remarks around the web

❝Because LIBERTY demands more than black and white❞
NeoWayland is a pagan philosopher, libertarian & part-time trouble maker. Keeping vigil, he shares beacons of individual freedom & responsibility while watching for threats to LIBERTY. There's more to life than just black & white.
  • Stars above, I point it out and you still act idiotic.

    Read the rest of this thread. Start at the beginning.

    Where I said that Trump lies. I don't like or trust Trump. I won't defend Trump. I'm saying stick to what actually happened rather than what you think can take him down.
    original thead

  • Pepper spray is not tear gas.

    Again, if there were tear gas, it would be major headlines. It wouldn't be buried in speculative opinion pieces stressing what a terrible person Trump is. Pelosi would be making speeches from the House floor. Every protester would be screaming about how Trump abused his power.

    If the people on your side won't make the argument, maybe there is no argument.
    original thead

  • No, you didn't.

    Considering how many times you've responded in such a short period, you keep proving my point about you trolling.
    original thead

  • There are some interesting bits regarding permaculture in Stewart Brand's Whole Earth Discipline.
    original thead

  • Oh my.

    You're just bound and determined to prove your foolishness, aren't you? Boy did you pick the wrong insult.

    Here's a hint. Read the rest of the thread.
    original thead

  • Ah, so you are trolling. Desperate for attention. Four posts in less than five minutes.

    I know you want to play some more, but I have other things to do right now. I might check back later.
    original thead

  • Unconfirmed.

    While there have been initial reports of tear gas, all fizzled out. It would make headlines from coast to coast. Members of Congress would be screaming from the capital steps. Every wanna be agitator would be calling for Trump's "fascist" head. None of that has happened.
    original thead

  • None.

    The reports of tear gas have been scattered and unconfirmed. Do you really think if anyone had ordered tear gas, everyone involved would be quiet? More importantly, no troops have been dispatched to use against the protestors. For the President to order tear gas, it would have to be regular troops or Federalized National Guard troops.

    It's one thing to criticize Trump. It's something else to spread scurrilous rumors for the sake of making a mark. In two posts you've shown you have no honor, nothing original to say, and no reason to take you seriously.

    Democrats make Trump look good. I may never forgive them for that.
    original thead

  • Five is a heteronormative exploitation of undeclared persons of color.

    The correct answer is midnight blue.

    Subject to change.
    original thead

  • We pick up the pieces after.
    original thead

  • I've got hundreds of them.

    I could go on and on. I can give you the detailed logical proofs. But none of it matters to you unless I convince you that using government is just as dangerous as having it used on you.

    I don't know if you are familiar with memetic theory, but any government is an organism dedicated to survival and propagation. Fighting "the good fight" is how government diverts more resources into itself. This happens no matter who is elected to what office, or if good or bad men are appointed. Their character doesn't matter to government.

    People don't want to hear me drone on and on in obscure history and psychology. They don't want to hear how interpersonal dynamics pull at their passions more than their minds. They don't want to accept that government has adapted to channel their energy and effort into it's own existence and it doesn't always follow accepted human rules. The more systemized government becomes, the more of it exists outside of human reach. There is no vaccine, no fix. There is only starving it.

    Government and our version of politics depends on the struggle and you getting distracted.

    The good news (such as it is) is that our culture and our society can no longer support government as it exists. It undermines too many of our beliefs and our dreams. It consumes too much of our wealth. And it locks too many people into lives of quiet desperation.
    original thead

  • I wouldn't presume to change the nature of mankind or government.

    I'm suggesting that we change our assumptions and our understanding of government.

    ❝Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player.❞ — Milton Friedman
    The thing is we trust Official Authority Figures even when they don't know what they are talking about. I've mentioned the pandemic, but we can include hurricane response, the Federal Reserve, public schools, or any number of things.

    We have to stop thinking of government as the first, best, and last solution. Not only does government action displace private action, but government action is shielded from competition. And without competition, things don't improve nearly as fast. It's way too easy to spend someone else's money, especially if you don't face the consequences if you screw up.

    Getting back to the current situation, ask yourself if Trump is solving the problem or prolonging it. And that brings us to the question that conservatives hate every time I ask it. What happens after Trump? Are we going to be facing the same problems only bigger in five or ten years?

