The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Eric the Green]

(07-06-2020, 07:06 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-06-2020, 11:47 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-06-2020, 01:52 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-05-2020, 09:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-05-2020, 09:29 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You're wrong. Classic understands that there are many ways to be American and many ways to prove to others that one is an American and there are many races of Americans these days as well. You're right. The traditional black vs white, north vs south, rich vs poor, haves vs have nots are too vague and way too narrow to go by these days. You can if you want but you'll be crushed by America. Classic also understands that burning an American flag or dissing the American flag during the American anthem isn't a good way to gain American support or gain American sympathy these days either.

That has seemed to changed, although not in your right-wing, Trump-loving circles. Colin Kaepernick has been welcomed back into the NFL, and even the commissioner has apologized to him, and his gesture of kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality is being praised and copied instead of knocked now. He was ahead of his time.

The fact that you are worried about these symbols, while you ignore the reality of racial profiling and cops singling out unarmed black men like George Floyd and Elijah McClain for murder, gives broad and powerful hints about where your racial sympathies really lie. Also your defense of confederate monuments does this as well. Trump seemed to cater to the people who say exactly the same things that you do in his speech at Mt. Rushmore yesterday, but it is being condemned as dividing America and as stoking prejudice by many folks, as his approval rating drops to minus 14 points or more.

You still cannot define what you mean by what is American. All you can do is appeal to loyalty to national symbols and feelings of nationalist patriotism. The flag and the anthem can be important symbols, but what do they represent?

I don't care about what the NFL decides to do about Colin Kaepernic or whether some team decides to pay him a million to sit on the bench and watch a football game to make themselves look/feel  good. I know what I'm going to do this season. I'm going to do something else instead of watching football  this season. You shake them down and scare them by placing their most important assets at risk. We hurt them and hurt  liberal cities by making matters even  worse for them   at the same time. You just wait til we start getting more personal and begin refusing services and all kinds of other stuff that neither you, the government or the liberal media has control over. Like I've said, feeding a bunch of liberal fat cats to a bunch of wolves and teaching a bunch of preachy blue movie stars a harsh lesson about the difference us and them. You have an insurance policy and we have one too that we can back with guns. Like I said, have fun during the ugly 4T that we both know is coming.

We don't need to visit red states and counties if we don't wanna, so you can refuse service to those of us whom you can scope out to be visitors and city slickers or ethnically diverse, long-haired, etc. We'll just stay away and not patronize you. Meanwhile you can try to keep some of your agricultural products from the market, but that won't do you any good, and most farms are corporate and therefore not so concerned with cultural "American" symbols. And in places like California we have enough within our blue state borders to feed ourselves just fine. So your pressures will have little effect. We blue states and counties can do without your gun totin' backward hick redneck racist behaviors just fine.

You fucked up and called a fellow city slicker a redneck just like you've fucked up and called a fellow American who is color blind a racist just like you've fucked up and called an American patriot a Fascist. Like I said, if you would squawk less, preach less, dictate less and pay better attention and  learn for a change you'd figure out the difference between you and an American these days. You keep asking me what you should already know as an American. So, where does that leave you and the so called liberals these days.

Well, it leaves me still mystified about why you can throw around the term "American" without ever defining in any coherent way what you mean by this adjective, and just say that I should know. I think this indicates that it is YOU who doesn't know. And I don't think you do.

It's true, the "rednecks and racists" are not confined to rural and southern areas, and those areas have some fair percentage of people that are not rednecks and racists as well, or at least not entirely and fully so; and not inferior in any basic way for a' that, but talented and useful in spite of that. When we speak in generalities, we have to keep some perspective, and not be too quick to judge many-faceted individuals and put them in boxes. Even Classic Xers. It's just that there's an ideological and cultural battle going on, and the nation cannot continue in this condition. One side needs to win it in this 4T.

But I fail to see which true "American patriot" I have called a "Fascist."

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-07-2020, 02:01 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-06-2020, 07:17 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-06-2020, 07:06 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You fucked up and called a fellow city slicker a redneck just like you've fucked up and called a fellow American who is color blind a racist just like you've fucked up and called an American patriot a Fascist. Like I said, if you would squawk less, preach less, dictate less and pay better attention and  learn for a change you'd figure out the difference between you and an American these days. You keep asking me what you should already know as an American. So, where does that leave you and the so called liberals these days.

Just to be clear, were you squawking, preaching or dictating just then?

Nope. You're wrong again. I was showing Eric all the mistakes he's made with Americans so far and that's just some of his more recent mistakes.

I just see the partisan thing as symmetric.  Each side is so committed to its own perspective that it cannot accept, perceive or comprehend the opposite.  I figure there is good reason any major worldview and associated set of values came into existence.  If you see these perspectives as absolute truth, as they are deigned to be, you end up squawking, preaching and dictating to someone whose defenses against such are nigh on unreachable.  How can an individual’s intellectual defense be breached if he is incapable of hearing what the other guy is saying?

In a lot of ways you and Eric are opposite sides of the same coin.

Of course, the two views are not entirely symmetric.  The progressive side is trying to solve problems which have not yet become problems in the conservative community.  Every once in a while, the problems have to be solved other than by pretending the issues don’t exist.  Elites are not a problem if you happen to be an elite.  Racism isn’t a problem if you happen to be in the dominant community.  Global warming isn’t a problem if you are going to be dead by the time it hits home.  COVID-19 isn't a problem if you haven't caught a symptomatic case yet.  If you put your fingers in your ears and sing really loud you can make the world go away.

