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

[Classic-Xer]

(01-04-2021, 02:11 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

Champ and Major might cause Donald Trump to feel unwelcome in the White House. German Shepherds can be wonderful pets. Even so, you behave in their presence or you will be in deep trouble. 

I wonder why Donald Trump has never had a pet dog... could it be that dogs see through him?

He probably didn't have time for a dog. If you haven't noticed, Trump's a go getter type who has been on the go his entire life. Biden seems pretty nice for a crook and his wife looks pretty good for her age. Do you ever see how she looks when she's with him while he's being interviewed. She looks like she knows he could make a mistake or become discombobulated at anytime. She always acts like I had to act with mother when she flubbed up and became disoriented. Like I've said, my mom wasn't the President of the United States.

[David Horn]

(01-04-2021, 02:31 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I assume that you don't know that it is unconstitutional for a court to change state election laws. You have to be more careful about what you post that could make you look like a Nazi supporter. So, what did the Nazi's do after they were elected? Trump is going to push it to the limit which he has the legal right to do and you and Biden are going have to suck it up and accept it for now. As I recall, you had some Nazi's in your family right. I guess the apple doesn't fall from the tree. So, you must be OK with laws being broken by Democrats. That's good, you keep doing that and thinking that way because that's what we need to see more of by the Democrats.

Right now -- at this very moment -- aground swell is rising to impeach DJT a second time before he leaves office. Why? Because he has committed sedition, breaking both Federal and Georgian state laws. It's worrisome enough that all 10 former Defense Secretaries signed a letter telling Trump and everyone supporting him to back off. Do you really think that either would happen if Trump was operating inside the law?

[pbrower2a]

(01-04-2021, 02:31 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-04-2021, 12:46 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

I assume that you don't know that it is unconstitutional for a court to change state election laws. You have to be more careful about what you post that could make you look like a Nazi supporter. So, what did the Nazi's do after they were elected? Trump is going to push it to the limit which he has the legal right to do and you and Biden are going have to suck it up and accept it for now. As I recall, you had some Nazi's in your family right. I guess the apple doesn't fall from the tree. So, you must be OK with laws being broken by Democrats. That's good, you keep doing that and thinking that way because that's what we need to see more of by the Democrats.

Courts can interpret laws to prevent denial of a right, and mandate measures that protect the use of such a right. This time the potential denial of the right to vote comes not from a human agency but instead from a virus that makes voting in person dangerous. As a general rule a change in the regulations of voting that allow more legitimate voters to cast votes pass judicial review. Thus practices that make it easier for handicapped people to vote (let us say having Braille ballots) are tolerable. 

 Regulations that make voting more difficult, especially if such regulations effectively discriminate against people by income, ethnicity, or religion, generally do not pass Constitutional muster. For example, if a state allows a highly-populous county to have but one polling place, then such would be discriminatory as it would make travel to the polling place expensive and time-consuming and effectively impossible to people with low-paying jobs. I have voted in California (often in the garage of someone's house within walking distance... which is neat, or a common area at a college residence hall), Texas (public schools), and Michigan (township halls); by ballot read by people, by machine, and by a ballot read by a machine. Putting a polling place in a police station or jail might be troublesome. 

Any physical threat to a voter, overt or implicit, is intolerable.  An armed militia at a polling place would be an obvious threat. A bunch of people wearing hoods and robes who have cameras that they point at voters? Such would be implicit. Either way, I would expect the police to remove such people from the polling place. The SARS-2 virus that causes COVID-19  has no standing as a participant in any American election. It is a genuine threat in the sense that an armed militia would pose. Allowing people who ordinarily must vote in person to vote absentee or early is an acceptable solution. Some states already have voting by mail as a norm, and that fully passes Constitutional muster.

Get used to it, Classic X'er. The only problem with it was that more people voted than ordinarily did, and the vote was counted slower than usual. Some states will likely go that way permanently; they will make the appropriate adjustments.  

...If you want to know what I hate about Nazis other than war, state terror, genocide, enslavement, and looting of occupied nations, then remember well the most degrading feature of life in George Orwell's 1984: Newspeak, or the debasement of words themselves into lies. Verbal communication makes us truly human, and the transformation of all language into meaningless bunk dehumanizes people in his fictional 1984. Two of the worst systems at so debasing language were the Soviet Union and the Third Reich.

Quote:Trump is going to push it to its limit. 

         
In fact he has pushed the effort to rescue his failed effort to get re-elected into the realm of illegality even today with a telephone call to the Attorney General of the state of Georgia asking that he 'find enough votes to flip Georgia to the President. 
Aside from the obvious fact that the sixteen electoral votes of Georgia will not make a difference, that call is an effort (itself wire fraud) to elicit either forgery (creating false votes) or perjury (as a false sworn statement of the electoral results). He has no right to encourage others to commit crimes on behalf of his failed electoral campaign to falsify the result. That itself is a violation of the law. Even if he is President he is not above the law. 

As for any Nazi connection: I have German ancestors, and some of their descendants may have done horrible things in the service of the Third Reich, the Nazi Party, and Adolf Hitler. I can track ancestors back to the 16th century in Switzerland and Germany... but I have no desire to connect to any Nazi war criminals any more than I want to connect to Wild West outlaws, to butchers of American First Peoples, to slave traffickers, or such marauders as the Barrow-Parker gang or John Dillinger. One does not choose one's ancestors or relatives except through marriage.
I do genealogy as a hobby, and someone hinted based on descent from the same person, that my paternal Y-DNA is probably EM-35. That line is very common among Jews, both Sephardic and Ashkenazic (about 16% of those populations) and otherwise rare in western Europe. The ancestor in question has a given name comparatively rare in Holland (Adam). He did have a short sojourn to the abortive Dutch colony in Brazil, but he got out of there fast. Fear of the Inquisition, perhaps?

[Eric the Green]

(01-04-2021, 02:31 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-04-2021, 12:46 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

I assume that you don't know that it is unconstitutional for a court to change state election laws. You have to be more careful about what you post that could make you look like a Nazi supporter. So, what did the Nazi's do after they were elected? Trump is going to push it to the limit which he has the legal right to do and you and Biden are going have to suck it up and accept it for now. As I recall, you had some Nazi's in your family right. I guess the apple doesn't fall from the tree. So, you must be OK with laws being broken by Democrats. That's good, you keep doing that and thinking that way because that's what we need to see more of by the Democrats.