    Honestly I am not sure the nation can or should be saved. I gave up on that in Obama's first year. I had just spent seven years trying to ignore the implications of the USA PATRIOT Act. And I was looking hard at Inslaw and Promis long before Bushleague was elected. The roots and plans for what we call the Deep State had been in the works for years, possibly going back to before WWII. People forget that Reagan's VP and eventual successor was a former director of the CIA.

    Once government has the tools, it will use them no matter what was promised before. And people being people, some in the system will use those tools for criminal reasons. Others will use them for petty reasons. And the institution will cover up.

    So I don't trust Trump. Chances are he will be reelected. And the question will still be there. What happens after Trump?
    original thead

  • Arpaio is not a good role model.
    original thead

  • I'm not saying no government.

    I'm saying that government is inherently dangerous and you should look for any other way to do things, I'm saying that government should not be the first (and often the ONLY) solution that people think of. I'm saying that anything government does is going to cost at least three times what the "official numbers" will say. I'm saying that any government product or service will displace private alternatives and will leave people in a bind when (inevitably) the government service can't meet demand.

    I'm saying government disrupts.
    original thead

  • Revenue or tax bills start in the House.

    Under current law, the President submits a budget to Congress which is then accepted or rejected. If rejected, then both houses propose their own version which then goes to reconciliation. If that passes both houses, it's signed into law by the President.

    The real killer is called baseline budgeting. It assumes that all the money spent this year is necessary for next year's budget plus a little more to account for inflation and certain unforeseen expenses that arose this year. If Congress rejects the President's proposed budget and doesn't act to reduce spending, spending goes up. Members of Congress don't get blamed because they didn't actually do anything, they just quietly failed to do something.

    Mind you, emergency spending is something more on top of that and not governed by the normal budget. You want to really drive yourself nuts, look up sometime how many emergencies the U.S. is currently under.

    That doesn't even get into deficit spending and what has to be done to service the debt.

    Congress gets to spend money without responsibility. The President gets to gnash teeth over the system and drum up support for his priorities. And your children and grandchildren get stuck with the bill.
    original thead

  • There's an old vaudeville bit. A man walks in to see a doctor. He says "Doc, it hurts when I do this!" and clubs himself over the head. The doctor says "Well, don't do that."

    Both major parties want to control government, but they don't want to be controlled if the other guys are elected or appointed or chosen out of a hat. They want the power, but the accepted solution to the risk is keeping thier guy in charge. After all, he's a better (LESS WORSE) choice than the other guys.

    I'm telling you that there are decades of law that need to be ripped out by the roots. Your solutions are to tweak the law and issue new regulations. And then you complain because it hurts or it's used against you.

    Don't do that.
    original thead

  • Alright, I'll give you that.
    original thead

  • "…the mess that Obama made…"

    And of course, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush the Elder and Bushleague had absolutely nothing to do with the mess.

    No it was all the Democrat's fault. And more Obama's fault than anyone else.

    (Why does that sound familiar?)
    original thead

  • Never ever cite the IRS when it comes to the costs and benefits of income taxes or reducing taxes. They might be just a TINY bit biased.

    The standard for reducing regulation (and cutting spending) is still Coolidge. But we do know from historical evidence that reducing regulations (Kennedy, Reagan) led to the economy growing and that increasing regulations (Nixon, Carter, Obama) led to the economy slowing or shrinking. It's still too early to gauge what Trump has done, but he might consider cutting spending. Granted, a trumped up (no pun intended) pandemic is not helping matters much. Oh, and he might want to cut spending some.
    original thead

  • Clothing yes, but not the woman. They were about equal there.
    original thead

  • Gods, please tell me you weren't just waiting around for me to post. That would be really sad.

    I'm perfectly willing to discuss ideas. You don't seem to be.

    Here, I'll start.

    More freedom, less government.

    Do you have problems with that?
    original thead

  • shrug You might as well say it's not a car unless it is built in Detroit.

    You don't want to talk about ideas, you want to whine about libertarians. Fine, your choice. But I don't have to enable your behavior.
    original thead

  • Then prove me wrong.

    Reduce spending. Reduce taxes. Reduce spending. Reduce regulations. Reduce spending. Reduce the laws on the books. Reduce spending.

