I Apologize to My Fellow Americans

[Classic-Xer]

(01-30-2017, 02:51 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Nearly 20 years ago, in the throes of Clinton Derangement Syndrome, I would drive a few blocks from the office with my lunch, and park on a quiet street at the edge of the San Francisco Bay salt marshes. I would tune my radio to 560 KSFO and listen to Michael Savage. It must have been around 1998 that I first heard his slogan: "Borders, Language, Culture."

It seemed innocent enough. Obviously, maintaining border control is a good thing. We need customs and immigration officers to maintain orderly processing in of people coming into the country. Language is important - competence in the lingua franca is obviously a key to success. A shared culture helps us to norm on commonly understood and agreed principles of ethics, law and ways of doing business. It's all good.

Unfortunately, demagogues can take these concepts out of context, marry them with resentments held by various identity groups, spin them for political gain, or even, use them to fuel the fires of chaos.

From the seemingly innocent "Borders, Language and Culture" of the late 20th Century we have moved to "your papers please" and God forbid you don't have the correct type of name or national origin.

This is going to go badly. There are now VIPs and high status people caught up in the travel ban, some of them well regarded Resident Aliens. It's one thing to catch Joe Wetback doing a crime and deporting him, it's quite another to tell some advance degreed corporate senior management person they are not allowed to hop on the shuttle to get home to his wife and kids. It is DEPLORABLE.

I used to travel into Canada without needing a US passport. I used to be able to get on an airplane without a two/three hour wait. It's a bitch that a 5 generation American (dad's side)/13 generation American (mothers side) has to go through the same routine as all our Islamic newbies. Are you looking for sympathy for him? Where are you going to find sympathy for him in today's America?

[Classic-Xer]

(01-30-2017, 07:24 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 02:12 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You're home is private property. You have the right to decide who enters your home. The right to decide who you're willing to conduct business with in a private setting. The right to decide who you're willing to do work for in a private setting as well. BTW, you have the right to think/believe something is wrong as well.

These rights are limited and always have been. For example the police can enter your home with a warrant. It is a crime to conducting business with certain people, e.g. selling liquor to a minor or knowingly sell weapons to terrorists.

Do you need a warrant to stick your nose into my business and destroy it with the court of popular blue opinion/ blue public opinion? I don't think so but you can keep trying to do so.

[pbrower2a]

(01-30-2017, 10:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-30-2017, 02:51 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Nearly 20 years ago, in the throes of Clinton Derangement Syndrome, I would drive a few blocks from the office with my lunch, and park on a quiet street at the edge of the San Francisco Bay salt marshes. I would tune my radio to 560 KSFO and listen to Michael Savage. It must have been around 1998 that I first heard his slogan: "Borders, Language, Culture."

It seemed innocent enough. Obviously, maintaining border control is a good thing. We need customs and immigration officers to maintain orderly processing in of people coming into the country. Language is important - competence in the lingua franca is obviously a key to success. A shared culture helps us to norm on commonly understood and agreed principles of ethics, law and ways of doing business. It's all good.

Unfortunately, demagogues can take these concepts out of context, marry them with resentments held by various identity groups, spin them for political gain, or even, use them to fuel the fires of chaos.

From the seemingly innocent "Borders, Language and Culture" of the late 20th Century we have moved to "your papers please" and God forbid you don't have the correct type of name or national origin.

This is going to go badly. There are now VIPs and high status people caught up in the travel ban, some of them well regarded Resident Aliens. It's one thing to catch Joe Wetback doing a crime and deporting him, it's quite another to tell some advance degreed corporate senior management person they are not allowed to hop on the shuttle to get home to his wife and kids. It is DEPLORABLE.

I used to travel into Canada without needing a US passport. I used to be able to get on an airplane without a two/three hour wait. It's a bitch that a 5 generation American (dad's side)/13 generation American (mothers side) has to go through the same routine as all our Islamic newbies. Are you looking for sympathy for him? Where are you going to find sympathy for him in today's America?

We are still in the War on Terror; Dubya exploited it for his slightly-authoritarian agenda, and Obama simply waged it. Things tend to relax as people forget the fear. But fear is ramping up under President Trump, and I would not be surprised if you soon needed a Soviet-style internal passport to travel more than thirty miles from home. To fight Islam and illegal aliens, America will need Soviet-style internal passports just to cross state lines -- or even go fifty miles in any direction. Now that will be dreadful.