I am angry with people like you now, classic. You just support fascism. Case closed. No, I will not allow Nazis on a forum about which I have any say.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-04-2021, 10:49 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-04-2021, 02:31 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I assume that you don't know that it is unconstitutional for a court to change state election laws. You have to be more careful about what you post that could make you look like a Nazi supporter. So, what did the Nazi's do after they were elected? Trump is going to push it to the limit which he has the legal right to do and you and Biden are going have to suck it up and accept it for now. As I recall, you had some Nazi's in your family right. I guess the apple doesn't fall from the tree. So, you must be OK with laws being broken by Democrats. That's good, you keep doing that and thinking that way because that's what we need to see more of by the Democrats.

Right now -- at this very moment -- aground swell is rising to impeach DJT a second time before he leaves office.  Why?  Because he has committed sedition, breaking both Federal and Georgian state laws.  It's worrisome enough that all 10 former Defense Secretaries signed a letter telling Trump and everyone supporting him to back off.  Do you really think that either would happen if Trump was operating inside the law?

Yes, I do think that's happening. I think there's a lot of people in the big government realm who would do and say just about anything to keep things the way they are for themselves these days. Government pays pretty good wages. The jobs are relatively easy and the expectations are lower than the private sector and there's a lot of titles and the benefits are top notch and there's perks. Trump was elected to clean house and he would have do so in his second term. Trump is a threat to them and Biden's not. I hope your not foolish enough to believe our government aren't partisan these days. Dude, Washington DC has hardly any integrity left these days.

What some Blue states did via the use of courts to change election laws was unconstitutional and therefore illegal. It's pretty cut and dry. I assume all college people are capable of reading plain English. I'd say that government integrity pretty to close to none, If they're not, why are we paying them? Do you really want another American Revolutionary war to begin brewing right now with an old dude with dementia who has a group of unknown people in charge of making of the day to day decisions for him. We know his condition, our adversaries know his condition, our so called allies know his condition, the hardcore Leftists know his condition and most Democrats probably know his condition down deep but will never admit as well. In short, Bumbling Biden is done. It may take a year or two for reality to sink in, but he's done and he shouldn't have ran for office in the first place. Why would you waste time and waste our money impeaching someone who is leaving office in a few weeks? Trump will have four years of sitting on the sideline doing what Biden did to him and we aren't going to care how cheap the shots. Years ago, I told you that the focus would shift and rhetoric would shift from Democratic candidates to the Democratic party as a whole and that's where we are at right now. If you are Democratic you better be able to handle the rhetoric that you've been spewing for years because it's going to get very personal. I see a lot of dumb female niggers spouting their mouths acting like they're super human with super human powers. I assume that you know that there's a difference between niggers and decent black folks who don't want any trouble who want to live a normal life.

The process of natural selection is occurring now and within four years it should be completed enough that a natural split should be able to occur without many problems. I don't see the blue side fighting to keep a Constitution they want to trash or a flag they don't respect or believe in these days. All I have to say is the blue states will have to be careful about how they handle/treat the Red Americans who are living within their states because there's going to be a powerful American country that will be sympathetic and willing to support their independence and intervene if necessary.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-05-2021, 12:15 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-04-2021, 02:31 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-04-2021, 12:46 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

I assume that you don't know that it is unconstitutional for a court to change state election laws. You have to be more careful about what you post that could make you look like a Nazi supporter. So, what did the Nazi's do after they were elected? Trump is going to push it to the limit which he has the legal right to do and you and Biden are going have to suck it up and accept it for now. As I recall, you had some Nazi's in your family right. I guess the apple doesn't fall from the tree. So, you must be OK with laws being broken by Democrats. That's good, you keep doing that and thinking that way because that's what we need to see more of by the Democrats.

I am angry with people like you now, classic. You just support fascism. Case closed. No, I will not allow Nazis on a forum about which I have any say.

I respect the US Constitution and recognize it as being the law of the land. You're the Nazi, Bolshevik supporter in the room dude. Your support of what they did is proof. You're support of the tech giants hooking up with the Democratic party and censoring information is proof too. You better ban yourself because you're the poster who is closest to being a Nazi like supporter here. PB's pretty close since he convicted himself. I checked your site the other day. I saw some familiar names that I haven't seen for years. I don't really have an interest in going back and repeating history. It looks like it would a safe place for you guys to ride out the storm that's coming.

[pbrower2a]

(01-05-2021, 04:30 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-05-2021, 12:15 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-04-2021, 02:31 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I assume that you don't know that it is unconstitutional for a court to change state election laws. You have to be more careful about what you post that could make you look like a Nazi supporter. So, what did the Nazi's do after they were elected? Trump is going to push it to the limit which he has the legal right to do and you and Biden are going have to suck it up and accept it for now. As I recall, you had some Nazi's in your family right. I guess the apple doesn't fall from the tree. So, you must be OK with laws being broken by Democrats. That's good, you keep doing that and thinking that way because that's what we need to see more of by the Democrats.

I am angry with people like you now, classic. You just support fascism. Case closed. No, I will not allow Nazis on a forum about which I have any say.

I respect the US Constitution and recognize it as being the law of the land. You're the Nazi, Bolshevik supporter in the room dude. Your support of what they did is proof. You're support of the tech giants hooking up with the Democratic party and censoring information is proof too. You better ban yourself because you're the poster who is closest to being a Nazi like supporter here. PB's pretty close since he convicted himself. I checked your site the other day. I saw some familiar names that I haven't seen for years. I don't really have an interest in going back and repeating history. It looks like  it would a safe place for you guys  to ride out the storm that's coming.

First, it was regulations that were changed. All states have laws about the conduct of elections. One has no right to intimidate or physically bar people from voting, whether one is in law enforcement or in a private organization. If one is a public official one has no right to suspend mass transit necessary for getting people to the vote or closing parking facilities at a balloting place. The Civil Rights Act of 1965 largely delineates what state and local governments cannot do to shape voting through clever ways of keeping people that the officials dislike from voting. COVID-19 could be treated in electoral law as if it were an armed militia threatening prospective voters. It can be considered about as dangerous to life as a rattlesnake bite or even military combat. If human thugs have no right to interfere with a lawful vote, then the virus (SARS-2) has no more right than does the KKK.