    All these things are central to conservative beliefs. Most of them have been Republican party platform planks several times.

    I'm not asking you to follow my ideology. I'm saying follow yours.

    If the only thing you can offer is "we won't rape you everyday, and we won't screw you as painfully or as hard as the other guys," then there is no practical difference. There is just a license to abuse and trust that your guys won't take advantage.
    original thead

  • Not every libertarian thinks that party politics is a good thing. Until you understand that and why, you'll never understand libertarians.

    Who says we want to moderate?

    We want people to moderate themselves based on that Really Simple Idea, don't do it unless you want it done to you.

    The only reason this is an issue is because both conservatives and progressives see government as a means to control others.
    original thead

  • Pelosi loves the spotlight too much. She would never play second fiddle to anyone, even if it was for show. Do you remember the impeachment signing ceremony?

    Not as either term is understood. I'm all for open borders, but I don't want any government benefits handed out for either citizens or non-citizens. No medical care, no college loans, and incentivized anything. I also don't want non-citizens voting, and I think that if non-citizens break the law they should be deported. If it's for a violent crime, maybe the death penalty should apply.

    In terms of global trading, most regulations could be replaced with strengthened liability laws. And I don't think a company should be allowed to sell to consumers in the US unless they have assets within US at least equal to sales.
    original thead

  • Am I a stalking horse? Not really. I agree with conservatives on some things and progressives on others. I don't see conservatives as a force to check. I see government as a force to check. The only thing you'd give up is the power to compel behavior in others. And since nothing comes from nothing, I offer a trade. No one would be able to compel your behavior either.

    I don't get a free ride from anyone. Progressives usually kick me out when they can, yes. Conservatives don't. I'm hoping that enough people (of whatever stripe) learn that the only winning move is not to play this game of politics.
    original thead

  • Only you want libertarians to shut up, disappear, and not bother you with questions you can't answer or comments that make you uncomfortable,

    Small "l" libertarians are not looking for a political home. It's one of the biggest differences between small "l" libertarians and big "L" Libertarians.

    I'd prefer live and let live. The only reason I have concern is because progressives want to impose their government For Our Own Good and conservatives want to impose their government In Righteous Defense from progressives. Neither side has a clear majority and the biggest growing segment of the population are the "undecided" who don't vote because they don't like the choices. You're not frustrated at me and libertarians as much as you are frustrated at them. And they aren't listening to either side.

    More liberty. Less government. No one person or party calling all the shots. What's wrong with that?

    ETA: Not that it should matter, but here's the headlines that caught my eye and that I've shared. Not all the ones I've read, and my blogging software will only allow me to put the most recent 200 on the list. You tell me, am I pushing the Republican bashing or anti-Trumpers with that list?
    original thead

  • Pelosi will never be President. She's too much like HRC, nobody likes her and nobody trusts her. Including her own party.

    People here wanted to know why I didn't trust Trump. I told them. I've written elsewhere that my biggest single frustration with politics is that people are quick to blame the other side, yet unwilling to confront what their side has done.

    "And then you go after those who criticize him."

    I don't fit into the convenient categories. I don't share the normal assumptions.
    original thead

  • I didn't say I hated Trump. I said I don't trust Trump and I don't like him.

    Republicans aren't saints. Democrats aren't demons. The vice or virtue is not in the label. That being said, on the whole I do not trust Republicans to do the "right" thing with government power because except for Coolidge, the entire 20 and 21 Centuries have been about presidents abusing power, Republicans just as much as Democrats.

    And considering your words on this thread, yes, you want to control libertarians. And Libertarians too. I know not all Republicans nor all conservatives are like you. But golly, you really should get a better rallying cry than "Follow us or be doomed!"
    original thead

  • Yeah, it is well established. I'm not a late-comer to the "Trump lies" bandwagon, I was one of those saying back in the 1980s and 1990s who said Trump lies. It's not about what I read on some web site, it is what I watched as it was happening. I was criticizing Trump when it wasn't cool.

    It's not that Trump is a better or worse or if his opponents tell worse lies. It's that Trump lies. Enthusiastically. Repeatedly. While denying that he is lying. I don't care if his rivals lie or not. Republicans are trusting their honor to a man who doesn't value his own word. And then you go after those who criticize him.