If you happen to be in a place where you are not effected by any of the problems, it becomes easy to pretend the problems don’t exist.  Fake news.  Hoax.  Blindness.  Go ahead.  Squawk, preach and dictate.  

It will all just roll off someone living in the real word, who sees the real problems living from day to day.

[Eric the Green]

"you are Eric" No, Classic Xer is not Eric! lol

I don't have much hope of reaching the Classic Xers and other trumpfiends. But, some people may listen to somebody, sometimes. It is the blue side that has the truth, but nothing is absolute except God. And even God manifests as all of us beings who are not.

In the civil war, one side was right, the other side was wrong, AND neither side could communicate with the other. Something of the same situation exists today. That is typical of 4Ts, and from your statements, I'm not sure that you (Bob) are quite fully aware these days of this 4T's full depths and dimensions, or how deep, severe, active and potent it might go.

Sometimes, some people on the blue side write about how they understand where the red side is coming from. I probably understand too. It rarely helps either side these days to understand the other. It's important to me to speak the blue side's point of view, since it's so necessary; even if in the back of my mind I understand pretty well what the red side believes, and why they believe it.

And I don't ignore people I disagree with, and generally I don't judge them solely for their views on things, even if it seems like I do.

You know what, though; Trump's rhetoric at Mt. Rushmore on July 4th was almost word for word what Classic Xer said here.

squawk squawk

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-07-2020, 05:26 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: "you are Eric" No, Classic Xer is not Eric! lol

I don't have much hope of reaching the Classic Xers and other trumpfiends. But, some people may listen to somebody, sometimes. It is the blue side that has the truth, but nothing is absolute except God. And even God manifests as all of us beings who are not.

In my youth I had a double worldview, one that chased between the engineer and the worshiper.  It came down to how the occult worked.  At one time I was chasing a theory that gods evolved, were competitive, competed for followers.  A god gave a minimum benefit in exchange for worship, emotion and belief.  At another time that shifted to your being more likely to observe the more emotional future.  As emotion increased, so did your metabolism, so did the number of many worlds realities generated, which changed the probability of observing something.

I guess one of the more simple problems with the usual religious or spiritual god was an old observation.  Omnipotent, omniscient or benevolent.  Pick two.  Going with all three was not consistent with the observed reality.

And yet, you allow your spirituality to alter how you perceive the world.  I don’t.  Once in a great while such as this post I will get a bit more detailed than ’devout agnostic’, but seriously changing another’s religious beliefs is about as likely as changing someone from blue to red or red to blue.

Not everyone shares your perception of God.  It would be more accurate to say there are as many perceptions as there are religions.  And yet, if your world view and values are religious or spiritual, you will alter the way you look at things to be consistent with your religious or spiritual understanding, or lack thereof.

Still, if we disagree on how we get there, we broadly agree on where we get.

[pbrower2a]

My take: if there is a God, then He can choose to be whatever best suits His Purpose at the time, as when judging souls. He even has freedom of worship...

I can imagine Nazis in despair when discovering that God is Jewish. I can imagine the despair that someone who participated in the deadly bombing of a church in Birmingham, Alabama, that God is African-America. Or that Osama bin Laden felt when he found that God is American. If you were one of Milosevich's butchers, then God is Allah and Muhammad is his greatest prophet.

Do egregious sin such as oppressing the poor (a very common crime among the rich and powerful in America and elsewhere), then you may find that God is not on your side.

[David Horn]

(07-06-2020, 09:56 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: While many things showing the confederate battle flag or referencing Confederate officers are being struck down these days, it seems there is at least one thing immune.  CNN reports the car 'General Lee' from the Dukes of Hazzard TV show has not drawn any fire.

It's a perfect object to use as a learning tool, and it's in a museum where it should be.  We can't literally whitewash this period of history by pretending it never happened.

[Eric the Green]

(07-07-2020, 09:38 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-07-2020, 05:26 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: "you are Eric" No, Classic Xer is not Eric! lol

I don't have much hope of reaching the Classic Xers and other trumpfiends. But, some people may listen to somebody, sometimes. It is the blue side that has the truth, but nothing is absolute except God. And even God manifests as all of us beings who are not.

In my youth I had a double worldview, one that chased between the engineer and the worshiper.  It came down to how the occult worked.  At one time I was chasing a theory that gods evolved, were competitive, competed for followers.  A god gave a minimum benefit in exchange for worship, emotion and belief.  At another time that shifted to your being more likely to observe the more emotional future.  As emotion increased, so did your metabolism, so did the number of many worlds realities generated, which changed the probability of observing something.

I guess one of the more simple problems with the usual religious or spiritual god was an old observation.  Omnipotent, omniscient or benevolent.  Pick two.  Going with all three was not consistent with the observed reality.

And yet, you allow your spirituality to alter how you perceive the world.  I don’t.  Once in a great while such as this post I will get a bit more detailed than ’devout agnostic’, but seriously changing another’s religious beliefs is about as likely as changing someone from blue to red or red to blue.

