. Obama sought to enact health reform after many decades of resistance. It was not a new idea at all, had been proposed by Republicans, and it has been adopted more strongly in most other countries. According to you, those other countries are all socialists, and we are special because we aren't. I'd say we are the most backward developed country because we aren't what you call "socialist."

Agree with both actually on this. The backwards part yes and yes special too....not in good ways though to the people of your country unfortunately. Which I think Eric and I can for once agree on.

What do you know about America other than what the liberals have to say about it? As a general rule, liberals don't have very much good to say about America or Americans in general. I mean, the liberals are so anti American we don't view them as Americans these days. I mean, we are so backwards and all. Sorry, that crap makes me laugh. I dunno, I guess Eric hasn't strayed far enough from home to see a new American building or a modern American facility or a modern American home or an American farm operation outside the urban areas. We are so backwards ( still chopping wood or shoveling coal to heat our homes and still using newspaper or dried leaves for toilet paper and gas lamps or candles to light our homes or sinking nails with hammers) yet we are advancing so fast that Eric is concerned about cheap blue labor being completely phased out and wondering what we are going to do about that issue. Right now, America is going through a natural process of selection and when the process is nearly complete, a natural separation is going to take place and what the blues do and what the blues vote for and what the blues pass will no longer matter to America. We are pretty much their now. We just need to give people more time for moving.

[Bill the Piper]

There are at least two types of anti-Americanism.

One is leftist anti-Americanism. They hate America for being "imperialist", for doing military interventions against Third World nations. What they don't understand is that any country would act like that as a world hegemon. Britain, Spain, China or Japan would also intervene against the Taliban or Saddam if such action would be in their interest. Especially the Japanese would certainly play very rough if they weren't defeated in WW2. Anti-American leftists hated George W. Bush more than any other president. The also hate American businesses for "homogenizing the world", but I think British, Chinese or Japanese businesses aren't any better in this regard. Capitalism, despite its achievements, tends to disrupt time-honoured ways of life. One could also point to many instances of American businesses donating to charity, or valuing the environment and human rights.

Another, and growing variety is neoreactionary anti-Americanism. Cf. Russia's Alexander Dugin. People like him hate America for being the place of origin of "degenerate lifestyles". Their buzzword is "Hollywood values". This also makes little sense, because European intellectuals are at least as supportive of social freedoms as American ones. The very idea stems from the French Enlightenment. According to the Pew's global moral survey, the most pro-gay nation is Spain. It's true American pop-culture played a role in promoting the notion of social freedom throughout the world, but again - global hegemony of any Western European nation would likely result in the same effect. The neoreactionaries claim Europe's true identity is pre-Enlightenment Christendom, but it was destined to die off anyway. The cultural and political changes of the 1920s were caused by domestic factors more than by American influence.

[pbrower2a]

(04-23-2019, 09:25 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: There are at least two types of anti-Americanism.

One is leftist anti-Americanism. They hate America for being "imperialist", for doing military interventions against Third World nations. What they don't understand is that any country would act like that as a world hegemon. Britain, Spain, China or Japan would also intervene against the Taliban or Saddam if such action would be in their interest. Especially the Japanese would certainly play very rough if they weren't defeated in WW2. Anti-American leftists hated George W. Bush more than any other president. The also hate American businesses for "homogenizing the world", but I think British, Chinese or Japanese businesses aren't any better in this regard. Capitalism, despite its achievements, tends to disrupt time-honoured ways of life. One could also point to many instances of American businesses donating to charity, or valuing the environment and human rights.

Of course. free-market capitalism depends upon economic freedom, including the ability to get away with much that many people find objectionable -- ugly displays of opulent extravagance, pornography, reality TV, Ultimate Fighting, cars that do over 120 miles per hour. People want the Good Life on the cheap, whether they are capitalists or not, and that is much of the homogenization of culture (fast food, box stores, suburban sprawl). Capitalism of any national origin can homogenize the world, and I remember when many thought that Japan would do exactly that -- before Japan went into a recession and never really grew out of it.

Another interpretation I have is that every country eventually hits a point at which it can get no improvement simply by working more hours and applying more capital. The economic buzzwords for that appear as "diminishing returns". A comparatively small investment in Tanzania can improve much rather cheaply, but it takes huge amounts of investments just to create one job in America.

