Bipartisan Senate group proposes ‘no fly, no buy’ gun measure

[Classic-Xer]

(01-09-2019, 12:39 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: blue governments are well-managed; reds are not.

CA is solvent right now, probably because property tax revenues are so high; at least I think so, given the sky high property values. Unbelievable. Most Bay Area houses cost over a million and apartment rents are $2-3000 per month. Unemployment is low in prosperous areas, but poverty is high among poor and immigrant populations in poor central valley (generally Republican) areas, and there's homelessness because of the high housing costs everywhere.

We have strict gun laws, but the 2nd amendment still applies, so criminals and would-be criminals who aren't criminals yet can still get guns and kill people, like a teen football player yesterday in the Bay Area and several others today. Cops still get shot too, and cops still shoot people. It's still America. Real Americans support gun control and gun bans because real Americans don't want to see a bar fight become a shooting of a little girl like what happened in Texas this week. Real Americans are more concerned about so many people being shot dead for no reason, instead of whether they can shoot a deer or not instead of going to the grocery store.

Dude, a real American wouldn't have to cater to illegal aliens and pleasing naive immigrant populations and foreign interests the way blues are being forced to do out of necessity today. How many years have you been a clueless blue minded person? Me, it's been about 35 years since I've been close to being one, so to speak. I mean, the old forum was kind of like it was during middle school. The only thing different was the bullies were the bullied people back in the day. As it turned out, they weren't any better than the bullies where back in the day.

[Eric the Green]

(01-09-2019, 04:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-09-2019, 12:39 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: blue governments are well-managed; reds are not.

CA is solvent right now, probably because property tax revenues are so high; at least I think so, given the sky high property values. Unbelievable. Most Bay Area houses cost over a million and apartment rents are $2-3000 per month. Unemployment is low in prosperous areas, but poverty is high among poor and immigrant populations in poor central valley (generally Republican) areas, and there's homelessness because of the high housing costs everywhere.

We have strict gun laws, but the 2nd amendment still applies, so criminals and would-be criminals who aren't criminals yet can still get guns and kill people, like a teen football player yesterday in the Bay Area and several others today. Cops still get shot too, and cops still shoot people. It's still America. Real Americans support gun control and gun bans because real Americans don't want to see a bar fight become a shooting of a little girl like what happened in Texas this week. Real Americans are more concerned about so many people being shot dead for no reason, instead of whether they can shoot a deer or not instead of going to the grocery store.

Dude, a real American wouldn't have to cater to illegal aliens and pleasing naive immigrant populations and foreign interests the way blues are being forced to do out of necessity today. How many years have you been a clueless blue minded person? Me, it's been about 35 years since I've been close to being one, so to speak. I mean, the old forum was kind of like it was during middle school. The only thing different was the bullies were the bullied people back in the day. As it turned out, they weren't any better than the bullies where back in the day.

I disagree (surprise surprise). The statue of liberty represents real America. That's what people see when they come to our greatest harbor. You know what it says.

I've been a "clueless" blue person ever since I have known any politics at all. Family tradition, perhaps. Of course, in the 1990s I also became a green. Although, going before my parents, my family were probably more red than blue. They came from what are now called red states. My grandfather, who was a talented engineer and investor, and a source of family wealth, was a New Deal Democrat, but became an avid red by the sixties. He called me up and said our new family car would run better with a Goldwater sticker on it. My other grandfather was related to Abraham Lincoln (a common great great grandfather, a couple of times removed from Abe), and he was an enthusiastic Republican.

[pbrower2a]

(01-09-2019, 04:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-09-2019, 12:39 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: blue governments are well-managed; reds are not.

CA is solvent right now, probably because property tax revenues are so high; at least I think so, given the sky high property values. Unbelievable. Most Bay Area houses cost over a million and apartment rents are $2-3000 per month. Unemployment is low in prosperous areas, but poverty is high among poor and immigrant populations in poor central valley (generally Republican) areas, and there's homelessness because of the high housing costs everywhere.

We have strict gun laws, but the 2nd amendment still applies, so criminals and would-be criminals who aren't criminals yet can still get guns and kill people, like a teen football player yesterday in the Bay Area and several others today. Cops still get shot too, and cops still shoot people. It's still America. Real Americans support gun control and gun bans because real Americans don't want to see a bar fight become a shooting of a little girl like what happened in Texas this week. Real Americans are more concerned about so many people being shot dead for no reason, instead of whether they can shoot a deer or not instead of going to the grocery store.

Dude, a real American wouldn't have to cater to illegal aliens and pleasing naive immigrant populations and foreign interests the way blues are being forced to do out of necessity today. How many years have you been a clueless blue minded person? Me, it's been about 35 years since I've been close to being one, so to speak. I mean, the old forum was kind of like it was during middle school. The only thing different was the bullies were the bullied people back in the day. As it turned out, they weren't any better than the bullies where back in the day.

"No True Scotsman" fallacy.

No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.[1][2] Rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group).[3]

Philosophy professor Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an "ad hoc rescue" of a refuted generalization attempt.[1] The following is a simplified rendition of the fallacy:[4]
 
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

The essayist Spengler compared distinguishing between "mature" democracies, which never start wars, and "emerging democracies", which may start them, with the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Spengler alleges that political scientists have attempted to save the "US academic dogma" that democracies never start wars from counterexamples by declaring any democracy which does indeed start a war to be flawed, thus maintaining that no true democracy starts a war.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

When discussing political beliefs, few things are truly un-American, especially if you si8mply dislike the political expression.

There are stupid beliefs, such as that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. There are wrong beliefs such as the idea that one can square a circle. Americans are as capable of st7upidity as anyone else.