Not everyone shares your perception of God.  It would be more accurate to say there are as many perceptions as there are religions.  And yet, if your world view and values are religious or spiritual, you will alter the way you look at things to be consistent with your religious or spiritual understanding, or lack thereof.

Still, if we disagree on how we get there, we broadly agree on where we get.

That's good. The point of my reply is that you implied that I think my views are absolute, but I don't really think my views could be absolutes. There is only one absolute, and that is God. So the point is, the absolute is something far greater than little ol me. St. Anselm defined God as the greatest that can be conceived. It seems a fair definition. Perceptions and knowledge of God varies according to our experience and knowledge. 

I can't change someone's religious or ideological beliefs with words on a computer screen, or by most any method. It is up to each of us how curious we are about things and what life teaches us, and whether we can shift our views or even our behavior in accordance with our discoveries and experience regarding the divine. It's not an easy path for anyone. 

In my case I was fortunate at least that my curiosity became strong at just the same time as a new generation and culture was in an explorative mood during an early Awakening. I thank my lucky stars for that, and it became literally true for me when I discovered how the planets corresponded to my experience and the culture's simultaneous experience as well, predicting what the correspondence would be before looking it up and finding it there on the exact day I thought. Many people have been curious, or not so curious, to find out what they can about the spirit and the world, as their own needs, times and inclinations determine. There seems always more to discover and unfold. One of my musician friends wrote to explain his album, "through our Natural Wonder, we are constantly discovering ourselves"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lzm1mN4gN7E

[Classic-Xer]

(07-07-2020, 04:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-07-2020, 09:38 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-07-2020, 05:26 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: "you are Eric" No, Classic Xer is not Eric! lol

I don't have much hope of reaching the Classic Xers and other trumpfiends. But, some people may listen to somebody, sometimes. It is the blue side that has the truth, but nothing is absolute except God. And even God manifests as all of us beings who are not.

In my youth I had a double worldview, one that chased between the engineer and the worshiper.  It came down to how the occult worked.  At one time I was chasing a theory that gods evolved, were competitive, competed for followers.  A god gave a minimum benefit in exchange for worship, emotion and belief.  At another time that shifted to your being more likely to observe the more emotional future.  As emotion increased, so did your metabolism, so did the number of many worlds realities generated, which changed the probability of observing something.

I guess one of the more simple problems with the usual religious or spiritual god was an old observation.  Omnipotent, omniscient or benevolent.  Pick two.  Going with all three was not consistent with the observed reality.

And yet, you allow your spirituality to alter how you perceive the world.  I don’t.  Once in a great while such as this post I will get a bit more detailed than ’devout agnostic’, but seriously changing another’s religious beliefs is about as likely as changing someone from blue to red or red to blue.

Not everyone shares your perception of God.  It would be more accurate to say there are as many perceptions as there are religions.  And yet, if your world view and values are religious or spiritual, you will alter the way you look at things to be consistent with your religious or spiritual understanding, or lack thereof.

Still, if we disagree on how we get there, we broadly agree on where we get.

That's good. The point of my reply is that you implied that I think my views are absolute, but I don't really think my views could be absolutes. There is only one absolute, and that is God. So the point is, the absolute is something far greater than little ol me. St. Anselm defined God as the greatest that can be conceived. It seems a fair definition. Perceptions and knowledge of God varies according to our experience and knowledge. 

I can't change someone's religious or ideological beliefs with words on a computer screen, or by most any method. It is up to each of us how curious we are about things and what life teaches us, and whether we can shift our views or even our behavior in accordance with our discoveries and experience regarding the divine. It's not an easy path for anyone. 

In my case I was fortunate at least that my curiosity became strong at just the same time as a new generation and culture was in an explorative mood during an early Awakening. I thanks my lucky stars for that, and it became literally true for me when I discovered how the planets corresponded to my experience and the culture's simultaneous experience as well, predicting what the correspondence would be before looking it up and finding it there on the exact day I thought. Many people have been curious, or not so curious, to find out what they can about the spirit and the world, as their own needs, times and inclinations determine. There seems always more to discover and unfold. One of my musician friends wrote to explain his album, "through our Natural Wonder, we are constantly discovering ourselves"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lzm1mN4gN7E

You obviously think your views are absolute. Try to pretend you're someone else and then read your posts. So, how does someone your age remain so arrogant and how has someone as careless as you managed to survive for so long? I assume all the layers liberal laws and protections that liberal people like you have created and supported or funded or promoted have allowed you to be able to do that so far. You're right though, you're not going to change me or my beliefs or the world for that matter without God's help. So, who made you and your ilk God. I don't know what you see in yourself that makes you think you're so Godly because I'm not seeing it, feeling it or believing it these days. You know what makes Nancy so great, her ability to pick and choose her media outlets and avoid challenges and criticism. I hear the soft Fascists are now moving to the Left where they belong. I hope you're in as good with God as you believe because you're going to need him to survive what's coming down the road. If is not the question. When is the question.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-07-2020, 09:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: So, who made you and your ilk God.

He's partisan. He is locked into one way of looking at things and believes it with absolute certainty. He preaches the result. He turns off those whose perspective conflicts. He doesn't truly listen.

Of course, you are partisan too, and act much the same.

Yes, I could dream of partisans dropping their perspective for a bit and trying to see things though other eyes. I just believe someone like you can't do it.