Just think of it -- I will have to wait at some checkpoint just so that I can get to  Best Buy, Target, JC Penney, or Barnes and Noble.

...Are you sure that with Donald Trump as President that America is still a free country?

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-31-2017, 12:56 AM)taramarie Wrote: Mikebert is right. It is the law and always has been and there are some very good reasons why it is the law.

Lots of truth in the above.  The law often broadly protects the people and provides a structure for living.  A lot of thought goes into it.

But the law is also often a tool to benefit the ruling elite.  We all know the Golden Rule?  Those with the gold make the rules?  Sometimes, in a crisis period, the new elites are out to reduce the power of the old elites by striking down the laws that favor the old elites.  This can be a good thing, but you have to watch for new laws that favor the new elites.  The old Black Republicans did well in striking down the laws that enabled slavery, but many of them soon became the Gilded Age robber barons, putting laws favorable to themselves in place.

In abstract, I can sympathize with the libertarian desire for smaller, simpler, cleaner legal systems.  On the other hand, the law can be a primary tool for keeping the elites in check.  I disagree with the notion that the fewer the laws, the better off we are.

But, certainly, discussion can be improved by awareness of the law.  For years I've been saying if one provides goods and services to the public, one cannot discriminate, but churches, homes and private clubs are exceptions.  Those unaware of the law argued, until I posted parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  I had it pretty much right.  This doesn't mean libertarians can't rationally disagree with the law as it is.  I can respect many of their motivations.  I suspect most any political faction will want to trim the law in one way or another.  Discussing which way or another is a lot of what we do here.

But, yes, no right is unlimited.  One hasn't the right to tread on the rights of others.  When one is promoting imaginary rights such as freedom of association to justify prejudice and discrimination, one should expect the law will get in the way.

Anyway, I feel like posting the opening paragraph of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience.  The principles have some merit.  However, they reflect the old notion that the state shall wither away, and that anarchy is utopian.  Thoreau's stateless utopia would no more work than Marx's.  However, it can sound alluring.

Quote:I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.

Of course, Civil Disobedience goes on to say that if one's government is acting immorally, it is immoral to obey. If one is dubious about the state fading away to nothing, one should still be aware of the other messages in Civil Disobedience.

[Odin]

(01-30-2017, 02:51 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Nearly 20 years ago, in the throes of Clinton Derangement Syndrome, I would drive a few blocks from the office with my lunch, and park on a quiet street at the edge of the San Francisco Bay salt marshes. I would tune my radio to 560 KSFO and listen to Michael Savage. It must have been around 1998 that I first heard his slogan: "Borders, Language, Culture."

It seemed innocent enough. Obviously, maintaining border control is a good thing. We need customs and immigration officers to maintain orderly processing in of people coming into the country. Language is important - competence in the lingua franca is obviously a key to success. A shared culture helps us to norm on commonly understood and agreed principles of ethics, law and ways of doing business. It's all good.

Unfortunately, demagogues can take these concepts out of context, marry them with resentments held by various identity groups, spin them for political gain, or even, use them to fuel the fires of chaos.

From the seemingly innocent "Borders, Language and Culture" of the late 20th Century we have moved to "your papers please" and God forbid you don't have the correct type of name or national origin.

This is going to go badly. There are now VIPs and high status people caught up in the travel ban, some of them well regarded Resident Aliens. It's one thing to catch Joe Wetback doing a crime and deporting him, it's quite another to tell some advance degreed corporate senior management person they are not allowed to hop on the shuttle to get home to his wife and kids. It is DEPLORABLE.

And now with Steve Bannon we have an actual Neo-Nazi whispering into the ear of an easily manipulated president. There is no way this cannot end badly.

[Odin]

(01-30-2017, 07:24 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 02:12 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You're home is private property. You have the right to decide who enters your home. The right to decide who you're willing to conduct business with in a private setting. The right to decide who you're willing to do work for in a private setting as well. BTW, you have the right to think/believe something is wrong as well.

These rights are limited and always have been. For example the police can enter your home with a warrant. It is a crime to conducting business with certain people, e.g. selling liquor to a minor or knowingly sell weapons to terrorists.

Libertarians have a poor grasp of the truth that property rights are creations of society and only exist in a social context.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:And now with Steve Bannon we have an actual Neo-Nazi whispering into the ear of an easily manipulated president. There is no way this cannot end badly.