Moral values are generally not a matter of intellect.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-09-2019, 05:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-09-2019, 04:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-09-2019, 12:39 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: blue governments are well-managed; reds are not.

CA is solvent right now, probably because property tax revenues are so high; at least I think so, given the sky high property values. Unbelievable. Most Bay Area houses cost over a million and apartment rents are $2-3000 per month. Unemployment is low in prosperous areas, but poverty is high among poor and immigrant populations in poor central valley (generally Republican) areas, and there's homelessness because of the high housing costs everywhere.

We have strict gun laws, but the 2nd amendment still applies, so criminals and would-be criminals who aren't criminals yet can still get guns and kill people, like a teen football player yesterday in the Bay Area and several others today. Cops still get shot too, and cops still shoot people. It's still America. Real Americans support gun control and gun bans because real Americans don't want to see a bar fight become a shooting of a little girl like what happened in Texas this week. Real Americans are more concerned about so many people being shot dead for no reason, instead of whether they can shoot a deer or not instead of going to the grocery store.

Dude, a real American wouldn't have to cater to illegal aliens and pleasing naive immigrant populations and foreign interests the way blues are being forced to do out of necessity today. How many years have you been a clueless blue minded person? Me, it's been about 35 years since I've been close to being one, so to speak. I mean, the old forum was kind of like it was during middle school. The only thing different was the bullies were the bullied people back in the day. As it turned out, they weren't any better than the bullies where back in the day.

I disagree (surprise surprise). The statue of liberty represents real America. That's what people see when they come to our greatest harbor. You know what it says.

I've been a "clueless" blue person ever since I have known any politics at all. Family tradition, perhaps. Of course, in the 1990s I also became a green. Although, going before my parents, my family were probably more red than blue. They came from what are now called red states. My grandfather, who was a talented engineer and investor, and a source of family wealth, was a New Deal Democrat, but became an avid red by the sixties. He called me up and said our new family car would run better with a Goldwater sticker on it. My other grandfather was related to Abraham Lincoln (a common great great grandfather, a couple of times removed from Abe), and he was an enthusiastic Republican.

I wonder how many Americans view the Statue of Liberty as being more important to them and their lives than the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution?

[Classic-Xer]

(01-09-2019, 05:59 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(01-09-2019, 04:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-09-2019, 12:39 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: blue governments are well-managed; reds are not.

CA is solvent right now, probably because property tax revenues are so high; at least I think so, given the sky high property values. Unbelievable. Most Bay Area houses cost over a million and apartment rents are $2-3000 per month. Unemployment is low in prosperous areas, but poverty is high among poor and immigrant populations in poor central valley (generally Republican) areas, and there's homelessness because of the high housing costs everywhere.

We have strict gun laws, but the 2nd amendment still applies, so criminals and would-be criminals who aren't criminals yet can still get guns and kill people, like a teen football player yesterday in the Bay Area and several others today. Cops still get shot too, and cops still shoot people. It's still America. Real Americans support gun control and gun bans because real Americans don't want to see a bar fight become a shooting of a little girl like what happened in Texas this week. Real Americans are more concerned about so many people being shot dead for no reason, instead of whether they can shoot a deer or not instead of going to the grocery store.

Dude, a real American wouldn't have to cater to illegal aliens and pleasing naive immigrant populations and foreign interests the way blues are being forced to do out of necessity today. How many years have you been a clueless blue minded person? Me, it's been about 35 years since I've been close to being one, so to speak. I mean, the old forum was kind of like it was during middle school. The only thing different was the bullies were the bullied people back in the day. As it turned out, they weren't any better than the bullies where back in the day.

"No True Scotsman" fallacy.

No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.[1][2] Rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group).[3]

Philosophy professor Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an "ad hoc rescue" of a refuted generalization attempt.[1] The following is a simplified rendition of the fallacy:[4]
 
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

The essayist Spengler compared distinguishing between "mature" democracies, which never start wars, and "emerging democracies", which may start them, with the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Spengler alleges that political scientists have attempted to save the "US academic dogma" that democracies never start wars from counterexamples by declaring any democracy which does indeed start a war to be flawed, thus maintaining that no true democracy starts a war.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

When discussing political beliefs, few things are truly un-American, especially if you si8mply dislike the political expression.

There are stupid beliefs, such as that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. There are wrong beliefs such as the idea that one can square a circle. Americans are as capable of st7upidity as anyone else.

Moral values are generally not a matter of intellect.

Well, if I were a true Scotsman or a Scotsman of some sort, I suppose I'd be more likely to relate and be more likely to care about trivial issues and personal beliefs related to Scotsman. IS AMERICA A SOCIALIST STATE or HAS AMERICA EVER BEEN A SOCIALIST STATE? I'm sorry dude, I view socialism as being un American and I view those who support the idea of America becoming one as un American too. I don't care about you political expression or your political beliefs. I place no value on either of them.

[Eric the Green]

(01-09-2019, 10:01 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-09-2019, 05:59 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(01-09-2019, 04:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-09-2019, 12:39 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: blue governments are well-managed; reds are not.

CA is solvent right now, probably because property tax revenues are so high; at least I think so, given the sky high property values. Unbelievable. Most Bay Area houses cost over a million and apartment rents are $2-3000 per month. Unemployment is low in prosperous areas, but poverty is high among poor and immigrant populations in poor central valley (generally Republican) areas, and there's homelessness because of the high housing costs everywhere.

We have strict gun laws, but the 2nd amendment still applies, so criminals and would-be criminals who aren't criminals yet can still get guns and kill people, like a teen football player yesterday in the Bay Area and several others today. Cops still get shot too, and cops still shoot people. It's still America. Real Americans support gun control and gun bans because real Americans don't want to see a bar fight become a shooting of a little girl like what happened in Texas this week. Real Americans are more concerned about so many people being shot dead for no reason, instead of whether they can shoot a deer or not instead of going to the grocery store.