[Classic-Xer]

(07-06-2020, 11:12 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(07-06-2020, 10:54 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: Robert E. Lee actually tried to reunify the country once the issue was decided.  There are many wo feel that the US will not survive this crisis as a 50 state nation at least. Makes you wonder if the southern states might try to reform the Confederacy. If so, would they be enlightened enough as to not attempt to re-form Jim Crow laws let alone slavery.  I would bet that they would be.  I can see the possibility of Alaska joining Canada and Hawaii becoming its own nation.  Many now question whether the idea of 50 states under one central government is any longer feasible.

This is worth remembering. General Robert E. Lee was an excellent general. Once he surrendered at Appomattox he made clear that the Confederate cause and slavery were dead beyond any recovery. He lived only five years after the Confederate defeat, and one can only imagine o- 

He did not like losing, of course, but note well that he opposed the "Lost Cause" violence against blacks. He advocated reconciliation and not resistance. The Klan cruelty was out of his sympathy. So give up slavery and go for a full recovery, whatever that took.

Lee is himself a tragic figure in American history... and far more complex than his image. One can obviously not confuse him with the proto-fascist Nathan Bedford Forrest.

Yep. The bulk of South accepted their defeat as absolute (God's Will), let bygones be bygones and pledged their allegiance to the Union and the defense of the United States of America. Do you think we would have one World War I and World War II without the help and support of all their kids and grand kids and the kids and the grand kids of the slaves. So, as groups on your side are waging a war to stamp them out and picking a fight with us in the North as well, where does that leave you (the poor idiot stuck in middle with no where to go or turn because you alone are viewed as easy prey). I don't need a Democrat to recognize the contributions of Black Americans or the quality of Black Americans either. You might but I don't. I'm on the Pro American side and unfortunately you are on the Anti American side. I'm not saying that there aren't any Pro Americans in between because there are a lot of them as well. Are the do nothing Republicans ready to work and sacrifice for America? We'll see, if not, lumping them in with the Democrats ain't going to be a problem.

[Classic-Xer]

(07-07-2020, 10:08 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-07-2020, 09:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: So, who made you and your ilk God.

He's partisan.  He is locked into one way of looking at things and believes it with absolute certainty.  He preaches the result.  He turns off those whose perspective conflicts.  He doesn't truly listen.

Of course, you are partisan too, and act much the same.

Yes, I could dream of partisans dropping their perspective for a bit and trying to see things though other eyes.  I just believe someone like you can't do it.

So, how should a partisan/patriotic/ God believing American act these days? Are you God? Are you dumb enough to tell me how to act? You are as partisan as he is, you just try to make it seem like you're not at times for your own sake. You're not listening to me. You probably should but you're not. You're to busy picking on absent Klan members or Neo Nazi members or White Supremacists in general and associating me with them as thousands of Leftists are burning down portions of cities and destroying people lives and killing people and tearing down American monuments and attacking American law enforcement like crazy. IF YOU WANT LAWLESS WE"LL GIVE YOU LAWLESSNESS AND KILL EVERY FUCKING ONE OF YOU AND SHIP WHAT"S LEFT OF THE SURVIVORS TO A MUCH NASTIER PLACE TO LIVE AND NEVER FORGET HOW BAD LIVING IN HELL IS.

[Classic-Xer]

(07-07-2020, 01:40 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-06-2020, 10:54 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: Robert E. Lee actually tried to reunify the country once the issue was decided.  There are many wo feel that the US will not survive this crisis as a 50 state nation at least. Makes you wonder if the southern states might try to reform the Confederacy. If so, would they be enlightened enough as to not attempt to re-form Jim Crow laws let alone slavery.  I would bet that they would be.  I can see the possibility of Alaska joining Canada and Hawaii becoming its own nation.  Many now question whether the idea of 50 states under one central government is any longer feasible.

It's a good point. We have always been two countries, one a brutal supremacist nation longing for a past it tried to keep alive, and the other moving forward and eager to innovate. The division now is not as stark geographically as it once was, but it's still stark.

I considered the idea for a while that we should not have fought the civil war and should have just let the South go, and save all that bloodshed, and we should do the same now if they want to secede. I am wondering about that now. I thought if the South was left on its own, it would evolve and end slavery on its own eventually, maybe in 30-50 years. 

Now I don't think so, again. After all, they did maintain white supremacy for another 100 years after the civil war, and to this day the southern and redneck whites vote to keep blacks in their place with Reaganomics and by electing a reactionary culture warrior as their president. The Confederates resisted emancipation because the slaves were valuable property in a productive economic system, as well as being what they conceived of as an inferior race that should not be freed, thus disrupting their established feudal aristocratic society of privilege. It was a matter of property rights over human rights.

So, I guess the civil war, I hate to say it, was necessary. It was so bloody largely because they had a brilliant general named Robert E. Lee who thought he could beat a more populous and better equipped nation in a conventional rather than a guerrilla war like others have fought against the USA since then. It was bloody because the white southerners were passionately dedicated to their evil cause, just as many of them are passionately dedicated to evil to this very day, as they wear their red MAGA hats, cheer their insane leader, tote their weapons and carry their confederate battle flags. 