Second, measures that make honest voting easier or electoral fraud more difficult are acceptable. If that means making absentee voting easier, then such is fine. If that means early voting in case something goes haywire on Election Day, then that too is fine. If it means that election officials find it easier to cancel a registration in one bailiwick after registering in another, then such is fine. If it means that states can design ballots that cannot be forged (watermarks are acceptable), prevents tampering with electoral devices or materials (which includes hacking) then such is fine. If it precludes interference with Parties' get-out-the-vote efforts then such is fine. Both Parties have sought to make electoral fraud much more difficult, and have typically seen fit to use methods analogous to those that Big Business uses to control cash and high-value assets under ownership. Such old jokes about "dead people voting" are now not only old but also obsolete. In my county the county clerks read the local obituaries to remove deceased people from the voting rolls. 

Third, comparison of either Eric or me to Nazis is absurd. Both of us have shown consistent disdain for authoritarian and totalitarian regimes because authoritarian and totalitarian regimes debase what makes life human. I see part of the fault in American capitalism in the reduction of the number of capitalists and not capitalism itself. I would like to see the tax laws changed to promote family farms instead of farm consolidation and to promote mom-and-pop capitalism instead of monopolized, vertically-integrated businesses. We need more capitalists and not fewer if capitalism is to have any decency whatsoever. 

Even Karl Marx admitted that capitalism had promoted greater equity, technological progress, and greater overall prosperity than the feudal way of life that it supplanted. When capitalism sponsors human progress, then we can reasonably go along with it. When it promotes elitism, power of the system over workers, and mass poverty we need to change it. Business structures that promote bureaucratic power to keep most people poor, buy the political process, limit opportunity to existing elites of ownership and administration, suppress competition, and thwart technological progress  deserve to break. Much of the nastiness of the current Crisis is that giant businesses with bloated bureaucracies that have been more effective at keeping their employees poor and stifling competition have become too inefficient to remain profitable. Know well: bureaucracies are good for controlling things but almost never turn a profit. I have a thread on the lifecycle of business, and the end of the line for many businesses is that they are better at dictating the behavior of employees and customers than at turning a profit but need to borrow more and more just to stay afloat while no longer in any semblance of a growth phase. Much of the fault with American capitalism (and, yes, right-wing pols have intensified what is wrong with American capitalism) is that America has too little capitalism and too much bureaucracy.

I would think this the test of whether one believes in capitalism or does not: should people get rich in significant numbers by means other than ownership of business? Of course I recognize that such people as film stars, pop musicians, professional athletes, highly-successful professionals, and creative artists can get filthy rich. I see a big problem with people getting filthy rich as corporate bureaucrats and political hucksters for treating people badly or scamming people. Obviously the free-market system says that someone so  unique as Steve Trout is going to get filthy rich while someone struggling along in AA ball at age 27 with no chance of making it to "the Show" might as well consider making a living driving a truck or working in a warehouse if one has near-average intelligence or delivering mail or going into accountancy if one has above-average intelligence. If one is not so special one cannot expect the market to favor one making an average income except as a worker. Evidence of the validity of a capitalist system is, paradoxically, that practically nobody gets rich except as a capitalist. Successful creative people are at least capitalists of ideas and content and high-level professionals are capitalists at competence.  I am more orthodox in my support of capitalism except for one thing: we will need a welfare state just to ensure that people can participate more fully in a well-oiled economic machine. 

As for the contention that I in any way sympathize with Nazis... like most people with significant German origin I have mixed feelings about Germany. In essence, Bach, Schiller, Goethe, Diesel, Benz, and Adenauer are wonderful... and everything Nazi is horrible. In that I am like many Italian-Americans in trying to connect to Petrarch, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Verdi, Garibaldi, and Puccini while despising Mussolini's fascists and any Mafia-like cliques. Most Italian-Americans prefer to be connected to the sorts of characters in Moonstruck than in Goodfellas. But back to the disdain that most German-Americans have for Nazis: many of us recognize a political tendency that has little connection to German culture but has plenty of German-Americans in it, whether the KKK or other lunatic-fringe groups such as Boogaloo Bois or the Proud Boys as Nazi-like. 

I hate antisemitism. I come from an antisemitic family, and one of the ironies is that the more that I got to know "the Enemy" and the more that I connected to my German heritage the more I came to the conclusion that the Ashkenazi Jews are my moral and cultural brethren. If I had to choose between becoming a Jew and becoming a Nazi I would become a Jew. Maybe I might not fit into the Hasidic world, but I wouldn't fit well into another very-German world, that of the Old-Order Amish, either. I have come to recognize that much that is German is the result of Jewish contributions to science, culture, and academia. I also recognize that much the same holds for America. When it comes to religion... if one wants to fully understand what the Old Testament says, then ask an expert -- and the Jews have studied this for over two thousand years. Christian seminaries intended to churn out preachers often have Jews on their faculty for this reason. American theater is often for all practical purposes Yiddish theater done in English... and English is one of the closest languages to Yiddish. American cinema is heavily Jewish in composition, and it was especially so in the Golden Age when the studio bosses were largely Jewish. The Jewish studio bosses made sure that the cinematic product was highly-accessible, of high quality, and in tune with overall morality. As an example, Jewish writers and directors even created a stock hero -- the Roman Catholic priest! -- as a conduit for promoting moral behavior. Well, the audience for the movies included more Roman Catholics than anything else, and a rabbi wouldn't be so effective, would he? Above all, much that I consider German or Austrian but universal in desirable is Jewish. One can't have modern physics without Albert Einstein, or film music without Bernard Herrmann or Erich Korngold. Sigmund Freud is inextricable from modern thought, and the repertory of classical music would be far poorer without Mendelssohn, Mahler, Schoenberg, Copland, Gershwin, and Ligeti. If I am not an obvious relative of Jews (I have no known and identifiable Jewish ancestry) I relate well to German-Jewish and Jewish-American culture. What my antisemitic family did was to make me curious about Jews and Judaism, and the more that I see of it the more that I appreciate them. 

Here's a kicker: among the non-blacks involved in the Civil Rights struggle for African-Americans, a vastly disproportionate share were Jewish. I can hardly imagine a much more admirable cause. Human dignity is for us all (maybe such scum as pedophiles and garden-variety criminals excepted) serve us all.

The connection to Nazis that I have is one that I assume: sharing ancestors.   I consistently denounce Nazis. If I had to choose between converting to Judaism and joining a Nazi-like group.. well I risk repeating myself. Judaism is about as pure morality as one can find in any religion; after all Jews have had about a thousand more years for refining their religion than Christians have had. I will pass on the Crusades against the Albigensians and the non-Catholic peoples of the Levant, the persecution of Hussites and Mennonites, and the Inquisition. "Christian" defenses of slavery and the mistreatment of American First Peoples are sick jokes at best. I come to recognize that Judaism did nothing of this. Jews never persecuted my Quaker, Huguenot, and Mennonite ancestors -- and should I prove to have Hussite ancestors, the Jews never persecuted them.    