    Mine isn't an absolutist position. It's a natural reaction to progressives AND conservatives telling me that government is the answer. The only answer allowed. Even when government continually makes things worse. Just look at the recent lockdown and tell me how government is the first, best, and last solution.

    I'm not dreaming of a "system." I'm insisting on liberty where people take responsibility for their own words and actions.

    Your "infiltration of Marxism into our institutions" owes as much to conservatism and Republicans as it does progressives and Democrats. Republicans kept expanding government power. Look at what happened to the "War On Drugs" between Nixon and Reagan. Look at who pushed to expand the surveillance state. Republicans laid the foundation and Democrats took advantage. Taxpayer funded schools were introduced by Republicans, even if Mann was a Whig. The rise of state marriage licenses in America in the late 19th Century happened for revenue reasons and to control who could marry who, it was one of the few things Democrats and Republicans could agree on. The pattern repeats. Expand government to solve a problem, and then complain when progressives get people running parts of the system. The system perpetuates itself while the politicos argue over how to control it. Always people like you think that the problem is who is running the system without asking how much of the problem is because the system exists. Always your answer is to demand that your side be in charge "for the duration of the emergency." Always it's about eradicating the bad guys now and worrying about liberty later.

    I put liberty first.

    " A strange game.The only winning move is not to play."
    original thead

  • As I've told you before, politics is about controlling the other. Invoke government force and you risk being controlled yourself.

    Now if I wanted to be persnickety, I'd point out that conservatives have utterly failed in their trust or we wouldn't have the mess we have today. Because that is what you are advocating, conservative control over society and government so that progressives can never be a threat again. Purging schools and universities and social media and the press by force since they are not wise enough to purify themselves. Never realizing that the same control you use can be turned against you.

    I'm for more liberty and less law. The only thing wrong with that is that it doesn't leave "your side" in charge.
    original thead

  • So a President lying is okay if he doesn't do it more than his political foes?
    original thead

  • Why?

    It's well established that Trump lies. Run a websearch for yourself. I've no real interest in examining if his lies are somehow more meritorious than the lies of others. I don't care if Trump's motives are pure. I don't care if he is the "man for the times and the job." Trump. Lies.

    I said what I said and I meant exactly that. Government is radioactive toxic waste. It's corrosive and corrupting. You use it at your own peril and almost anything you do with it can be turned against you later. The more you touch it, the less liberty you have.

    What you should be asking yourself is how did we get to the point where the only choices allowed in 2016 were Trump or HRC? And why is the choice now between Trump and Biden? Why is it about the least bad choice?

    Why are people like you demanding that I hold my nose and vote for Trump?
    original thead

  • American law is a different beast than Anglo-Saxon law, just as U.S. is not part of the British Empire.

    American citizens don't have the power to expel other citizens.

    It's funny that you don't realize the same arguments that you are attempting to use against Jews can be used against you.

    And for the exact same reasons.
    original thead

  • I'd draw the line at Coolidge myself. Although Eisenhower did "get things done" and Reagan had flair. Reagan was also part of the unofficial triumvirate that brought down the Soviet Union.
    original thead

  • I'm probably not explaining this as well as I could have.

    Assume (for the moment) that Trump is exactly what we need when we need it. Assume that he does exactly what needs to be done. He can't do it without expanding the power and reach of government, and he can't do it without expanding the power of the Executive Branch and the Presidency. After his second term, Trump rides off into sunset, a beloved hero and leader of historical proportions. Everything is better, the county is on the right path, or at least the path you approve.

    What about the next President? What about two presidents later?

    Do you think that the Democrats or their successors will be permanently banned? Even if it's a Republican, do you think they won't be tempted to push just a little bit harder? For the Greater Good?

    The second amazing thing about the U.S. Constitution is that it restrains government. Nothing shows that better than the Bill of Rights. If you have to expand government to restrain it, is that really about "securing the blessings of liberty, for ourselves and our posterity?"

    Getting back to None of the Above, why does there have to be a President? Or even a quorum in Congress for that matter? Is that not just as valid a choice as Democrat or Republican?
    original thead

  • If it works for you, great.