So, we might fight again. We might still separate. Or we might simply decay and die because we have been unwilling to bravely and heroically put the Southern and Redneck regions in their place, and realize where they belong. Or perhaps the blue side will win again politically without violence, and then enough people in the red areas will decide that progress is better than misplaced passion, and the few remaining violent rebels if any can be easily dealt with. We'll see.

We've always been one country and we will most likely opt to remain one country. Yes, the Civil War was necessary back then to get us through World II and the Cold War years and get us to where we are as a nation today. So, where does that leave you and the liberals? Do you like Hawaii or prefer Oklahoma or Canada?

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-07-2020, 11:07 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: So, how should a partisan/patriotic/ God believing American act these days? Are you God? Are you dumb enough to tell me how to act? You are as partisan as he is, you just try to make it seem like you're not at times for your own sake. You're not listening to me. You probably should but you're not. You're to busy picking on absent Klan members or Neo Nazi members or White Supremacists in general and associating me with them as thousands of Leftists are burning down portions of cities and destroying people lives and killing people and tearing down American monuments and attacking American law enforcement like crazy. IF YOU WANT LAWLESS WE"LL GIVE YOU LAWLESSNESS AND KILL EVERY FUCKING ONE OF YOU AND SHIP WHAT"S LEFT OF THE SURVIVORS TO A MUCH NASTIER PLACE TO LIVE AND NEVER FORGET HOW BAD LIVING IN HELL IS.

Well, first I don’t want lawlessness. You are the one who keeps threatening violence and lawlessness. It shows you lie and do not listen.

Second, you are the coward still obsessed with violence as to make empty threats, not me.

Third, I can make suggestions, but I hardly think you will listen. Why should I expect you to start now? You are too partisan, too locked into your perspective, too incapable of change. I would as soon try to make Eric give up astrology. I’d have as good a chance at success.

Fourth…. That is the debatable one. I hold there to be much distinction between a scientific mind set, and a partisan political one. The primary difference is checking a scientific system against reality, and if they don’t match you change the scientific system. The partisan does not change his system. He becomes ideologically blind to those facts which contradict his partisan perspective. He deals with a partial reality, if that.

For example, if have repeatedly suggest you distinguish between the lawful protesters and the looters who need a healthy dose of law and order. No matter how many times I repeat it, your shtick is to lump the two together. I started out paying attention mostly to the protesters and agreed with them, but a bit in, following suggestions from Governor Cuomo and Rachel Maddow, I changed my system to reflect the difference in motivation and the proper response. On the other hand, you still haven’t.

Which reflects what can only be called a lie on your part. In advocating a law and order response to the looters, I am showing one place where I agree with you. But you do not listen even to agreement.

And, sure, the Boogaloo Bois (who do lean Marxist in my view or at least towards violence), and the racist violent police (which are not all the police) both need to be confronted verbally and if they break the law. The KKK of this incarnation, the Nazi and the protestors tend not to break the law, but more often are exercising their right to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievance. There is an old saying about not agreeing with a word they say, but defending the right to say it. It applies to the KKK and Nazi. (This says nothing of the KKK of earlier centuries, who were often into terrorist violence, not to mention the Nazi of the last century.)

Now only some of the police are into the terrorist violence.

I guess a scientific worldview and values has more complexity, generates more distinction. You act against lawbreakers with the law, and this includes towards racist violent police. You let the petitioners petition, and this might include the lawful elements of the KKK and Nazi who I do not agree with. If your partisan perspective does not allow you to see the difference, your theory goes haywire bonkers.

If you think it would increase the clarity, you are allowed to edit my post to lace it with all caps and obscenity. It is just not my style.

[Classic-Xer]

(07-07-2020, 02:08 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-06-2020, 09:41 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-06-2020, 03:39 AM)taramarie Wrote: Astrology is Eric's profession as far as i know so of course he will discuss it and inject it into his "findings" regarding the political topics that you guys discuss. I do not see that much discussion about dogs, but pbrower mentioned his reason for bringing up dogs so he can answer that better than i can as i only mentioned dogs in south africa as that was brought up and i have experience in south africa. As for violence and xenophobia....this is the 4T and there is violence partly because of xenophobia as well as other various outrages going on in your country which are splitting the population into pieces. Also i believe it could be a feeling of needs not being met/heard or understood and the only way to get those needs met is a feeling of having to take action even if it means violence at times. I feel this going on within both sides politically in your country going by what people say and how it is said. It is a 4T so obviously that will happen. I just hope it does not end up as another civil war. More than likely not. I hope so anyway. "Odd areas of interest" may be a call out for the need to bring attention to a need as well as a simple interest. Perhaps listen to the message behind those interests?

You did catch a few poster's specific interests, ones which I have grown past.  I suppose it just itches in my case because I have grown past them.  I know just enough to catch some errors and engage.

But the violence?  It was common...  in the Industrial Age and before.  This is not the Industrial Age or before.  The ones I find obsessed with violence and xenophobia seem to be dwelling in the past, are conservative, are really reluctant to change, are least able to see how things changed at the age boundary.  War and violence are not cost effective or necessary anymore.  We are absurdly slow to figure this out, especially the more conservative among us.  Watching them type that we have always had a crisis war before therefor they will be disappointed that they will not find a nuke going off just above their heads is more than a little off.