If you want to put me into some political box -- in some other country I might best fit a "Christian social" Party.  People like me recognize the need for a strong market system and widespread prosperity and a welfare state to ensure human dignity for all... and solid Constitutional protection of human rights. That includes of course law and order without which all enumerated human rights as in the Bill of Rights (US) or the Rights of Man (France) become meaningless.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-05-2021, 10:26 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(01-05-2021, 04:30 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-05-2021, 12:15 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-04-2021, 02:31 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I assume that you don't know that it is unconstitutional for a court to change state election laws. You have to be more careful about what you post that could make you look like a Nazi supporter. So, what did the Nazi's do after they were elected? Trump is going to push it to the limit which he has the legal right to do and you and Biden are going have to suck it up and accept it for now. As I recall, you had some Nazi's in your family right. I guess the apple doesn't fall from the tree. So, you must be OK with laws being broken by Democrats. That's good, you keep doing that and thinking that way because that's what we need to see more of by the Democrats.

I am angry with people like you now, classic. You just support fascism. Case closed. No, I will not allow Nazis on a forum about which I have any say.

I respect the US Constitution and recognize it as being the law of the land. You're the Nazi, Bolshevik supporter in the room dude. Your support of what they did is proof. You're support of the tech giants hooking up with the Democratic party and censoring information is proof too. You better ban yourself because you're the poster who is closest to being a Nazi like supporter here. PB's pretty close since he convicted himself. I checked your site the other day. I saw some familiar names that I haven't seen for years. I don't really have an interest in going back and repeating history. It looks like  it would a safe place for you guys  to ride out the storm that's coming.

First, it was regulations that were changed. All states have laws about the conduct of elections. One has no right to intimidate or physically bar people from voting, whether one is in law enforcement or in a private organization. If one is a public official one has no right to suspend mass transit necessary for getting people to the vote or closing parking facilities at a balloting place. The Civil Rights Act of 1965 largely delineates what state and local governments cannot do to shape voting through clever ways of keeping people that the officials dislike from voting. COVID-19 could be treated in electoral law as if it were an armed militia threatening prospective voters. It can be considered about as dangerous to life as a rattlesnake bite or even military combat. If human thugs have no right to interfere with a lawful vote, then the virus (SARS-2) has no more right than does the KKK.

Second, measures that make honest voting easier or electoral fraud more difficult are acceptable. If that means making absentee voting easier, then such is fine. If that means early voting in case something goes haywire on Election Day, then that too is fine. If it means that election officials find it easier to cancel a registration in one bailiwick after registering in another, then such is fine. If it means that states can design ballots that cannot be forged (watermarks are acceptable), prevents tampering with electoral devices or materials (which includes hacking) then such is fine. If it precludes interference with Parties' get-out-the-vote efforts then such is fine. Both Parties have sought to make electoral fraud much more difficult, and have typically seen fit to use methods analogous to those that Big Business uses to control cash and high-value assets under ownership. Such old jokes about "dead people voting" are now not only old but also obsolete. In my county the county clerks read the local obituaries to remove deceased people from the voting rolls. 

Third, comparison of either Eric or me to Nazis is absurd. Both of us have shown consistent disdain for authoritarian and totalitarian regimes because authoritarian and totalitarian regimes debase what makes life human. I see part of the fault in American capitalism in the reduction of the number of capitalists and not capitalism itself. I would like to see the tax laws changed to promote family farms instead of farm consolidation and to promote mom-and-pop capitalism instead of monopolized, vertically-integrated businesses. We need more capitalists and not fewer if capitalism is to have any decency whatsoever. 

Even Karl Marx admitted that capitalism had promoted greater equity, technological progress, and greater overall prosperity than the feudal way of life that it supplanted. When capitalism sponsors human progress, then we can reasonably go along with it. When it promotes elitism, power of the system over workers, and mass poverty we need to change it. Business structures that promote bureaucratic power to keep most people poor, buy the political process, limit opportunity to existing elites of ownership and administration, suppress competition, and thwart technological progress  deserve to break. Much of the nastiness of the current Crisis is that giant businesses with bloated bureaucracies that have been more effective at keeping their employees poor and stifling competition have become too inefficient to remain profitable. Know well: bureaucracies are good for controlling things but almost never turn a profit. I have a thread on the lifecycle of business, and the end of the line for many businesses is that they are better at dictating the behavior of employees and customers than at turning a profit but need to borrow more and more just to stay afloat while no longer in any semblance of a growth phase. Much of the fault with American capitalism (and, yes, right-wing pols have intensified what is wrong with American capitalism) is that America has too little capitalism and too much bureaucracy.

I would think this the test of whether one believes in capitalism or does not: should people get rich in significant numbers by means other than ownership of business? Of course I recognize that such people as film stars, pop musicians, professional athletes, highly-successful professionals, and creative artists can get filthy rich. I see a big problem with people getting filthy rich as corporate bureaucrats and political hucksters for treating people badly or scamming people. Obviously the free-market system says that someone so  unique as Steve Trout is going to get filthy rich while someone struggling along in AA ball at age 27 with no chance of making it to "the Show" might as well consider making a living driving a truck or working in a warehouse if one has near-average intelligence or delivering mail or going into accountancy if one has above-average intelligence. If one is not so special one cannot expect the market to favor one making an average income except as a worker. Evidence of the validity of a capitalist system is, paradoxically, that practically nobody gets rich except as a capitalist. Successful creative people are at least capitalists of ideas and content and high-level professionals are capitalists at competence.  I am more orthodox in my support of capitalism except for one thing: we will need a welfare state just to ensure that people can participate more fully in a well-oiled economic machine. 

As for the contention that I in any way sympathize with Nazis... like most people with significant German origin I have mixed feelings about Germany. In essence, Bach, Schiller, Goethe, Diesel, Benz, and Adenauer are wonderful... and everything Nazi is horrible. In that I am like many Italian-Americans in trying to connect to Petrarch, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Verdi, Garibaldi, and Puccini while despising Mussolini's fascists and any Mafia-like cliques. Most Italian-Americans prefer to be connected to the sorts of characters in Moonstruck than in Goodfellas. But back to the disdain that most German-Americans have for Nazis: many of us recognize a political tendency that has little connection to German culture but has plenty of German-Americans in it, whether the KKK or other lunatic-fringe groups such as Boogaloo Bois or the Proud Boys as Nazi-like. 