    I disagree with much of it, but tain't mine. As long as you don't demand I comply with your faith, I don't think we have a problem.
    original thead

  • In my corporate clone days, there was a senior VP who was constantly pushing Trump. He tried to make The Art of the Deal required reading. Fortunately he wasn't the CEO. In dealing with that man, I had to learn a great deal about Trump and his history.

    I don't get involved in that many threads beyond a comment or two. I usually don't respond to someone who has replied first unless I have a strong opinion one way or another. I do respond when someone replies to what I have posted. Truthfully I like debating and politics. Some would (and have) say obsessed. It's one of my darker passions. These days I try to do that in a good cause.

    I don't like Biden. I wouldn't tell anyone to vote for him. But what is so bad about None of the Above?
    original thead

  • Who said I was out to impress you?

    And did I write more of the same? That would be boring.
    original thead

  • ""The best heroes are the ones who don't know they are heroes before they are needed and still choose standing between harm and another."hero from my lexicon

    original thead

  • "Too many people are into religion for the politics."

    One of my pass-alongs.
    original thead

  • Not really.

    For example, I make it about a one in five chance that Biden will be pushed aside for someone with a high profile and high ego.

    But even that assumes the Republic will survive. I am not convinced it will.
    original thead

  • Okay, time for lesson one.

    Insults only work if the target respects the insulter or if the target is seeking approval or validation from the insulter.
    original thead

  • nods As I suspected. You're for "freedom," but only if it's what you approve for the people you've chosen.

    That isn't freedom, that is privilege.

    I wrote that was your hidden premise, not what you were going to say.

    In case you hadn't noticed, most of the people here are conservatives and believe in their causes.

    I have to give you fair warning. You've had a taste of what I can do. There are others here who can tie you into knots too. They might not make a stand unless provoked, but I might. Keep this up and you are going to get frustrated.
    original thead

  • In some of the spirited discussions I've had with certain people, I point out that Julian fit the mold of saint very nicely. Just not a Christian saint. The man defied political power in search of his faith when it was worth his life to do so. As Emperor Julian rolled back a the primacy of the faith that had replaced his. He didn't eliminate it, he just removed it's "most favored" status and made it one among many in the Empire.

    Yet because he wasn't Christian and because he did not place Christianity first and last, he is generally considered a betrayer. Compared to his immediate successors, Julian was very saintly in how he dealt with his political opponents. He tried to personify honor and reform the empire.

    But he wasn't Christian, and from a strict Christian perspective, he could not be a saint.

    Heroes step between harm and those they love. They make stands for the principles that shape their thought and actions. I could do no less. I'm not a hero, but I am sworn to veritas. Even when people don't want to hear it.
    original thead

  • Case in point, this thread.

    I said I did not trust Trump. I've not made a secret of it. It's something I've said many times before and certainly on this site. I was perfectly content to leave it at that, stating my disapproval and moving on. Three of the four people who responded to me directly including you were not satisfied. You wanted to me to make my case so you could disprove it and then convert me. It's a version of the same bit that was used to sell Obama. The Great Man chosen by Destiny come to save us all from our own folly.

    No, I wasn't banned from this site. And no, I haven't been physically threatened because of Trump. But I've had experiences with conservatives who would have punished me for my politics, faith, and social life if they had the government sanctioned power to do so. Some of them tried anyway. One big difference between conservatives and progressives is if conservatives don't like you, they'll tell you up front and they will be very open in opposing you. Progressives will seduce you and then stab you in the back later.
    original thead

  • If you want specifics about Trump, the man lies. Enthusiastically. His public persona is one big con. You have no idea just how offensive that is to me.

    And that is just to start with.
    original thead

  • No mind reading involved. It's just a skillset that not everyone bothers to pick up.

    You wanted a specific response. You tried (clumsily) to set up a situation where I had no choice but to give you an either/or answer that you could exploit.

    Meanwhile and as I said, the very idea of hate speech and regulating someone's feelings is not conservative. Which is something you haven't disputed.
    original thead

  • Every time modern Republicans have actually wielded power, they have still expanded the scope and power of government.

    They are also not terribly tolerant of dissent.
    original thead

  • Answer - Government is not your friend.
    original thead

  • Incorrect.