Well it is them. Their interests and needs. If you wish to converse with them, you will have to accept that this is a part of them. Just like when i start talking about New Zealand because it is a part of who i am. It is good however that you realize why it irks you. As for no need for war and violence, that depends on what will happen in the future actually. In a hypothetical situation and i do mean this is hypothetical, what if a country decided to take over just as the nazi's did. Would the USA just roll over and say nah war and violence is not necessary anymore. Yes it is not cost effective. Not at all. But the cost if for example that vaguely mentioned country who decided to take over countries including for example yours, would the cost of not doing anything be higher? Really i think it is a good consideration to take into account. That country wanting to take over may be pushing for an agenda that your country folk would not agree with at all. This is under the assumption that talk has no effect here at all and war is needed in this case to push back people forcing their agenda on people physically. I think sometimes it is needed, but should be done ONLY when there is no other option and other ways of resolving issues have not worked. It should be a last resort move.

If the liberals take over that's what they'll do, they'd either roll over or attempt to appease by turning a blind eye or reluctantly going along like they did with Hitler. Today, we have the benefit of hindsight. We can decide whether America needs Churchill (Trump) or Chamberlain (Bumbling Lovable Biden) right now. Right now, we have a bunch of liberal wimps and wimpy professional people pleasers in power and what you are seeing here is the result.

[pbrower2a]

(07-08-2020, 12:13 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: If the liberals take over that's what they'll do, they'd either roll over or attempt to appease by turning a blind eye or reluctantly going along like they did with Hitler. Today, we have the benefit of hindsight. We can decide whether America needs Churchill (Trump) or Chamberlain (Bumbling Lovable Biden) right now. Right now, we have a bunch of liberal wimps and wimpy professional people pleasers in power and what you are seeing here is the result.

Comparing Donald Trump to Sir Winston Churchill is like comparing a Yugo to a Rolls Royce.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-08-2020, 12:13 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: If the liberals take over that's what they'll do, they'd either roll over or attempt to appease by turning a blind eye or reluctantly going along like they did with Hitler. Today, we have the benefit of hindsight. We can decide whether America needs Churchill (Trump) or Chamberlain (Bumbling Lovable Biden) right now. Right now, we have a bunch of liberal wimps and wimpy professional people pleasers in power and what you are seeing here is the result.

I would line up Trump with Hoover and Buchanan, stickers to the old values and making it clear how they fail in newer times. We won’t know for sure until we are into the high, but things are heading that way again.

People are disappointed in advance with Biden. If I gave Trump a year or so before I started giving him a hard time, I would do the same to Biden.

I know FDR was not viewed overly well in his early days. He was a lawyer and governor from New York who hadn’t impressed yet. He had yet to take his place next to Lincoln and Churchill. You have to solve your crisis before being given political sainthood. Even Churchill got the Order of the Boot.

[Classic-Xer]

(07-08-2020, 12:12 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Well, first I don’t want lawlessness.  You are the one who keeps threatening violence and lawlessness.  It shows you lie and do not listen.

Second, you are the coward still obsessed with violence as to make empty threats, not me.

Third, I can make suggestions, but I hardly think you will listen.  Why should I expect you to start now?  You are too partisan, too locked into your perspective, too incapable of change.  I would as soon try to make Eric give up astrology.  I’d have as good a chance at success.

Fourth…. That is the debatable one.  I hold there to be much distinction between a scientific mind set, and a partisan political one.  The primary difference is checking a scientific system against reality, and if they don’t match you change the scientific system.  The partisan does not change his system.  He becomes ideologically blind to those facts which contradict his partisan perspective.  He deals with a partial reality, if that.

For example, if have repeatedly suggest you distinguish between the lawful protesters and the looters who need a healthy dose of law and order.  No matter how many times I repeat it, your shtick is to lump the two together.  I started out paying attention mostly to the protesters and agreed with them, but a bit in, following suggestions from Governor Cuomo and Rachel Maddow, I changed my system to reflect the difference in motivation and the proper response.  On the other hand, you still haven’t.

Which reflects what can only be called a lie on your part.  In advocating a law and order response to the looters, I am showing one place where I agree with you.  But you do not listen even to agreement.

And, sure, the Boogaloo Bois (who do lean Marxist in my view or at least towards violence), and the racist violent police (which are not all the police) both need to be confronted verbally and if they break the law.  The KKK of this incarnation, the Nazi and the protestors tend not to break the law, but more often are exercising their right to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievance.  There is an old saying about not agreeing with a word they say, but defending the right to say it.  It applies to the KKK and Nazi.  (This says nothing of the KKK of earlier centuries, who were often into terrorist violence, not to mention the Nazi of the last century.)  

Now only some of the police are into the terrorist violence.

I guess a scientific worldview and values has more complexity, generates more distinction.   You act against lawbreakers with the law, and this includes towards racist violent police.  You let the petitioners petition, and this might include the lawful elements of the KKK and Nazi who I do not agree with.  If your partisan perspective does not allow you to see the difference, your theory goes haywire bonkers.

If you think it would increase the clarity, you are allowed to edit my post to lace it with all caps and obscenity.  It is just not my style.

Me telling you over and over again that I'm going to respond to violence with violence is not a lie, it's a promise. You don't want lawlessness. Are you sure about that these days? What if the lawless people among your ranks want lawlessness and there aren't enough of you to do much about it and your worthless politicians aren't up to the task or view them as part of their political base?