I hate antisemitism. I come from an antisemitic family, and one of the ironies is that the more that I got to know "the Enemy" and the more that I connected to my German heritage the more I came to the conclusion that the Ashkenazi Jews are my moral and cultural brethren. If I had to choose between becoming a Jew and becoming a Nazi I would become a Jew. Maybe I might not fit into the Hasidic world, but I wouldn't fit well into another very-German world, that of the Old-Order Amish, either. I have come to recognize that much that is German is the result of Jewish contributions to science, culture, and academia. I also recognize that much the same holds for America. When it comes to religion... if one wants to fully understand what the Old Testament says, then ask an expert -- and the Jews have studied this for over two thousand years. Christian seminaries intended to churn out preachers often have Jews on their faculty for this reason. American theater is often for all practical purposes Yiddish theater done in English... and English is one of the closest languages to Yiddish. American cinema is heavily Jewish in composition, and it was especially so in the Golden Age when the studio bosses were largely Jewish. The Jewish studio bosses made sure that the cinematic product was highly-accessible, of high quality, and in tune with overall morality. As an example, Jewish writers and directors even created a stock hero -- the Roman Catholic priest! -- as a conduit for promoting moral behavior. Well, the audience for the movies included more Roman Catholics than anything else, and a rabbi wouldn't be so effective, would he? Above all, much that I consider German or Austrian but universal in desirable is Jewish. One can't have modern physics without Albert Einstein, or film music without Bernard Herrmann or Erich Korngold. Sigmund Freud is inextricable from modern thought, and the repertory of classical music would be far poorer without Mendelssohn, Mahler, Schoenberg, Copland, Gershwin, and Ligeti. If I am not an obvious relative of Jews (I have no known and identifiable Jewish ancestry) I relate well to German-Jewish and Jewish-American culture. What my antisemitic family did was to make me curious about Jews and Judaism, and the more that I see of it the more that I appreciate them. 

Here's a kicker: among the non-blacks involved in the Civil Rights struggle for African-Americans, a vastly disproportionate share were Jewish. I can hardly imagine a much more admirable cause. Human dignity is for us all (maybe such scum as pedophiles and garden-variety criminals excepted) serve us all.

The connection to Nazis that I have is one that I assume: sharing ancestors.   I consistently denounce Nazis. If I had to choose between converting to Judaism and joining a Nazi-like group.. well I risk repeating myself. Judaism is about as pure morality as one can find in any religion; after all Jews have had about a thousand more years for refining their religion than Christians have had. I will pass on the Crusades against the Albigensians and the non-Catholic peoples of the Levant, the persecution of Hussites and Mennonites, and the Inquisition. "Christian" defenses of slavery and the mistreatment of American First Peoples are sick jokes at best. I come to recognize that Judaism did nothing of this. Jews never persecuted my Quaker, Huguenot, and Mennonite ancestors -- and should I prove to have Hussite ancestors, the Jews never persecuted them.    

If you want to put me into some political box -- in some other country I might best fit a "Christian social" Party.  People like me recognize the need for a strong market system and widespread prosperity and a welfare state to ensure human dignity for all... and solid Constitutional protection of human rights. That includes of course law and order without which all enumerated human rights as in the Bill of Rights (US) or the Rights of Man (France) become meaningless.

Regulations are part of laws dude. How do you remove regulations or change regulations without changing laws? The Nazi's could do it because because the Nazi's controlled to courts but not an American court. Like I've said, the Democratic party better pull there head out and come to grips with the fact that they live in America before they start seeing themselves being eliminated all over this country. As I'm concerned, I'm talking to a dead man but you're free to continue digging your own grave.

[David Horn]

(01-05-2021, 03:08 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Regulations are part of laws dude. How do you remove regulations or change regulations without changing laws? The Nazi's could do it because because the Nazi's controlled to courts but not an American court. Like I've said, the Democratic party better pull there head out and come to grips with the fact that they live in America before they start seeing themselves being eliminated all over this country. As I'm concerned, I'm talking to a dead man but you're free to continue digging your own grave.

Regulations are authorized by laws, but the regulations themselves can vary widely within the framework of those laws.  When the framework is so narrow that the law defines the type and degree of regulation, then you might be right ... but that's exceedingly rare.  Typically, laws set standards but avoid the details on purpose.  Regulations get overturned all the time, but the underlying laws tend to survive.  That's a feature, not a bug.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-05-2021, 10:26 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:   

If you want to put me into some political box -- in some other country I might best fit a "Christian social" Party.  People like me recognize the need for a strong market system and widespread prosperity and a welfare state to ensure human dignity for all... and solid Constitutional protection of human rights. That includes of course law and order without which all enumerated human rights as in the Bill of Rights (US) or the Rights of Man (France) become meaningless.

If that's the case, why are you in the tent of the secular left? The secular left does not recognize religion or religious belief as being equal to their own.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-05-2021, 04:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: If that's the case, why are you in the tent of the secular left? The secular left does not recognize religion or religious belief as being equal to their own.

One answer is that the government cannot recognize an official religion and thus cannot enforce religious beliefs. The Bill of Rights is secular, and thus can be enforced by the government. Belief in freedom of religion, about the right to worship as one pleases, is acknowledged, but you cannot force one person to follow another's religious beliefs.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-05-2021, 04:07 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-05-2021, 03:08 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Regulations are part of laws dude. How do you remove regulations or change regulations without changing laws? The Nazi's could do it because because the Nazi's controlled to courts but not an American court. Like I've said, the Democratic party better pull there head out and come to grips with the fact that they live in America before they start seeing themselves being eliminated all over this country. As I'm concerned, I'm talking to a dead man but you're free to continue digging your own grave.

Regulations are authorized by laws, but the regulations themselves can vary widely within the framework of those laws.  When the framework is so narrow that the law defines the type and degree of regulation, then you might be right ... but that's exceedingly rare.  Typically, laws set standards but avoid the details on purpose.  Regulations get overturned all the time, but the underlying laws tend to survive.  That's a feature, not a bug.