Dude, a real American wouldn't have to cater to illegal aliens and pleasing naive immigrant populations and foreign interests the way blues are being forced to do out of necessity today. How many years have you been a clueless blue minded person? Me, it's been about 35 years since I've been close to being one, so to speak. I mean, the old forum was kind of like it was during middle school. The only thing different was the bullies were the bullied people back in the day. As it turned out, they weren't any better than the bullies where back in the day.

"No True Scotsman" fallacy.

No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.[1][2] Rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group).[3]

Philosophy professor Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an "ad hoc rescue" of a refuted generalization attempt.[1] The following is a simplified rendition of the fallacy:[4]
 
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

The essayist Spengler compared distinguishing between "mature" democracies, which never start wars, and "emerging democracies", which may start them, with the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Spengler alleges that political scientists have attempted to save the "US academic dogma" that democracies never start wars from counterexamples by declaring any democracy which does indeed start a war to be flawed, thus maintaining that no true democracy starts a war.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

When discussing political beliefs, few things are truly un-American, especially if you si8mply dislike the political expression.

There are stupid beliefs, such as that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. There are wrong beliefs such as the idea that one can square a circle. Americans are as capable of st7upidity as anyone else.

Moral values are generally not a matter of intellect.

Well, if I were a true Scotsman or a Scotsman of some sort, I suppose I'd be more likely to relate and be more likely to care about trivial issues and personal beliefs related to Scotsman. IS AMERICA A SOCIALIST STATE or HAS AMERICA EVER BEEN A SOCIALIST STATE? I'm sorry dude, I view socialism as being un American and I view those who support the idea of America becoming one as un American too. I don't care about you political expression or your political beliefs. I place no value on either of them.

America will not be an entirely socialist state, and has not been one. But there have been elements of socialism in America since Alexander Hamilton, I would say, and Abraham Lincoln extended those. The progressive movement, the New Deal, and the Great Society were progressive eras that brought further socialist elements into American society. 

There needs to be more, and the cutbacks by Reagan and company need to be restored. Progress needs to resume. Socialism and Capitalism work well when combined together in a mixed economy. The libertarian idea that we can do without any socialism is a recent neo-liberal delusion propagated by Republican ideologues like Ronald Reagan and Paul Ryan over the last 50 tears or so. It appeals to folks who resent paying taxes for welfare and such, but this is only resentment and fear, and is never sound or workable policy. Trickle-down doesn't trickle; it enables the wealthy. America is supposed to be a nation that honors the needs of the common people, not oligarchs and plutocrats. But such have frequently been given much free rein in America, despite that contradiction. A society of privilege is not true Americanism, however. The Declaration of Independence recognizes that all "men" are created equal, and one purpose of the Constitution was to promote the general welfare.

[pbrower2a]

(01-09-2019, 10:01 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-09-2019, 05:59 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(01-09-2019, 04:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-09-2019, 12:39 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: blue governments are well-managed; reds are not.

CA is solvent right now, probably because property tax revenues are so high; at least I think so, given the sky high property values. Unbelievable. Most Bay Area houses cost over a million and apartment rents are $2-3000 per month. Unemployment is low in prosperous areas, but poverty is high among poor and immigrant populations in poor central valley (generally Republican) areas, and there's homelessness because of the high housing costs everywhere.

We have strict gun laws, but the 2nd amendment still applies, so criminals and would-be criminals who aren't criminals yet can still get guns and kill people, like a teen football player yesterday in the Bay Area and several others today. Cops still get shot too, and cops still shoot people. It's still America. Real Americans support gun control and gun bans because real Americans don't want to see a bar fight become a shooting of a little girl like what happened in Texas this week. Real Americans are more concerned about so many people being shot dead for no reason, instead of whether they can shoot a deer or not instead of going to the grocery store.

Dude, a real American wouldn't have to cater to illegal aliens and pleasing naive immigrant populations and foreign interests the way blues are being forced to do out of necessity today. How many years have you been a clueless blue minded person? Me, it's been about 35 years since I've been close to being one, so to speak. I mean, the old forum was kind of like it was during middle school. The only thing different was the bullies were the bullied people back in the day. As it turned out, they weren't any better than the bullies where back in the day.

"No True Scotsman" fallacy.

No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.[1][2] Rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group).[3]

Philosophy professor Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an "ad hoc rescue" of a refuted generalization attempt.[1] The following is a simplified rendition of the fallacy:[4]
 
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

The essayist Spengler compared distinguishing between "mature" democracies, which never start wars, and "emerging democracies", which may start them, with the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Spengler alleges that political scientists have attempted to save the "US academic dogma" that democracies never start wars from counterexamples by declaring any democracy which does indeed start a war to be flawed, thus maintaining that no true democracy starts a war.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

When discussing political beliefs, few things are truly un-American, especially if you simply dislike the political expression.

There are stupid beliefs, such as that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. There are wrong beliefs such as the idea that one can square a circle. Americans are as capable of st7upidity as anyone else.

Moral values are generally not a matter of intellect.

Well, if I were a true Scotsman or a Scotsman of some sort, I suppose I'd be more likely to relate and be more likely to care about trivial issues and personal beliefs related to Scotsman. IS AMERICA A SOCIALIST STATE or HAS AMERICA EVER BEEN A SOCIALIST STATE? I'm sorry dude, I view socialism as being un American and I view those who support the idea of America becoming one as un American too. I don't care about you political expression or your political beliefs. I place no value on either of them.

I am discussing a logical fallacy in which you wallow. At its worst it defines out of the national community people who fall short of some idea because of their religion, political beliefs, cultural values, mental or physical handicaps, or national origin. American nationality is generally defined by formal citizenship, most often by birth but also by naturalization.