[Eric the Green]

(07-08-2020, 12:13 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-07-2020, 02:08 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-06-2020, 09:41 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-06-2020, 03:39 AM)taramarie Wrote: Astrology is Eric's profession as far as i know so of course he will discuss it and inject it into his "findings" regarding the political topics that you guys discuss. I do not see that much discussion about dogs, but pbrower mentioned his reason for bringing up dogs so he can answer that better than i can as i only mentioned dogs in south africa as that was brought up and i have experience in south africa. As for violence and xenophobia....this is the 4T and there is violence partly because of xenophobia as well as other various outrages going on in your country which are splitting the population into pieces. Also i believe it could be a feeling of needs not being met/heard or understood and the only way to get those needs met is a feeling of having to take action even if it means violence at times. I feel this going on within both sides politically in your country going by what people say and how it is said. It is a 4T so obviously that will happen. I just hope it does not end up as another civil war. More than likely not. I hope so anyway. "Odd areas of interest" may be a call out for the need to bring attention to a need as well as a simple interest. Perhaps listen to the message behind those interests?

You did catch a few poster's specific interests, ones which I have grown past.  I suppose it just itches in my case because I have grown past them.  I know just enough to catch some errors and engage.

But the violence?  It was common...  in the Industrial Age and before.  This is not the Industrial Age or before.  The ones I find obsessed with violence and xenophobia seem to be dwelling in the past, are conservative, are really reluctant to change, are least able to see how things changed at the age boundary.  War and violence are not cost effective or necessary anymore.  We are absurdly slow to figure this out, especially the more conservative among us.  Watching them type that we have always had a crisis war before therefor they will be disappointed that they will not find a nuke going off just above their heads is more than a little off.

Well it is them. Their interests and needs. If you wish to converse with them, you will have to accept that this is a part of them. Just like when i start talking about New Zealand because it is a part of who i am. It is good however that you realize why it irks you. As for no need for war and violence, that depends on what will happen in the future actually. In a hypothetical situation and i do mean this is hypothetical, what if a country decided to take over just as the nazi's did. Would the USA just roll over and say nah war and violence is not necessary anymore. Yes it is not cost effective. Not at all. But the cost if for example that vaguely mentioned country who decided to take over countries including for example yours, would the cost of not doing anything be higher? Really i think it is a good consideration to take into account. That country wanting to take over may be pushing for an agenda that your country folk would not agree with at all. This is under the assumption that talk has no effect here at all and war is needed in this case to push back people forcing their agenda on people physically. I think sometimes it is needed, but should be done ONLY when there is no other option and other ways of resolving issues have not worked. It should be a last resort move.

If the liberals take over that's what they'll do, they'd either roll over or attempt to appease by turning a blind eye or reluctantly going along like they did with Hitler. Today, we have the benefit of hindsight. We can decide whether America needs Churchill (Trump) or Chamberlain (Bumbling Lovable Biden) right now. Right now, we have a bunch of liberal wimps and wimpy professional people pleasers in power and what you are seeing here is the result.

In recent years the presidents of the two parties have traded places to a large extent when it comes to use of the military and defense of the country. The so-called need to defend our country hasn't really been much of an issue since 1814. Wars by the United States have been for imperial expansion and colonization for the sake of American power and industry, and in some cases (like world wars I and II) the USA decided it could also help save the position and fortunes of allies we considered more civilized than those who were attacking them. In most cases these colonial wars also had the element of the "white man's burden" and our belief that we could impose our ideals on other nations.

Up until the 1970s, it was the more "liberal" Democratic party and politicians who pushed harder for war and took the nation into battle, while the conservatives were isolationists and wanted to stay home. An exception was the election of 1900, when the liberal Democrat advocated against imperialism and the Republican incumbent was pursuing it full speed ahead, and his successor took the same line. That was very prescient (and very connected astrologically to the same kind of situation in the late sixties and the election of 1972).

After the Vietnam debacle, and anti-war faction pretty much took over the Democratic Party, and it was the Republicans since Nixon who have pursued and started imperial and colonial wars, such as Reagan's support for Nicaraguan Contras, Bush I's Gulf War and Bush II's Gulf War #2.

After 9-11 Bush declared war on "terrorism," but he failed to destroy Al Queda, and instead got us involved in yet another colonial, imperial "regime change" war in Afghanistan. He bungled it badly, and then shifted resources to his colonial Gulf War #2 project instead. Obama came in and focused on the real target, and got the job done. Then he answered the need to wipe out the demons of the Islamic State. Trump came in and finished that job, although with much greater damage to the people and the region. Meanwhile both leaders allowed a genocide to unfold in Syria that threatened the stability of Europe.

Trump, with all his faults, is hesitant to start colonial and imperial wars. He alleges that he opposed the war in Iraq, and that's fine if it keeps him from doing something similar. But the way he bungles so many affairs, foreign and domestic, and breaks so many treaties, I hardly see him as another Churchill.

Right now, China is making cyber attacks on the USA that must be countered, and is violating the terms of its takeover of Hong Kong. The Trump administration seems willing at least to keep abreast of China's aggressions. Maybe the West should invade Hong Kong to liberate the people there. But I doubt either political party would have the stomach now to launch another such colonial war of choice against China, and I doubt also that Biden would fail to keep watch on China and its cyber and economic attacks on the USA. I don't see much difference between the parties right now on the war-peace issue. Trump is America first, talking like an isolationist at times, and Biden is also an old opponent of the USA's colonial war in Vietnam.