What's a regulation without the law? What's a law without regulations? Do you really need to continue this bullshit with me? The Democrats broke the law AGAIN!!! If law no longer pertain to the Democrats or their corporate allies, what do we have for a system? You're one of the local experts on fascism. I don't know about you but that seems like fascism to me. Like I said, the Democrats have a lot of obligations here as well as abroad to serve and it would only take one bold move to screw up the entire apple cart and cause a major setback. I'd say the day of people leaching off and relying on America for its defense are over but we still have some time to go before we are free from the bulk of entanglements related to the Democrats. In short, if you can't trust the Democrats and rely on the Democrats then you get out of the relationship altogether.

[pbrower2a]

(01-04-2021, 03:06 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-04-2021, 02:11 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

Champ and Major might cause Donald Trump to feel unwelcome in the White House. German Shepherds can be wonderful pets. Even so, you behave in their presence or you will be in deep trouble. 

I wonder why Donald Trump has never had a pet dog... could it be that dogs see through him?

He probably didn't have time for a dog. If you haven't noticed, Trump's a go getter type who has been on the go his entire life. Biden seems pretty nice for a crook and his wife looks pretty good for her age. Do you ever see how she looks when she's with him while he's being interviewed. She looks like she knows he could make a mistake or become discombobulated at anytime. She always acts like I had to act with mother when she flubbed up and became disoriented. Like I've said, my mom wasn't the President of the United States.

Donald Trump has been a go-getter all his life -- all for himself, and a raw deal for anyone with the misfortune of getting snookered into a dealing with him. The optimal businessman is the one who gets people to want even more deals. Truly good business is a win-win... good for both parties. That's how prosperity arises. Garbage for garbage, schlock for schlock is a wasted effort. Fleece deals are one-sided; the problem with those is that one participant ends up less able to do further business. Good for good makes the world a better place. The only one-sided deal that is good is an inheritance. Trump does the fleece deal. 

A dog has a calming effect on some people. It makes life less stuffy. People with pets are more likely to survive surgery. Taking time out for a dog is like taking time out for exercise -- you get it back, and your life is richer for it.

[pbrower2a]

(01-05-2021, 03:08 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Regulations are part of laws dude. How do you remove regulations or change regulations without changing laws? The Nazi's could do it because because the Nazi's controlled to courts but not an American court. Like I've said, the Democratic party better pull there head out and come to grips with the fact that they live in America before they start seeing themselves being eliminated all over this country. As I'm concerned, I'm talking to a dead man but you're free to continue digging your own grave.

The Nazis could do seemingly anything to anyone until they ran into superior force. Their technique was incredibly simple: kill anyone who gets in the way, or at least make things so horrible for anyone who falls short of expectations that he will consider himself lucky to work to exhaustion on near-starvation pay because if he falters he could end up in a concentration camp in which he gets to work beyond sustainable performance on starvation rations. In Nazi Germany one was obliged to let the horrific be the defense of the awful. 

I don't know quite what you mean by "elimination". Your sentence structure is often murky. Dead man? Me? I do not manipulate from beyond the grave.

[David Horn]

(01-05-2021, 05:27 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-05-2021, 04:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: If that's the case, why are you in the tent of the secular left? The secular left does not recognize religion or religious belief as being equal to their own.

One answer is that the government cannot recognize an official religion and thus cannot enforce religious beliefs.  The Bill of Rights is secular, and thus can be enforced by the government.  Belief in freedom of religion, about the right to worship as one pleases, is acknowledged, but you cannot force one person to follow another's religious beliefs.

I would really be interested in knowing why anyone would think that religion belongs in the political sphere.  Haven't we had enough with the Moral Majority and our Supreme Roman Catholic Court?  And take a moment to look at all the countries that enshrine religions of one type or another.  None are paragons of virtue: Hinduism in India, Judaism in Israel, Islam and Roman Catholicism in the Middle East and South and Central America, and Marxist Secularism in the countries still practicing that philosophical oxymoron. The countries that succeed both economically and socially keep politics and religion in separate lanes.

[pbrower2a]

(01-06-2021, 06:09 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-05-2021, 05:27 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-05-2021, 04:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: If that's the case, why are you in the tent of the secular left? The secular left does not recognize religion or religious belief as being equal to their own.

One answer is that the government cannot recognize an official religion and thus cannot enforce religious beliefs.  The Bill of Rights is secular, and thus can be enforced by the government.  Belief in freedom of religion, about the right to worship as one pleases, is acknowledged, but you cannot force one person to follow another's religious beliefs.

I would really be interested in knowing why anyone would think that religion belongs in the political sphere.  Haven't we had enough with the Moral Majority and our Supreme Roman Catholic Court?  And take a moment to look at all the countries that enshrine religions of one type or another.  None are paragons of virtue: Hinduism in India, Judaism in Israel, Islam and Roman Catholicism in the Middle East and South and Central America, and Marxist Secularism in the countries still practicing that philosophical oxymoron. The countries that succeed both economically and socially keep politics and religion in separate lanes.

Devoutly-religious people will have their faith coloring their political beliefs. Leadership in African-American communities is heavily clergy. Most liberals recognize the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as a hero... and he was a model for anti-Communist revolutions in central and Balkan Europe. If I must choose between a devout Christian who believes as literal truth that a good society serves its poor at the expense of elite indulgence and a secular reactionary who believes only in the sybaritic excesses of people like him, well, that's easy.  I'll take the devout Catholic Joe Biden over Donald Trump or Reverend Raphael Warnock over Kelly (I enrich myself stock deals based on insider information) Loeffler. I'm not a Catholic and I am not involved in any traditionally African-American church. If it takes religious faith to justify moral principles and make one a better person, then so be it.  If one must become a Mormon to give up smoking, drinking, and whoring, then become a Mormon. 

The Sermon on the Mount is one of the greatest political speeches ever made. I wish that many of our self-professed Christians would re-read it as guidance on how to live. Maybe liquidating a job-creating business to give the proceeds to the poor would do less good than hiring some poor people to work for one, but that is my only significant dissent, and that relates to a huge difference between the economic conditions of Antiquity and modernity.

The problem comes when religiosity comes with either gullibility or arrogance. I have nothing but contempt for pseudo-science and superstition that take the mantle of religious faith. An attitude of "believe it or burn (in Hell)" toward non-believers is the definitive effort to hijack "God". I'm not Jewish, but I like the attitude that righteous people of all origins will go to a glorious (if Jewish -- well, it is Judaism) Afterlife and that the most egregious sinners will be out of sight and out of mind. No Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam Hussein to trouble you? Fine. 