OK. If I were to average my preference in music by composer based on an average as a definition of my nationality, then I would probably be Czech. Prague is about in the middle of the populous parts of Europe, and if you average Bach and Mozart you get some place in the Czech Republic. Does that make me Czech? I happen to have liked about every piece of Czech classical music that I have ever heard. Does that make me Czech?

OK -- a true Czech at the least speaks Czech (I don't), as language heavily defines a Czech from just about anyone else. There is little reason for anyone to learn Czech unless to translate Czech literature. The language is of little use outside the Czech Republic , and I can think of European languages (English, French, Spanish, German, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, and Polish) far more useful in an international context.

To have an affinity for the music of Stamitz, Smetana, Dvorak, Janacek, and Martinu no more makes one Czech than does having an affinity for Italian opera make one Italian -- or that disliking classical music would make one not a Czech.

As for ideology -- many socialists and even Communists see themselves as Americans. A Commie believes that the truth of some variant of Marxism is universally true throughout the world, and not contradictory to any national entity. Definitive of a nationality? No. There are and have been Socialist states (Commies call their regimes "Socialist", and not "Communist", communism representing the ultimate objective of a super-advanced social order that develops under the rule of a Communist order through economic and technological advances). They consider the advancement of Socialism as the definitive exercise of patriotism.

Does someone lose US Citizenship by becoming a Communist? No more than by joining a KKK or neo-Nazi group.

You are welcome to disparage my political beliefs as much as you wish. Such makes me no less American.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-10-2019, 12:13 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: I am discussing a logical fallacy in which you wallow. At its worst it defines out of the national community people who fall short of some idea because of their religion, political beliefs, cultural values, mental or physical handicaps, or national origin. American nationality is generally defined by formal citizenship, most often by birth but also by naturalization.

OK. If I were to average my preference in music by composer based on an average as a definition of my nationality, then I would probably be Czech. Prague is about in the middle of the populous parts of Europe, and if you average Bach and Mozart you get some place in the Czech Republic. Does that make me Czech? I happen to have liked about every piece of Czech classical music that I have ever heard. Does that make me Czech?

OK -- a true Czech at the least speaks Czech (I don't), as language heavily defines a Czech from just about anyone else. There is little reason for anyone to learn Czech unless to translate Czech literature. The language is of little use outside the Czech Republic , and I can think of European languages (English, French, Spanish, German, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, and Polish) far more useful in an international context.

To have an affinity for the music of Stamitz, Smetana, Dvorak, Janacek, and Martinu no more makes one Czech than does having an affinity for Italian opera make one Italian -- or that disliking classical music would make one not a Czech.

As for ideology -- many socialists and even Communists see themselves as Americans. A Commie believes that the truth of some variant of Marxism is universally true throughout the world, and not contradictory to any national entity. Definitive of a nationality? No. There are and have been Socialist states (Commies call their regimes "Socialist", and not "Communist", communism representing the ultimate objective of a super-advanced social order that develops under the rule of a Communist order through economic and technological advances). They consider the advancement of Socialism as the definitive exercise of patriotism.

Does someone lose US Citizenship by becoming a Communist? No more than by joining a KKK or neo-Nazi group.

You are welcome to disparage my political beliefs as much as you wish. Such makes me no less American.

I've never said that that you weren't born an American or claimed that you weren't an American citizen.  If a fascist ran as Democrat would you be able to identify them or notice them. How many Americans would let of a Constitutional right/value for a blue value or trade a Constitutional right/value for a blue value or let go of their beliefs/ignore their own beliefs for a blue these days? You mentioned fallacy, how many fallacy's do you think I've seen, dealt with, challenged, dismissed or proven to be wrong and inaccurate and so forth over the last decade. Thousands? PB, I don't need a teacher at this point in my life. I could use a grammar skill brush up and probably some more book reading instead of doing other interesting things or important stuff related to actual leadership position and actual management/financial management and social activities and watching interesting cable series and informative movies or series on cable TV channels or spending time here showing Americans/foreigners what blues are really like and what Republican voters actually stand for and what Democrats should expect if they don't tighten up the reigns on their own.

[Hintergrund]

A Crisis tends to be the time when Commies, fascists and populists (at best) take power. Poor libertarians.

[David Horn]

(02-07-2019, 07:22 AM)TAB Wrote: One of the reasons the US is collapsing now is that Americans think that decay will be stopped by becoming Fascists and Communists.

Americans think the US will be improved by expanding wars, increasing the debt, and adding more tyranny when the reason the USA is crashing is because the US has wars, is in debt, and has a police state.

Americans say that they love freedom, but then they turn around and say they need the government to give them free Obamacare, build a wall, protect the US from Yemen, wiretap their phones, arrest people for feeding the homeless, stop farmers from plowing fields, force people to get rid of dogs, ban vaping, and torture suspects.

Every country has the government it deserves.

Virtually no one thinks any of that.  Naivete is always present, but most people know that talk is just that: talk.

[Eric the Green]

Poor libertarians, like our spammer here. Automation and computers will soon put their punitive work ethic out of business. "Free stuff" "given by the government" will be in vogue again, overcoming the Reaganoid plague. Libertarians base their whole "freedom" propaganda on the idea that we must work for a living. But what if work has to change, as envisioned by the Ted speaker on the new new ideas thread I started? What if a guaranteed basic income puts the guilt of the survival/scarcity-based work ethic off the table, and libertarian conservatives can no longer use the rant about stealing "my" tax money to give to freeloaders, because we will ALL become freeloaders? What if wage guarantees of more money for less hours of work are put in place so machines and trade doesn't put us all out of a job? What if the people see that the owners of the machines and all the wealth don't deserve and did not "earn" all the huge salaries and dividends that they expropriate and hoard and use to wield enormous power over our state and our lives?