Just because Trump talks about making America great again and winning so often that we get tired of winning, and wastes billions on unneeded defense programs and weapons, does not mean he is any better at defending the country than the much-more experienced and much wiser Democratic Party candidate Joe Biden.

Classic Xer's talk about his party being the defender of America, and the other party being the one to roll over, doesn't seem very accurate now.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-08-2020, 12:58 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Me telling you over and over again that I'm going to respond to violence with violence is not a lie, it's a promise.

Seems like a lie to me.  Your ratio of empty threats made to actually doing something is nigh on infinite.  I still remember my high school math teacher trying to tell me that division by zero is undefined.  This changed when I got to college.  Three infinity, one undefined.  The three were physics, calculus and electronics.  The one was philosophy.  The relevant quote?  “Undefined is for little kids.”  Anyway, your ratio of empty threats to actual events seems infinite.

(07-08-2020, 12:58 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You don't want lawlessness. Are you sure about that these days? What if the lawless people among your ranks want lawlessness and there aren't enough of you to do much about it and your worthless politicians aren't up to the task or view them as part of their political base?

You are the one obsessed with violence and lawlessness.  Read again your quote above.  My view is that the Information Age began as World War II ended, and that the major western powers who made the jump have gone with non violence.  Gandhi and MLK are the prime examples.  There are remnants like the racist violent police, the Boogaloo Bois and yourself as a wannabe amateur, but folks are working on it.

[Eric the Green]

(07-08-2020, 12:58 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-08-2020, 12:12 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Well, first I don’t want lawlessness.  You are the one who keeps threatening violence and lawlessness.  It shows you lie and do not listen.

Second, you are the coward still obsessed with violence as to make empty threats, not me.

Third, I can make suggestions, but I hardly think you will listen.  Why should I expect you to start now?  You are too partisan, too locked into your perspective, too incapable of change.  I would as soon try to make Eric give up astrology.  I’d have as good a chance at success.

Fourth…. That is the debatable one.  I hold there to be much distinction between a scientific mind set, and a partisan political one.  The primary difference is checking a scientific system against reality, and if they don’t match you change the scientific system.  The partisan does not change his system.  He becomes ideologically blind to those facts which contradict his partisan perspective.  He deals with a partial reality, if that.

For example, if have repeatedly suggest you distinguish between the lawful protesters and the looters who need a healthy dose of law and order.  No matter how many times I repeat it, your shtick is to lump the two together.  I started out paying attention mostly to the protesters and agreed with them, but a bit in, following suggestions from Governor Cuomo and Rachel Maddow, I changed my system to reflect the difference in motivation and the proper response.  On the other hand, you still haven’t.

Which reflects what can only be called a lie on your part.  In advocating a law and order response to the looters, I am showing one place where I agree with you.  But you do not listen even to agreement.

And, sure, the Boogaloo Bois (who do lean Marxist in my view or at least towards violence), and the racist violent police (which are not all the police) both need to be confronted verbally and if they break the law.  The KKK of this incarnation, the Nazi and the protestors tend not to break the law, but more often are exercising their right to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievance.  There is an old saying about not agreeing with a word they say, but defending the right to say it.  It applies to the KKK and Nazi.  (This says nothing of the KKK of earlier centuries, who were often into terrorist violence, not to mention the Nazi of the last century.)  

Now only some of the police are into the terrorist violence.

I guess a scientific worldview and values has more complexity, generates more distinction.   You act against lawbreakers with the law, and this includes towards racist violent police.  You let the petitioners petition, and this might include the lawful elements of the KKK and Nazi who I do not agree with.  If your partisan perspective does not allow you to see the difference, your theory goes haywire bonkers.

If you think it would increase the clarity, you are allowed to edit my post to lace it with all caps and obscenity.  It is just not my style.

Me telling you over and over again that I'm going to respond to violence with violence is not a lie, it's a promise. You don't want lawlessness. Are you sure about that these days? What if the lawless people among your ranks want lawlessness and there aren't enough of you to do much about it and your worthless politicians aren't up to the task or view them as part of their political base?

This tack is just a political ploy by Trump. He sees that it worked for Nixon and George Wallace. He is exaggerating and distorting the lawless actions so that people will be afraid and vote for him as the law and order candidate. But as one pundit pointed out, that worked for Nixon because he was not the incumbent. Trump is now the incumbent, and if lawlessness gets worse before November, the people will blame him and a Lichtman Key will turn against him, costing him the election.

Electing a president who acts on the real issues of police brutality and neglect of social programs in the black community will decrease lawlessness and improve the cities and society as a whole.

It is your side who will instigate violence against the state. You will no doubt excuse this in some way as answering some kind of attack (probably on your gun rights or on some enforcement of gun laws). Or there may be more riots by those angry at society, perhaps sparked by more police violence, and this may be your excuse to make your own violence against them (via citizens' militias, probably). I don't see a competent liberal-Democratic state as unable to deal with either violent faction. But if Biden fails and the spiral of violence escalates, then he or his successor-candidate could face electoral trouble in 2024, no doubt.