    As long a politicos promise AND people believe government has the power without significant costs to them, we'll have the same problems develop.
    original thead

  • Your preferred tactics reduce everything to an either/or.

    In this specific case, it wasn't about "inciting hatred." Your hidden premise was that society should govern what someone thinks and says.

    I didn't answer your direct question simply because that wasn't the point you were trying to establish. I rejected your hidden premise with all of it's "you're with us or against us."

    Hate is bad, yes, but also a part of free speech. I won't sacrifice liberty so you can score a petty point.

    Dualism is a really bad idea when it comes to human interactions.
    original thead

  • Because you don't really ask questions. You demand canned responses.
    original thead

  • Stop and think about what you are arguing here.

    I saw videos that showed one thing, and edited versions that the media used that purported to show something else.

    Regardless of who showed them to me and what their motives were, the video used by the media at best told an incomplete and very biased story.

    But then, you aren't really arguing, are you?

    You're trolling.

    And since the thread is getting too long and Disqus is acting up, I think it's time we stopped pretending otherwise.
    original thead

  • Of course there are alternatives, we just don't like to think about them.

    I am not convinced that any reform effort is going to be much more than a temporary and very cosmetic fix. It's not true, but we've been conditioned to think that the solution to government problems is more government.
    original thead

  • You mean, other than leaders proving themselves as needed but otherwise letting people do for themselves?
    original thead

  • nods Mutual respect has disappeared.
    original thead

  • Elections and politics do not a leader make.
    original thead

  • No, I stressed behavior and not intelligence.

    And from the very first, I pointed out that "whites" and "blacks" exhibit similar behaviors.
    original thead

  • General case, if you please. And it already accounts for itself.
    original thead

  • You know, the interesting thing is that I've seen videos that showed a more even mixture, and I've seen edited versions of the same videos that stressed how many "blacks" were there. Which ones do you suppose you saw?
    original thead

  • Compulsory approval For The Greater Good. "Thou shalt not dissent."

    Literally no difference between that justification and what the progressives claim.

    Thus the cycle perpetuates itself. We're conditioned to go for the least bad choice so the institution can be preserved.

    I'll stick to my principles.
    original thead

  • Of the current crop of politicos? Dan Crenshaw looks decent. He's a man of honor, I like some of his ideas, and he's photogenic enough to make a real impact. And, most importantly, he never used eminent domain to forward a real estate deal.

    I wouldn't. I don't. You shouldn't either.
    original thead

  • Again, I didn't introduce the excuse of genetics or IQ.

    What I am pointing out is that there are "whites" exhibiting the same destructive behavior as the "blacks" you blame, and that not all (or even most) blacks are showing that destructive behavior.

    That means it's reasonable to look for other factors.

    That's the difference between scientistic and scientific.
    original thead

  • We don't have comparable statistics on anything for more than about a century. But that should be enough to show a difference,

    So what happened and when?
    original thead

  • And if the figures hold up and the biggest portion of the rioters are "white?"

    Take a look at the videos. Start counting noses.
    original thead

  • I'm thinking that the very idea of hate speech and regulating someone's feelings is not conservative.

    Frankly if you can't defend yourself against hate, you have bigger problems than what someone else is inciting.
    original thead

  • I don't trust Trump. And while there may be worse things, there are certainly better things.

    For the record, Republicans can't be trusted with political power either.
    original thead

  • I didn't say that. ZTG tried to use IQ as part of his argument that "blacks" are genetically inferior.

    I pointed out that there is no significant genetic difference between successful and unsuccessful blacks. Given that, it makes more sense to look for cultural and political factors. Arguably you could throw nutrition and general health in there, but those differences are less than what they used to be.
    original thead

  • Why?

    I already made the general case.

    Experts may love details and especially specific details that support their particular biases, but that doesn't mean the details are universally right. Especially in the social sciences.

    That doesn't mean that the test is invalid. It just means it is not universal.
    original thead

  • I did overlook Will's bit about the initial illegitimacy rate. But the explosion happened exactly on the period I said.

    Incidentally, as long as we're pushing for perfect accuracy, the Moynihan report was published in 1965 and couldn't possibly show much of anything beyond that date.
    original thead

  • Missed this one. Sorry.