Is he an actual Neo-Nazi?  Do you have a citation on that one?

[Odin]

(01-31-2017, 05:15 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:And now with Steve Bannon we have an actual Neo-Nazi whispering into the ear of an easily manipulated president. There is no way this cannot end badly.

Is he an actual Neo-Nazi?  Do you have a citation on that one?

I can't find the source at the moment (I should have saved the link when it was posted all over Reddit's politics board last weekend, damn it!) but he wants to turn the US into an enthno-nationalist white Christian theocracy and wage a holy war against the Muslim world. He believes all the usual anti-diversity and anti-multiculturalism white nationalist talking points.

[SomeGuy]

(01-31-2017, 05:38 PM)Odin Wrote:

(01-31-2017, 05:15 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:And now with Steve Bannon we have an actual Neo-Nazi whispering into the ear of an easily manipulated president. There is no way this cannot end badly.

Is he an actual Neo-Nazi?  Do you have a citation on that one?

I can't find the source at the moment (I should have saved the link when it was posted all over Reddit's politics board last weekend, damn it!) but he wants to turn the US into an enthno-nationalist white Christian theocracy and wage a holy war against the Muslim world. He believes all the usual anti-diversity and anti-multiculturalism white nationalist talking points.

I think I remember that talk, if it's the one I was thinking about, and while he had the Christian stuff, he did specifically disavow the racial angle, hoping it would, and I don't quite remember the phrase he used, "wash out"?  "fade out"?  It was not something he was going on about.  He also wanted to rerun the whole New Deal thing, "throw stuff on the wall and see what sticks" was I think the rough phrase used (different interview), too.

So, an ideological guy, not a progressive, but not really a Neo-Nazi, unless we're just using "Neo-Nazi" as an all-purpose slur.

I mean granted, you're a progressive, so anything not explicitly antiwhite* probably sounds like Hitler to you. 

* I know, I know, you people "mean" equality, but y'all sure "say" some pretty kooky things.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-31-2017, 05:08 PM)Odin Wrote:

(01-30-2017, 07:24 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 02:12 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You're home is private property. You have the right to decide who enters your home. The right to decide who you're willing to conduct business with in a private setting. The right to decide who you're willing to do work for in a private setting as well. BTW, you have the right to think/believe something is wrong as well.

These rights are limited and always have been. For example the police can enter your home with a warrant. It is a crime to conducting business with certain people, e.g. selling liquor to a minor or knowingly sell weapons to terrorists.

Libertarians have a poor grasp of the truth that property rights are creations of society and only exist in a social context.

Do you value you're property rights? Hint: You don't need to actually own property to actually have property rights in America. I agree that there are clueless people who don't own any property who are clueless enough to vote away their own property rights and support the idea of a progressive government seizing other peoples property as long as they believe that they'll receive a healthy slice of the proceeds. The progressives don't seem to grasp the truth in regards to how bad they would end being decimated by the American society. How did the Democratic party allow itself to get so far out of wack with the values of American society? How large of a social context does America represent to you? I'd say 65,000,000 for sure and 68,000,000 million who are uncertain about their loyalties at the moment.

[pbrower2a]

(01-31-2017, 07:45 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-31-2017, 05:08 PM)Odin Wrote:

(01-30-2017, 07:24 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 02:12 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You're home is private property. You have the right to decide who enters your home. The right to decide who you're willing to conduct business with in a private setting. The right to decide who you're willing to do work for in a private setting as well. BTW, you have the right to think/believe something is wrong as well.

These rights are limited and always have been. For example the police can enter your home with a warrant. It is a crime to conducting business with certain people, e.g. selling liquor to a minor or knowingly sell weapons to terrorists.

Libertarians have a poor grasp of the truth that property rights are creations of society and only exist in a social context.

Do you value you're property rights? Hint: You don't need to actually own property to actually have property rights in America. I agree that there are clueless people who don't own any property who are clueless enough to vote away their own property rights and support the idea of a progressive government seizing other peoples property as long as they believe that they'll receive a healthy slice of the proceeds. The progressives don't seem to grasp the truth in regards to how bad they would end being decimated by the American society. How did the Democratic party allow itself to get so far out of whack with the values of American society? How large of a social context does America represent to you? I'd say 65,000,000 for sure and 68,000,000 million who are uncertain about their loyalties at the moment.