I have my own idea of the relationship of Heaven and Hell. If the Puritans had the idea that one of the delights of Heaven was to watch the torments that God inflicts upon the Damned, then I am tempted that Hell has one closed-circuit TV channel that shows the delights that the Righteous get to enjoy in Heaven but are denied in Hell... as someone like Ernst Kaltenbrunner (in charge of the concentration-camp system of the Third Reich) gets burned, gassed, hanged, and ripped to pieces by dogs. SS dogs, of course. I hope to meet my old friends Duke, Chino, Lady, Paxton, and Bear (dogs) where I am going. I am not so sure about the pet Buffy, who as a cat was an egregious violator of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill". Birds (his specialty) are probably ripping him to pieces eternally.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-06-2021, 08:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(01-06-2021, 06:09 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-05-2021, 05:27 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-05-2021, 04:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: If that's the case, why are you in the tent of the secular left? The secular left does not recognize religion or religious belief as being equal to their own.

One answer is that the government cannot recognize an official religion and thus cannot enforce religious beliefs.  The Bill of Rights is secular, and thus can be enforced by the government.  Belief in freedom of religion, about the right to worship as one pleases, is acknowledged, but you cannot force one person to follow another's religious beliefs.

I would really be interested in knowing why anyone would think that religion belongs in the political sphere.  Haven't we had enough with the Moral Majority and our Supreme Roman Catholic Court?  And take a moment to look at all the countries that enshrine religions of one type or another.  None are paragons of virtue: Hinduism in India, Judaism in Israel, Islam and Roman Catholicism in the Middle East and South and Central America, and Marxist Secularism in the countries still practicing that philosophical oxymoron. The countries that succeed both economically and socially keep politics and religion in separate lanes.

Devoutly-religious people will have their faith coloring their political beliefs. Leadership in African-American communities is heavily clergy. Most liberals recognize the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as a hero... and he was a model for anti-Communist revolutions in central and Balkan Europe. If I must choose between a devout Christian who believes as literal truth that a good society serves its poor at the expense of elite indulgence and a secular reactionary who believes only in the sybaritic excesses of people like him, well, that's easy.  I'll take the devout Catholic Joe Biden over Donald Trump or Reverend Raphael Warnock over Kelly (I enrich myself stock deals based on insider information) Loeffler. I'm not a Catholic and I am not involved in any traditionally African-American church. If it takes religious faith to justify moral principles and make one a better person, then so be it.  If one must become a Mormon to give up smoking, drinking, and whoring, then become a Mormon. 

The Sermon on the Mount is one of the greatest political speeches ever made. I wish that many of our self-professed Christians would re-read it as guidance on how to live. Maybe liquidating a job-creating business to give the proceeds to the poor would do less good than hiring some poor people to work for one, but that is my only significant dissent, and that relates to a huge difference between the economic conditions of Antiquity and modernity.

The problem comes when religiosity comes with either gullibility or arrogance. I have nothing but contempt for pseudo-science and superstition that take the mantle of religious faith. An attitude of "believe it or burn (in Hell)" toward non-believers is the definitive effort to hijack "God". I'm not Jewish, but I like the attitude that righteous people of all origins will go to a glorious (if Jewish -- well, it is Judaism) Afterlife and that the most egregious sinners will be out of sight and out of mind. No Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam Hussein to trouble you? Fine. 

I have my own idea of the relationship of Heaven and Hell. If the Puritans had the idea that one of the delights of Heaven was to watch the torments that God inflicts upon the Damned, then I am tempted that Hell has one closed-circuit TV channel that shows the delights that the Righteous get to enjoy in Heaven but are denied in Hell... as someone like Ernst Kaltenbrunner (in charge of the concentration-camp system of the Third Reich) gets burned, gassed, hanged, and ripped to pieces by dogs. SS dogs, of course. I hope to meet my old friends Duke, Chino, Lady, Paxton, and Bear (dogs) where I am going. I am not so sure about the pet Buffy, who as a cat was an egregious violator of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill". Birds (his specialty) are probably ripping him to pieces eternally.

Dude, do you know who is a decent elite and who isn't these days? How do you distinguish between them? So, how much wealth have the Obama's given away? I mean, the Obama's are filthy rich these days. I've heard they're worth a hundred million these days. Did the Obama's lie and cheat to get it? Dude, the two made all their money from politics like the Biden's and the Clintons. Obama doesn't mean shit to me but he means something to you and that's what makes him so rich and powerful. Did you get screwed by Obamacare? Did your cost of healthcare insurance quadruple so someone like you could get it for free? There's going to be a parting of ways between us and the Democrats. The GOP lost. One more time, I'm not GOP and I've never been GOP or Democratic. The two better figure shit out or the two are going to loose control over the country and the chances of that happening these days is none. The DC crowd doesn't have a fucking clue as to what's going on within the country and its going to find itself getting smacked in the face. If the country doesn't want to go in the same direction as the DC crowd, DC is pretty much screwed. A I've mentioned before, America doesn't need DC. America can let go of DC, establish a new capital and watch as DC crumbles and falls into ruin. That's what freedom is all about and that's what you guys don't seem to understand these days.

[David Horn]

(01-06-2021, 11:43 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Dude, do you know who is a decent elite and who isn't these days? How do you distinguish between them? So, how much wealth have the Obama's given away? I mean, the Obama's are filthy rich these days. I've heard they're worth a hundred million these days. Did the Obama's lie and cheat to get it? Dude, the two made all their money from politics like the Biden's and the Clintons. Obama doesn't mean shit to me but he means something to you and that's what makes him so rich and powerful.

Obama worked for his money, mostly writing and giving speeches like most other former Presidents.

C-Xer Wrote:Did you get screwed by Obamacare? Did your cost of healthcare insurance quadruple so someone like you could get it for free? There's going to be a parting of ways between us and the Democrats. The GOP lost. One more time, I'm not GOP and I've never been GOP or Democratic. The two better figure shit out or the two are going to loose control over the country and the chances of that happening these days is none. The DC crowd doesn't have a fucking clue as to what's going on within the country and its going to find itself getting smacked in the face. If the country doesn't want to go in the same direction as the DC crowd, DC is pretty much screwed. A I've mentioned before, America doesn't need DC. America can let go of DC, establish a new capital and watch as DC crumbles and falls into ruin. That's what freedom is all about and that's what you guys don't seem to understand these days.