No, "janet" "hiphopper" "dcgal" "nebraska" dude or dudette, whichever you are. No, Classic Xer and Galen. Your libertarian guilt trip is on its way out! And good riddance!

[Classic-Xer]

(02-08-2019, 01:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Poor libertarians, like our spammer here. Automation and computers will soon put their punitive work ethic out of business. "Free stuff" "given by the government" will be in vogue again, overcoming the Reaganoid plague. Libertarians base their whole "freedom" propaganda on the idea that we must work for a living. But what if work has to change, as envisioned by the Ted speaker on the new new ideas thread I started? What if a guaranteed basic income puts the guilt of the survival/scarcity-based work ethic off the table, and libertarian conservatives can no longer use the rant about stealing "my" tax money to give to freeloaders, because we will ALL become freeloaders? What if wage guarantees of more money for less hours of work are put in place so machines and trade doesn't put us all out of a job? What if the people see that the owners of the machines and all the wealth don't deserve and did not "earn" all the huge salaries and dividends that they expropriate and hoard and use to wield enormous power over our state and our lives?

No, "janet" "hiphopper" "dcgal" "nebraska" dude or dudette, whichever you are. No, Classic Xer and Galen. Your libertarian guilt trip is on its way out! And good riddance!

You should place the spammer on ignore because they're views are pretty much irrelevant. BTW, libertarian minded people don't go around imposing guilt trips on people who disagree with their views or reject their views or those who consider their views as being irrelevant to them. I've never used a guilt trip to establish moral dominance. I've had many blues of many types affiliated with blue groups try to do it with me over the years including some who claimed to be Libertarian believers/followers. As I've mentioned many times, you are free to elect whoever you want to represent your interest and you are free decide whether the American system has been beneficial to you or not and you are free to choose whether you will be ruled or whether you'll be free to make your own decisions or not. However, you aren't free to make those important decisions for me or determine my beliefs and if it takes a war to prove it to the blues then so be it. As an alternative to war, if it takes a period formal financial separation and economic isolation and ideological containment to prove it to the blues then so be it. The American right isn't leaving America or aborting it's kids.

[Eric the Green]

(02-08-2019, 06:57 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-08-2019, 01:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Poor libertarians, like our spammer here. Automation and computers will soon put their punitive work ethic out of business. "Free stuff" "given by the government" will be in vogue again, overcoming the Reaganoid plague. Libertarians base their whole "freedom" propaganda on the idea that we must work for a living. But what if work has to change, as envisioned by the Ted speaker on the new new ideas thread I started? What if a guaranteed basic income puts the guilt of the survival/scarcity-based work ethic off the table, and libertarian conservatives can no longer use the rant about stealing "my" tax money to give to freeloaders, because we will ALL become freeloaders? What if wage guarantees of more money for less hours of work are put in place so machines and trade doesn't put us all out of a job? What if the people see that the owners of the machines and all the wealth don't deserve and did not "earn" all the huge salaries and dividends that they expropriate and hoard and use to wield enormous power over our state and our lives?

No, "janet" "hiphopper" "dcgal" "nebraska" dude or dudette, whichever you are. No, Classic Xer and Galen. Your libertarian guilt trip is on its way out! And good riddance!

You should place the spammer on ignore because they're views are pretty much irrelevant. BTW, libertarian minded people don't go around imposing  guilt trips on people who disagree with their views or reject their views or those who consider their views as being irrelevant to them. I've never used a guilt trip to establish moral dominance. I've had many blues of many types affiliated with blue groups try to do it with me           over the years including some who claimed to be Libertarian believers/followers. As I've mentioned many times, you are free to elect whoever you want to represent your interest and you are free decide whether the American system has been beneficial to you or not and you are free to choose whether you will be ruled or whether you'll be free to make your own  decisions or not. However, you aren't free to make those important decisions for me or determine my beliefs and if it takes a war to prove it to the blues then so be it. As an alternative to war, if it takes a period formal financial separation and economic   isolation and ideological  containment to prove it to the blues then so be it. The American right isn't leaving America or aborting it's kids.

If I am free to elect who I want to represent my interest, I will vote for those who are willing to take some money from you, if you are rich enough, and from myself, in order to create a society that is just and fair and prosperous for all. Unlike you libertarians, I do not consider that I or anyone else is a separate individual. I don't agree with Thatcher and other American right heroes who say society doesn't exist; only individuals and families. We are all in society together, and if some people are too poor or too oppressed by racism and pollution to reach their full potential, then it is in MY interest to support government policies to help them. 

If that means taking some of your money, then so be it, and if it takes a war to bring back or bring about a society that takes care of its people and its environment, so be it. As an alternative to war, if it takes a period of formal financial separation and economic isolation and ideological containment to prove it to the reds, then so be it. The American left isn't leaving America, although it may abort some of its fetuses.

The guilt trip I refer to is one you use, in my opinion. The constant refrain that "I will not let the government take my property in order to give it to freeloaders" is based on the guilt trip mentioned in the recent videos I posted, which says that everyone must earn a living by working. This notion of work puts guilt on people that they have to work to survive, and if they don't work to survive, then they are thieves and freeloaders on the taxpayers. 

But if this traditional work ethic, and the guilt associated with it, is out of date because many jobs are no longer needed or available, because of automation and free trade, then society has to decide whether it will consist of people who have no job and no money to buy things from the people with the jobs and power, thus killing the economy, or use the government to provide a decent safety net, minimum wages or basic income that provides the machine owners with enough customers to keep society going.