Quote:Another, and growing variety is neoreactionary anti-Americanism. Cf. Russia's Alexander Dugin. People like him hate America for being the place of origin of "degenerate lifestyles". Their buzzword is "Hollywood values". This also makes little sense, because European intellectuals are at least as supportive of social freedoms as American ones. The very idea stems from the French Enlightenment. According to the Pew's global moral survey, the most pro-gay nation is Spain. It's true American pop-culture played a role in promoting the notion of social freedom throughout the world, but again - global hegemony of any Western European nation would likely result in the same effect. The neoreactionaries claim Europe's true identity is pre-Enlightenment Christendom, but it was destined to die off anyway. The cultural and political changes of the 1920s were caused by domestic factors more than by American influence.

To someone like "national Bolshevik" Alexander Dugin I show the intellectual equivalent of the middle finger. Yes, there are plenty of 'degenerate lifestyles', but this reflects either an inadequate level of formal education (for real degeneracy look at prison populations full of inmates with as a general pattern below-average, and often much-below-average formal education... and at street gangs that disparage formal education as... whatever. 







Clearly decadent (Mara Salvatrucha-13, a truly nasty gang), but far from the mainstream of American life. 

Also decadent in a different expression:



Well-educated people rarely submit to large, gaudy tattoos -- but this is not the sort of thing that one would adopt if one attended the University of Texas and came under the benign influence of some Jewish professor of an academic subject. This said, people who have nothing more to be proud of than for being 'Aryan' are not so much degenerates as they are people who never developed any perch from which to fall. The sort of person who can drag a black man behind a pick-up truck just for being black and 'sub-human'

I became pro-gay after being gay-bashed. It's not that I suddenly felt an affinity for any 'gay lifestyle' -- it is that I recognized law and order as essential to the civil liberties and social peace that most people want.  Yes, "law and order" can be a pretext for oppression and exploitation, and such a pretext is to be rejected. Oppression and exploitation at most defer a social blow-up while intensifying its ultimate consequences. I saw the real decadence not so much in people having no choice but to be what they are, but instead in violent, hateful people. It is not up to me to show my sexual orientation, because I am far more than my sexuality.

The Enlightenment paradoxically gave conservatives the tools for identifying and excoriating excess; excess implies the debasement of others for the grandiose indulgence and display of a few, as in a Trump Tower. I admit to some archaic tastes, but I do not so much deny them from others (I lack the means for that) as I promote them.






OK, still fresh 300 years later.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-22-2019, 09:44 PM)taramarie Wrote: Yet mass murders happen from legal gun owners who were born and raised in your country who are not even from there. What is your solution for this as it does happen after all. I never said our government has a say over your gun rights. Hopefully our new laws prevent someone from being able to shoot so many people in so short a time. I am glad to hear you are not a fan of slaughtering people. We aren't so very different. We both want the same thing with people not being able to slaughter people the way that Australian did. But perhaps we need to get to the core of the problem of what causes people to harbour such hate for a group of people that they kill them in cold blood and what are their weapons of choice typically. Obviously some have mental issues but some don't. Some align with a group which harbours and feeds hate for a certain group of people by isolating them, dehumanizing them. ALL of them. Not just the ones who murdered. But the innocents too. They throw blame on a whole group of people and feed in people fear and hatred enough to kill. This can be seen in the middle east which you guys are so fearful of. But it happens on your side too. You feed fear, then comes that hatred. I understand your way is to try to prevent terrorists from coming into your country again. But it also dehumanizes a whole group of people and ignores that terrorism lives among your own too. Just you guys call them lone wolves. What does one do about them? Do you have an alternative solution for mass shootings?

Well, my solution would been to make it illegal for a foreign visitor to purchase a firearm. I don't think there's much we can do about a lone wolf who has an internal desire to murder lots of people unless we're going restrict access anything they could possibly be used to fulfill their desire. Unfortunately, we aren't able to read peoples minds at this point. I have pretty strong senses and intuition but I'm not telepathic or a 99-100% mind reader by any stretch of the imagination. We've seen mass shooting that could have been prevented by law enforcement. We've seen mass shooting by lone wolves who had squeaky clean lives and records that no one around them suspected or never eveb had a clue about what they had be planning to do or what that they were cable of doing or the reason why they did it.

[David Horn]

(04-24-2019, 12:27 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(04-23-2019, 10:07 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Well, my solution would been to make it illegal for a foreign visitor to purchase a firearm. I don't think there's much we can do about a lone wolf who has an internal desire to murder lots of people unless we're going restrict access anything they could possibly be used to fulfill their desire...

I totally agree on making it illegal for a foreign visitor to purchase firearms. If they had made it illegal here it would have prevented the shooter from purchasing those guns in the first place. Agree on not much we can do about lone wolves who wish to kill a lot of people. The unfortunate problem were the type of guns he was able to get his hands on which made it a lot easier to kill more people at a faster rate...