Do people have a stake in property rights if they do not own the property? Sure. If you are a tenant, then you want your landlord to have some security of ownership of the property that you lease.

Does the common man have a stake in class interests of people who treat him like livestock at best and vermin at worst, as in a feudal system? Certainly not!

Democrats won the larger number of votes for President in 2016. But we now have a dictator who sees the common man as livestock at best and vermin at worst -- and his Party, which has a near monopoly on political power in America, largely concurs.

[Eric the Green]

(01-31-2017, 06:04 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-31-2017, 05:38 PM)Odin Wrote:

(01-31-2017, 05:15 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:And now with Steve Bannon we have an actual Neo-Nazi whispering into the ear of an easily manipulated president. There is no way this cannot end badly.

Is he an actual Neo-Nazi?  Do you have a citation on that one?

I can't find the source at the moment (I should have saved the link when it was posted all over Reddit's politics board last weekend, damn it!) but he wants to turn the US into an enthno-nationalist white Christian theocracy and wage a holy war against the Muslim world. He believes all the usual anti-diversity and anti-multiculturalism white nationalist talking points.

I think I remember that talk, if it's the one I was thinking about, and while he had the Christian stuff, he did specifically disavow the racial angle, hoping it would, and I don't quite remember the phrase he used, "wash out"?  "fade out"?  It was not something he was going on about.  He also wanted to rerun the whole New Deal thing, "throw stuff on the wall and see what sticks" was I think the rough phrase used (different interview), too.

So, an ideological guy, not a progressive, but not really a Neo-Nazi, unless we're just using "Neo-Nazi" as an all-purpose slur.

I mean granted, you're a progressive, so anything not explicitly antiwhite* probably sounds like Hitler to you. 

* I know, I know, you people "mean" equality, but y'all sure "say" some pretty kooky things.

He's a dangerous, deranged bigot who has the chief ear of the Liar in Chief of the United States. Wow-wee, pretty scary.

[Odin]

(01-31-2017, 06:04 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-31-2017, 05:38 PM)Odin Wrote:

(01-31-2017, 05:15 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:And now with Steve Bannon we have an actual Neo-Nazi whispering into the ear of an easily manipulated president. There is no way this cannot end badly.

Is he an actual Neo-Nazi?  Do you have a citation on that one?

I can't find the source at the moment (I should have saved the link when it was posted all over Reddit's politics board last weekend, damn it!) but he wants to turn the US into an enthno-nationalist white Christian theocracy and wage a holy war against the Muslim world. He believes all the usual anti-diversity and anti-multiculturalism white nationalist talking points.

I think I remember that talk, if it's the one I was thinking about, and while he had the Christian stuff, he did specifically disavow the racial angle, hoping it would, and I don't quite remember the phrase he used, "wash out"?  "fade out"?  It was not something he was going on about.  He also wanted to rerun the whole New Deal thing, "throw stuff on the wall and see what sticks" was I think the rough phrase used (different interview), too.

So, an ideological guy, not a progressive, but not really a Neo-Nazi, unless we're just using "Neo-Nazi" as an all-purpose slur.

I mean granted, you're a progressive, so anything not explicitly antiwhite* probably sounds like Hitler to you. 

* I know, I know, you people "mean" equality, but y'all sure "say" some pretty kooky things.

If you could post that it that would be great, because I can't seem to find the damn article.

[Odin]

(01-31-2017, 07:45 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-31-2017, 05:08 PM)Odin Wrote:

(01-30-2017, 07:24 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 02:12 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You're home is private property. You have the right to decide who enters your home. The right to decide who you're willing to conduct business with in a private setting. The right to decide who you're willing to do work for in a private setting as well. BTW, you have the right to think/believe something is wrong as well.

These rights are limited and always have been. For example the police can enter your home with a warrant. It is a crime to conducting business with certain people, e.g. selling liquor to a minor or knowingly sell weapons to terrorists.

Libertarians have a poor grasp of the truth that property rights are creations of society and only exist in a social context.

Do you value you're property rights? Hint: You don't need to actually own property to actually have property rights in America. I agree that there are clueless people who don't own any property who are clueless enough to vote away their own property rights and support the idea of a progressive government seizing other peoples property as long as they believe that they'll receive a healthy slice of the proceeds. The progressives don't seem to grasp the truth in regards to how bad they would end being decimated by the American society. How did the Democratic party allow itself to get so far out of wack with the values of American society? How large of a social context does America represent to you? I'd say 65,000,000 for sure and 68,000,000 million who are uncertain about their loyalties at the moment.