Our view of the poor, and our idea of what work is, needs to change, as Rutger Bregman says:
https://youtu.be/ydKcaIE6O1k
"I believe in a future where the value of your work is not determined by the size of your paycheck, but by the amount of happiness you spread, and the amount of meaning you give. I believe in a future where the point of education is not to prepare you for another useless job, but for a life well lived. I believe in a future where an existence without poverty is not a privilege, but a right we all deserve."

[David Horn]

(02-08-2019, 06:57 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: ... The American right isn't leaving America or aborting it's kids.

Okay, but so what?  The "American Right" is aging fast, and their kids are becoming who they wish to be, not what their parents chose for them.  For some reason, you just can't accept that people have the right to be not-you.

[pbrower2a]

(01-11-2019, 02:15 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-10-2019, 12:13 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: I am discussing a logical fallacy in which you wallow. At its worst it defines out of the national community people who fall short of some idea because of their religion, political beliefs, cultural values, mental or physical handicaps, or national origin. American nationality is generally defined by formal citizenship, most often by birth but also by naturalization.

OK. If I were to average my preference in music by composer based on an average as a definition of my nationality, then I would probably be Czech. Prague is about in the middle of the populous parts of Europe, and if you average Bach and Mozart you get some place in the Czech Republic. Does that make me Czech? I happen to have liked about every piece of Czech classical music that I have ever heard. Does that make me Czech?

OK -- a true Czech at the least speaks Czech (I don't), as language heavily defines a Czech from just about anyone else. There is little reason for anyone to learn Czech unless to translate Czech literature. The language is of little use outside the Czech Republic , and I can think of European languages (English, French, Spanish, German, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, and Polish) far more useful in an international context.

To have an affinity for the music of Stamitz, Smetana, Dvorak, Janacek, and Martinu no more makes one Czech than does having an affinity for Italian opera make one Italian -- or that disliking classical music would make one not a Czech.

As for ideology -- many socialists and even Communists see themselves as Americans. A Commie believes that the truth of some variant of Marxism is universally true throughout the world, and not contradictory to any national entity. Definitive of a nationality? No. There are and have been Socialist states (Commies call their regimes "Socialist", and not "Communist", communism representing the ultimate objective of a super-advanced social order that develops under the rule of a Communist order through economic and technological advances). They consider the advancement of Socialism as the definitive exercise of patriotism.

Does someone lose US Citizenship by becoming a Communist? No more than by joining a KKK or neo-Nazi group.

You are welcome to disparage my political beliefs as much as you wish. Such makes me no less American.

I've never said that that you weren't born an American or claimed that you weren't an American citizen.

If my soul had been born in China or Mexico and gone to America I would have given such away. Grammatical failings? Oddly, it is people born elsewhere, like China or Mexico, who often speak the most impeccable English. They take pride in such, which is more than I can say for many people born and raised here.

Quote:If a fascist ran as Democrat would you be able to identify them or notice them.

Yes! Both David Duke and Tom Metzger are fascists (KKK) and ran as Democrats. I would find them so abominable that I would vote against them, if necessary, for someone who offers a return to the social norms of the Gilded Age as the only viable alternative. We got out of the ethos of the Gilded Age without the calamity of totalitarianism and catastrophic wars that I associate with fascist regimes. Life may be miserable for the weak and helpless in a new Gilded Age, but Americans usually grow out of that. Fascism sends people who can't get out fast enough to concentration camps and killing sites, and starts wars for glory and profit that end in ruin and national disgrace.

Having read The Man in the High Castle, I came to recognize that in reality the fascists failed due to their atrocities and that a few historians have recognized. It is good alternative fiction in its genre, but I still see the Anglo-American alliance winning in the end in part because it has the good Jewish scientists, creative people, and entrepreneurs on its side. I can imagine an Axis victory over the United States and Britain -- but that requires an inversion of the identity of Good and Evil in historical reality. A Klan-dominated America and a Britain dominated by something like the BUF lose the war to a counter-historical 'good' Germany and Japan. A hint: Konrad Adenauer and Sir Winston Churchill were similar in ideology and political skill. A second hint: the Rommel Plan that revives the economy of the eastern half of the United States resembles the New Deal as did the Marshall Plan in Europe. In my scenario, the BUF and a Vichy-like regime in France collapse in the wake of a German offensive in the West after invading the Netherlands and Switzerland to which Germany has made guarantees. I have Churchill seizing power in a conservative revolution, suing for peace, and getting generous terms for Britain. Germany might need an ally against the Ku Kluxist regime in America, and it would be a good idea to have U-Boat bases in the British colonies and the British fleet on hand in the event of a war with the Soviet Union.

The Klan has the same objects of hatred as did the Nazis, and all that kept it from committing the genocide on the scale that the Nazis did is that it never achieved power in America.

Quote:How many Americans would let of a Constitutional right/value for a blue value or trade a Constitutional right/value for a blue value or let go of their beliefs/ignore their own beliefs for a blue these days?

There is no Constitutional right to cheap labor, low taxes, or soft regulations (as in 'pollute at will'), or for that matter, the right to possess firearms that have no sporting value or while unfit (a lack of intelligence, morals, or sanity) to possess them. Even the Second Amendment has the militia clause which I interpret to imply that persons that no militia would want -- like idiots, lunatics, criminals, addicts, or habitual drunkards. One does not join a militia for the fun of it; its objectives are simply to serious. Winning matters more than does inclusion.

Quote:You mentioned fallacy, how many fallacy's do you think I've seen, dealt with, challenged, dismissed or proven to be wrong and inaccurate and so forth over the last decade. Thousands? PB, I don't need a teacher at this point in my life.