You keep saying this shit, but what does it mean? You seem to be for nothing and against everything. FYI, life doesn't work that way. If you find "A" unacceptable, then what's your plan "B"? Healthcare's not free, so how are you planning to pay for it if not through a plan of some kind?

[Classic-Xer]

(01-06-2021, 08:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(01-06-2021, 06:09 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-05-2021, 05:27 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-05-2021, 04:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: If that's the case, why are you in the tent of the secular left? The secular left does not recognize religion or religious belief as being equal to their own.

One answer is that the government cannot recognize an official religion and thus cannot enforce religious beliefs.  The Bill of Rights is secular, and thus can be enforced by the government.  Belief in freedom of religion, about the right to worship as one pleases, is acknowledged, but you cannot force one person to follow another's religious beliefs.

I would really be interested in knowing why anyone would think that religion belongs in the political sphere.  Haven't we had enough with the Moral Majority and our Supreme Roman Catholic Court?  And take a moment to look at all the countries that enshrine religions of one type or another.  None are paragons of virtue: Hinduism in India, Judaism in Israel, Islam and Roman Catholicism in the Middle East and South and Central America, and Marxist Secularism in the countries still practicing that philosophical oxymoron. The countries that succeed both economically and socially keep politics and religion in separate lanes.

Devoutly-religious people will have their faith coloring their political beliefs. Leadership in African-American communities is heavily clergy. Most liberals recognize the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as a hero... and he was a model for anti-Communist revolutions in central and Balkan Europe. If I must choose between a devout Christian who believes as literal truth that a good society serves its poor at the expense of elite indulgence and a secular reactionary who believes only in the sybaritic excesses of people like him, well, that's easy.  I'll take the devout Catholic Joe Biden over Donald Trump or Reverend Raphael Warnock over Kelly (I enrich myself stock deals based on insider information) Loeffler. I'm not a Catholic and I am not involved in any traditionally African-American church. If it takes religious faith to justify moral principles and make one a better person, then so be it.  If one must become a Mormon to give up smoking, drinking, and whoring, then become a Mormon. 

The Sermon on the Mount is one of the greatest political speeches ever made. I wish that many of our self-professed Christians would re-read it as guidance on how to live. Maybe liquidating a job-creating business to give the proceeds to the poor would do less good than hiring some poor people to work for one, but that is my only significant dissent, and that relates to a huge difference between the economic conditions of Antiquity and modernity.

The problem comes when religiosity comes with either gullibility or arrogance. I have nothing but contempt for pseudo-science and superstition that take the mantle of religious faith. An attitude of "believe it or burn (in Hell)" toward non-believers is the definitive effort to hijack "God". I'm not Jewish, but I like the attitude that righteous people of all origins will go to a glorious (if Jewish -- well, it is Judaism) Afterlife and that the most egregious sinners will be out of sight and out of mind. No Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam Hussein to trouble you? Fine. 

I have my own idea of the relationship of Heaven and Hell. If the Puritans had the idea that one of the delights of Heaven was to watch the torments that God inflicts upon the Damned, then I am tempted that Hell has one closed-circuit TV channel that shows the delights that the Righteous get to enjoy in Heaven but are denied in Hell... as someone like Ernst Kaltenbrunner (in charge of the concentration-camp system of the Third Reich) gets burned, gassed, hanged, and ripped to pieces by dogs. SS dogs, of course. I hope to meet my old friends Duke, Chino, Lady, Paxton, and Bear (dogs) where I am going. I am not so sure about the pet Buffy, who as a cat was an egregious violator of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill". Birds (his specialty) are probably ripping him to pieces eternally.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-06-2021, 12:18 PM)David Horn Wrote: You keep saying this shit, but what does it mean?  You seem to be for nothing and against everything.  FYI, life doesn't work that way.  If you find "A" unacceptable, then what's your plan "B"? Healthcare's not free, so how are you planning to pay for it if not through a plan of some kind?

I'm standing for something and I've stood for something the entire time. I stand for law and order and the American way. What do you stand for these days? Do you stand for anything that I represent? I know how life works too. I know just as much if not more about that than you. Question, have you ever gotten something without a fight or breaking the law by being mean spirited or an arrogant prick. So, who elected the black preacher/demagogue/race baiter who doesn't sound anything like or represent the core values of Martin Luther King? I see that he defeated the rather weak GOP establishment Republican. So, how many GOP live smack dab in the the middle of a potential war zone. The DC crowd/community is more or less a gated community of cake eaters. I'd say the summer of violence paid off and good job because educated shit like him and educated shit like Abrams and educated shit like Harris is what we want in office as we begin to part ways and we want them to make the BIG mistake of trying to stop us. Like I've said, we won't be fighting for slavery or keeping Jim Crow laws. We'll be fighting for our freedom and the possession of the US Constitution and the American flag and the American way of life that will be made very clear over the next four years. Trump has the support of 80% of the Republican base and the GOP can do nothing about it at this point. The GOP doesn't have control over me like the Democratic party has over its base.

I told you what was going to happen in Georgia and I told you how it was going to happen and the reason for allowing it to happen too. You shouldn't be surprised or upset by a move made by American radicals, you're an old Left Wing radical. A group of American radicals just set you and them (DC) up for failure. So, are the shitty Democratic people (left wing anarchists who have no morals or values and the freedom to do pretty much what they want these days) ready for a no rules war with the American right? I mean, there's about 70 some million of us spread out across the entire country who could cause trouble and inflict heavy damage on them all kinds of ways these days.

The Democrats have been breaking and ignoring laws and doing as they please with no consequences or serious ramifications for doing so for quite a while now. I assume that the entire Democratic population is OK with the Democrats having that power these days. So, what are looking at that you don't seem to be able to see or wrap your mind around these day? How long has the Left and the party that represents its interests been trashing and trying to intimidate America? So, how long is going to before America responds to Democrats all over the place in equal kind? Well, that kind of depends on how long Biden is able to function and remain in office and how cocky and impatient the far Left base gets while they're waiting for him to resign and have the reigns given to one of their own these days.

Obama never had a real job outside of the public sector. Obama has been working within the political realm his entire life and he's still making money off it. Politics and public service is now a
path to become rich and famous like the Obama's and the Clinton's. It's always been a path but it's becoming more prevalent today. Biden's different, you look at him and listen to him, you'd never know the guy is worth 50 some million today or know that his family is worth millions too. So, do you and PB really have a leg to stand on as your lecturing me about the need to punish or tax private sector rich people who make money with their talents and skills who aren't directly affiliated with government?