Of course I value property rights, I, like any reasonable person, just don't think property rights are absolute. Society has a right to intervene if what you are doing with your property is doing harm to society. This is why we have things like zoning restrictions, building codes, ADA regulations, smoking bans, etc.

[SomeGuy]

(02-01-2017, 07:55 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-31-2017, 06:04 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-31-2017, 05:38 PM)Odin Wrote:

(01-31-2017, 05:15 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:And now with Steve Bannon we have an actual Neo-Nazi whispering into the ear of an easily manipulated president. There is no way this cannot end badly.

Is he an actual Neo-Nazi?  Do you have a citation on that one?

I can't find the source at the moment (I should have saved the link when it was posted all over Reddit's politics board last weekend, damn it!) but he wants to turn the US into an enthno-nationalist white Christian theocracy and wage a holy war against the Muslim world. He believes all the usual anti-diversity and anti-multiculturalism white nationalist talking points.

I think I remember that talk, if it's the one I was thinking about, and while he had the Christian stuff, he did specifically disavow the racial angle, hoping it would, and I don't quite remember the phrase he used, "wash out"?  "fade out"?  It was not something he was going on about.  He also wanted to rerun the whole New Deal thing, "throw stuff on the wall and see what sticks" was I think the rough phrase used (different interview), too.

So, an ideological guy, not a progressive, but not really a Neo-Nazi, unless we're just using "Neo-Nazi" as an all-purpose slur.

I mean granted, you're a progressive, so anything not explicitly antiwhite* probably sounds like Hitler to you. 

* I know, I know, you people "mean" equality, but y'all sure "say" some pretty kooky things.

If you could post that it that would be great, because I can't seem to find the damn article.

You mean this one?*  

*I was right the first time, "washed out" was the term he used.

[Odin]

(02-01-2017, 10:22 AM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(02-01-2017, 07:55 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-31-2017, 06:04 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-31-2017, 05:38 PM)Odin Wrote:

(01-31-2017, 05:15 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Is he an actual Neo-Nazi?  Do you have a citation on that one?

I can't find the source at the moment (I should have saved the link when it was posted all over Reddit's politics board last weekend, damn it!) but he wants to turn the US into an enthno-nationalist white Christian theocracy and wage a holy war against the Muslim world. He believes all the usual anti-diversity and anti-multiculturalism white nationalist talking points.

I think I remember that talk, if it's the one I was thinking about, and while he had the Christian stuff, he did specifically disavow the racial angle, hoping it would, and I don't quite remember the phrase he used, "wash out"?  "fade out"?  It was not something he was going on about.  He also wanted to rerun the whole New Deal thing, "throw stuff on the wall and see what sticks" was I think the rough phrase used (different interview), too.

So, an ideological guy, not a progressive, but not really a Neo-Nazi, unless we're just using "Neo-Nazi" as an all-purpose slur.

I mean granted, you're a progressive, so anything not explicitly antiwhite* probably sounds like Hitler to you. 

* I know, I know, you people "mean" equality, but y'all sure "say" some pretty kooky things.

If you could post that it that would be great, because I can't seem to find the damn article.

You mean this one?*  

*I was right the first time, "washed out" was the term he used.

Yes, thanks!

EDIT: As luck would have it I found a very long discussion on Reddit about this exact talk.

[SomeGuy]

Odin,

That "discussion" looked like garbage.  Not sure why you bothered to link to it.

[Odin]

(02-01-2017, 08:06 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Odin,

That "discussion" looked like garbage.  Not sure why you bothered to link to it.

I just wanted to show that many of us outside the Alt-Right bubble find the language Bannon was using positively alarming.

[SomeGuy]

(02-02-2017, 08:07 AM)Odin Wrote:

(02-01-2017, 08:06 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Odin,

That "discussion" looked like garbage.  Not sure why you bothered to link to it.

I just wanted to show that many of us outside the Alt-Right bubble find the language Bannon was using positively alarming.

Odin, you people find anyone outside the Progressive Bubble alarming.  Mitt Romney was alarming at the time.  It isn't news to anybody.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-01-2017, 07:59 AM)Odin Wrote: Society has a right to intervene if what you are doing with your property is doing harm to society.

Well, I would actually agree with you on this  in principle.