You simply restate your premises, which refutes nothing. A racist doing what you do (and racists are the easiest people to refute) what you would do is to start with the assumption that blacks are uniformly inadequate and would have as a proof the recapitulation of your premise. I would have plenty of counter-arguments... that plenty of blacks have achieved greatly, that lesser performance represents disadvantages in economics and public services, and that 'race' is ambiguous in America. A racist would begin with serial-killer Alton Coleman (Ted Bundy without the wit and superficial charm, and lesser intellect -- and black) and end with Alton Coleman. I would have Barack Obama, who is nearly-half white -- surprise his mother was 1/16 black) and demonstrate that without the disabilities that many American blacks have faced in the past he has achieved the Highest Office in the Land and done it well. The racist returns to the loathsome Alton Coleman, an example of pure and unattractive criminality.

Quote:I could use a grammar skill brush up and probably some more book reading instead of doing other interesting things or important stuff related to actual leadership position and actual management/financial management and social activities and watching interesting cable series and informative movies or series on cable TV channels or spending time here showing Americans/foreigners what blues are really like and what Republican voters actually stand for and what Democrats should expect if they don't tighten up the reigns (sic!) on their own.

You are out of your league here. The Dunning-Krueger effect strikes again!

[pbrower2a]

(02-08-2019, 06:57 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-08-2019, 01:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Poor libertarians, like our spammer here. Automation and computers will soon put their punitive work ethic out of business. "Free stuff" "given by the government" will be in vogue again, overcoming the Reaganoid plague. Libertarians base their whole "freedom" propaganda on the idea that we must work for a living. But what if work has to change, as envisioned by the Ted speaker on the new new ideas thread I started? What if a guaranteed basic income puts the guilt of the survival/scarcity-based work ethic off the table, and libertarian conservatives can no longer use the rant about stealing "my" tax money to give to freeloaders, because we will ALL become freeloaders? What if wage guarantees of more money for less hours of work are put in place so machines and trade doesn't put us all out of a job? What if the people see that the owners of the machines and all the wealth don't deserve and did not "earn" all the huge salaries and dividends that they expropriate and hoard and use to wield enormous power over our state and our lives?

No, "janet" "hiphopper" "dcgal" "nebraska" dude or dudette, whichever you are. No, Classic Xer and Galen. Your libertarian guilt trip is on its way out! And good riddance!

... libertarian minded people don't go around imposing  guilt trips on people who disagree with their views or reject their views or those who consider their views as being irrelevant to them. I've never used a guilt trip to establish moral dominance.

At least you recognize the futility of such!

Quote:I've had many blues of many types affiliated with blue groups try to do it with me over the years including some who claimed to be Libertarian believers/followers.

Essential to being a libertarian is to not feel guilt about extreme, dehumanizing inequality. So what if people must make the Satanic choice between starvation and a peonage contract! There will always be some time in which people must give up all decency and hope in return for economic survival. Hunger kills, and libertarian philosophy has no problem with the concept of an unconscionable deal. A raw deal made in extreme distress is just as legitimate as a deal made under more equitable conditions. Eternal subjection, even hereditary, to a lord in return for short-term survival in the wake of a food shortage? Such is the source of feudal bondage that the Enlightenment repudiated.

Quote:As I've mentioned many times, you are free to elect whoever you want to represent your interest and you are free decide whether the American system has been beneficial to you or not and you are free to choose whether you will be ruled or whether you'll be free to make your own  decisions or not. However, you aren't free to make those important decisions for me

Freely-elected governments must still impose taxes just to survive. Dictatorship and despotism simply takes. If you have seen the glowing stories of the military in some Commie regimes 'helping' with the harvest -- they are simply taking the harvest. I would be more impressed if the military in such places helped with the planting, which is similarly difficult and tedious, but offers no food for the take.

Quote:or determine my beliefs and if it takes a war to prove it to the blues then so be it.

We have the teachers as civil servants; most graduated from low-cost state universities like Eastern Michigan State University that offered at best second-rate college educations but the likelihood of getting a modestly-paid job as a teacher. One need not be a great intellect to be a K-12 teacher. But the subtle lessons are there. One wouldn't attend the pricey University of Chicago (where Milton Friedman was a professor of economics) with the expectation of being a K-12 teacher; it turns out people who want to be business executives.

Quote:As an alternative to war, if it takes a period formal financial separation and economic   isolation and ideological  containment to prove it to the blues then so be it. The American right isn't leaving America or aborting it's kids.

I assure you of this -- the farm laborers and factory workers will hate your ideology. So it was in the 1930s. Your side has appealed to the low-brow culture of country music, fundamentalist Protestantism, and bad reality TV. Man may not live by bread alone, but the culture that the Right exploits is itself inadequate. The smarter kids from their culture leave it.

The American Right is going to stay here. It could not adapt to another country. I saw a placard "I'd rather be a Russian than a Democrat" and asked whether that fellow could learn Russian quickly or even recognize something so obvious as the greatness of the opera Yevgeny Onegin (Tchaikovsky wrote an excellent Italian opera, except that he used a Russian libretto); the literary masterpieces of Tolstoy, Chekhov, and Dostoevsky; or string quartets of Dmitri Shostakovich (which I consider the greatest body of musical work in the 20th century). The abortive, short-time experiments in Russian modernism that Stalin murdered or found their way to France, Britian, or America such as Roman Petrovich Tyrtov (Роман Петрович Тыртов), are quite attractive. Heck, I would do better, and I could stay here. I just don't like the Russian political heritage, at least with the tsars, Bolshevism, and Putin. I also despise Donald Trump for kissing up to the Russian political heritage and trying to imitate it here.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-09-2019, 10:05 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-08-2019, 06:57 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: ... The American right isn't leaving America or aborting it's kids.