Let's assume that a full ban on firearms isn't going to happen. If your goal is hunting, then a manual loading weapon should do just fine. Lever, bolt and pump action rifles and shotguns existed long before the semi-automatic ones, and hunters managed to bag their limits. They still can. What those weapons don't do is rapid fire, making them less useful in a mass shooting and easier for the targeted to evade or respond. The same applies to handguns. Here, the limit should be on rapid loading and number of rounds per load, like good old-fashioned revolvers.

[David Horn]

(04-22-2019, 03:43 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-22-2019, 12:07 PM)David Horn Wrote: FDR was the most socialist President we've ever had in office.  He had to be.  The GD was beating the citizens of the country into the ground, so FDR created the WPA, CCC and other make-work agencies and put people to work.  That's socialism.  What LBJ did was social policy, but at the cultural level.  Socialism isn't cultural, it's economic.

And yes, FDR made some horrendous mistakes: the internment of Japanese Americans was one and refusing the St. Louis the right to dock and disgorge it's refugees was another.  Mistakes and all, he was still a great man.  LBJ did some great things too, but he also got us bogged down in the Vietnam War.  In short, both men were human beings.  Both had good intentions.   Both did good and some not-good.

FDR was the greatest Keynesian president we've had in office. Hint... If FDR was a socialist as you say, we would most likely be a socialist country today. He would've have set the record for Veto's like he did and he wouldn't have insisted on work related programs only. What LBJ did was open the door to socialist policies being set into place and established at the cultural level within impoverished areas at a time when all workers viewed working as essential which resulted in the establishment of a permanent welfare state and Democratic voting block today. IF I'm aware of it, why aren't blues aware of it and continue acting as if the permanent welfare state and the voting block that they've created and largely support, do not exist today. Now, I'm not sure if LBJ knew what he was doing or not, he's not around to ask or see the results either these days. I'd like to ask him about the crooks who took over the social movements after King, Malcolm X and the Kennedy's were assassinated and ask why so many of them are so rich and powerful these days. The truth is that Obama was the 1st socialist minded, socialist educated, socialist influenced person elected President of the United States and we both know how quickly American culture responded and how well American culture was able to control him politically. I doubt a white Obama would do better or have better result but I suppose it makes sense to give it a try.

You might be advised to do a little reading.  No one discounted the value of work; certainly not LBJ or MLK -- FDR least of all.  I would like to know where that came from.  I can say one thing about "the welfare state" you seem so adamant to trash.  That little idea came directly from the GOP, believe it or not, and the reason was a typical GOP reason: cost cutting.  LBJ's Job Corps was intended to be a job for anyone who needed and couldn't find one.  The GOP said that was too expensive (for reference: the Job Corps as it currently exists generates $2 of benefit for every $1 spent), so, at their insistence, the cost was cut by converting a lot of it into cash welfare, which the GOP immediately started hating too.  Now it's the Earned Income Tax Credit that's in their sights, which is funny because its a GOP program.

I ignored the rest as nonsense.

[pbrower2a]

In response to the story on CNN that Deutsche Bank, one of the few banks that has lent significant money to Donald Trump, is about to turn over banking records of Trump to the New York Attorney General, someone on Political Wire said

I wonder what Trump's FICO score is?

I said:

He should be more concerned about his "RICO" score!

(RICO stands for Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations).

[Classic-Xer]

(04-24-2019, 02:05 PM)David Horn Wrote: You might be advised to do a little reading.  No one discounted the value of work; certainly not LBJ or MLK -- FDR least of all.  I would like to know where that came from.  I can say one thing about "the welfare state" you seem so adamant to trash.  That little idea came directly from the GOP, believe it or not, and the reason was a typical GOP reason: cost cutting.  LBJ's Job Corps was intended to be a job for anyone who needed and couldn't find one.  The GOP said that was too expensive (for reference: the Job Corps as it currently exists generates $2 of benefit for every $1 spent), so, at their insistence, the cost was cut by converting a lot of it into cash welfare, which the GOP immediately started hating too.  Now it's the Earned Income Tax Credit that's in their sights, which is funny because its a GOP program.

I ignored the rest as nonsense.

Hopefully, you won't be around when America votes to cut bait with the liberals and the bulk of their socialist programs and social policies these days. I assume the 2 to 1 folks are a group of well educated and well paid professionals (physicists, engineers, lawyers, accountants, chemists and such) who work for various departments of the federal government like some friends of mine do now and a brother who worked for the Air Force with the Space Shuttle Program in the past. Am I correct about them? If so, I did a little reading and figured this out myself.