Okay, but so what?  The "American Right" is aging fast, and their kids are becoming who they wish to be, not what their parents chose for them.  For some reason, you just can't accept that people have the right to be not-you.

I suggest that you flip this around and directly apply to yourself because it actually relates to you more than me. Yes, I have the right to not be you and the right to not think like you and the right to not view things/issues the same way as you as well. Yes, I have been demonstrating that to you and other blues for many years. Isn't that the primary issue that blues are having/facing with the American electorate these days at the national level.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-09-2019, 11:51 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: You simply restate your premises, which refutes nothing. A racist doing what you do (and racists are the easiest people to refute) what you would do is to start with the assumption that blacks are uniformly inadequate and would have as a proof the recapitulation of your premise. I would have plenty of counter-arguments... that plenty of blacks have achieved greatly, that lesser performance represents disadvantages in economics and public services, and that 'race' is ambiguous in America. A racist would begin with serial-killer Alton Coleman (Ted Bundy without the wit and superficial charm, and lesser intellect -- and black) and end with Alton Coleman. I would have Barack Obama, who is nearly-half white -- surprise his mother was 1/16 black) and demonstrate that without the disabilities that many American blacks have faced in the past he has achieved the Highest Office in the Land and done it well. The racist returns to the loathsome Alton Coleman, an example of pure and unattractive criminality.

Yes, I'm out of my league here. Clearly, I'm not in the same as you with my writing skills. In a way, it's a damn good thing for you that I haven't taken away that advantage by brushing up or reinvigorating the grammar skills that I had during the 1980's. Yes, it would be hard to believe that you're communicating with a former higher level student who was stuck in high level English, science and math classes with the high level students throughout his middle school and high school years. A high level student who tested out of a third of the courses and the time and expenses associated with the courses. You know what I learned that college failed to teach you or your mind failed to allow you to learn, I learned how to directly communicate with different people and learned the value of speaking with different people and the value of adjusting my use of language in order to relate with people and easily communicate with a wide range of people. Now, if you see value in demeaning or deluding and misapplying the word racism or racist then so be it because it's only going to be blues who end up being hurt by it. You are supposed to be a smart person. Me, I'm supposed to be an idiot and I'm cool with the idea of blues teaching blues that on a regular basis because all that does is end up hurting blues. As you know, reds don't pay much attention to what blues have to say about much of anything relating to them these days.

[David Horn]

(02-09-2019, 06:32 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-09-2019, 10:05 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-08-2019, 06:57 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: ... The American right isn't leaving America or aborting it's kids.

Okay, but so what?  The "American Right" is aging fast, and their kids are becoming who they wish to be, not what their parents chose for them.  For some reason, you just can't accept that people have the right to be not-you.

I suggest that you flip this around and directly  apply to yourself because it actually relates to you more than me. Yes, I have the right to not be you and the right to not think like you and the right to not view things/issues  the same way as you as well. Yes, I have been demonstrating that to you and other blues for many years. Isn't that the primary issue that blues are having/facing with the American electorate  these days at the national level.

Feel free to be whatever and whoever you wish.  At your age, it's unlikely that you would change your mind, and it's not that important to me, or society, that you do.  So, in your estimate, why do you think we on the left are so determined to do that?  It falls right into the arguments you make that we're trying to impose communism on the US, and they make no sense either. 

I never expect my children or grandchildren to be other than who they are.  If I can't win them over by the strength of my arguments and the evidence of how the world works, it may be time for another change. I know that the pendulum swings, and the ever changing generational center of gravity is what triggers it.  If I have no expectations and make no demands on my own, why should I care about you?

[Eric the Green]

(02-09-2019, 08:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-09-2019, 11:51 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: You simply restate your premises, which refutes nothing. A racist doing what you do (and racists are the easiest people to refute) what you would do is to start with the assumption that blacks are uniformly inadequate and would have as a proof the recapitulation of your premise. I would have plenty of counter-arguments... that plenty of blacks have achieved greatly, that lesser performance represents disadvantages in economics and public services, and that 'race' is ambiguous in America. A racist would begin with serial-killer Alton Coleman (Ted Bundy without the wit and superficial charm, and lesser intellect -- and black) and end with Alton Coleman. I would have Barack Obama, who is nearly-half white -- surprise his mother was 1/16 black) and demonstrate that without the disabilities that many American blacks have faced in the past he has achieved the Highest Office in the Land and done it well. The racist returns to the loathsome Alton Coleman, an example of pure and unattractive criminality.

Yes, I'm out of my league here. Clearly, I'm not in the same as you with my writing skills. In a way, it's a damn good thing for you that I haven't taken away that advantage by brushing up or reinvigorating the grammar skills that I had during the 1980's. Yes, it would be hard to believe that you're communicating with a former higher level student who was stuck in high level English, science and math classes with the high level students throughout his middle school and high school years. A high level student who tested out of a third of the courses and the time and expenses associated with the courses. You know what I learned that college failed to teach you or your mind failed to allow you to learn, I learned how to directly communicate with different people and learned the value of speaking with different people and the value of adjusting my use of language in order to relate with people and easily communicate with a wide range of people. Now, if you see value in demeaning or deluding and misapplying the word racism or racist then so be it because it's only going to be blues who end up being hurt by it. You are supposed to be a smart person. Me, I'm supposed to be an idiot and I'm cool with the idea of blues teaching blues that on a regular basis because all that does is end up hurting blues. As you know, reds don't pay much attention to what blues have to say about much of anything relating to them these days.

You can't really claim to have learned to communicate with different people, or learned the value of speaking with them, if you don't pay attention to what they say. And since you don't know what blues actually advocate, but substitute your own ideas of what we say for what we actually say instead, then you haven't communicated well there either.