    Eliminate the variables. Obviously you are implying that it is a bigger number of "blacks." But Democrat politics have become much more vindictive. That started with Bill Clinton and yes, went further with Obama. But Clinton was the turning point.
    original thead

  • I didn't ask for statistics in today's terms. I asked if "blacks" murdered more (than whites) in that period?
    original thead

  • No, because most blacks are not either protesting or rioting.

    But more importantly, if any of the rioters are "white," it blows your theory away. And we know that some are.
    original thead

  • No, because most blacks are not either protesting or rioting.

    But more importantly, if any of the rioters are "white," it blows your theory away. And we know that some are.
    original thead

  • kjf4 wasn't talking about self defense. Some of them weren't even American citizens. He was criticizing what they had legally done and said and advocating forced expulsion because he didn't agree.
    original thead

  • But should you be held responsible for what he says and does? Does what he said on June 9th, 1985 determine your destiny?
    original thead

  • I don't think it should be "fixed." But I know that's not a majority opinion here.
    original thead

  • I wasn't the one citing genetic differences between "whites" and "blacks" to explain behavior.

    I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why there aren't genetic reasons for the "white" protestors and rioters.
    original thead

  • First, I wasn't the one who introduced IQ to the discussion.

    Second, I didn't say they were afraid. I said they blamed the police. Sometimes there's justification for that, but mostly not.
    original thead

  • Doesn't matter what I believe about time. I just pointed out that if any IQ test doesn't allow for different assumptions that deliver results as determined by a culture, it means the test is culturally biased. The difference between linear and cyclical time is just the most obvious example.
    original thead

  • Actually I nodded at the explosion of black single motherhood that started in the 1960s and didn't slow until after the 1996 welfare reform.

    You know, as shown in your graph?
    original thead

  • They don't affect all "races" equally. Reason had a great article about housing policies about a month ago. Almost anything aimed at "helping" minorities in inner cities is intended to keep people dependent.
    original thead

  • Extend the timeline back to the turn of the 20th. Extend it back to the Civil War. Did "blacks" murder more for that entire period? Or did something change during the Johnson administration?
    original thead

  • I was just reading an article, Pew Research: Only 1-in-6 Protesters Are Black, 46 Percent Are White.

    So what is your explanation for the protesters and rioters who aren't "black?" What gene made that possible? Do you want to start blood screening?
    original thead

  • There is a vast difference between "leave us alone" and expelling someone by force.

    I don't agree with your opinions, but I have no problem with "leave us alone." One of my personal watchwords is KYFHO.

    My problem (and where I will oppose you) is when you decide that you have the power to kick someone out of the country.
    original thead

  • Should I hold you responsible for the words of David Duke?
    original thead

  • Dualism again.

    You presented an either/or. I gave a general class that does not fit within your premises yet still applies.

    Your assumption is too limited.
    original thead

  • Nobody had it until after two world wars, the devastation of Europe and part of Asia, and the collapse of colonialism.
    original thead

  • There are cultural differences easily identified and spanning multiple "races."

    You can't show genetic differences between the "blacks" who riot and those who don't.

    Given those two observations, genetics isn't the likely cause.
    original thead

  • I'm guessing that most of your concerns are because of what you think certain people have done to you and yours and what they have the legal sanction to do.

    If you use the forces of government against them, how is that different? Why is your way better? What will you do when people don't agree?
    original thead

  • Not just Christians, but yeah.
    original thead

  • I usually don't have too many problems.

    Their whole schtick rests on guilty pity. Don't give them guilt, insist that they accept responsibility for their own actions, and stand up for your own rights.

    Works pretty good.
    original thead

  • I'm an insomniac.

    And I'm pretty good at spotting people who advocate violent revolution.

    I spotted you, didn't I?

    Measurable harm to people or property. Social justice doesn't matter unless it's given the force of law. Even then, there's always a way to turn it back on itself.
    original thead

  • Until they break the law and harm others, I really don't care. Live and let live works mostly, you really should try it.

    I suspect you'd be happier.
    original thead

  • For someone who is "done arguing," you are sure flinging the pixels.
    original thead

  • Awfully selective there, aren't you?

    Another of the claims is that some "whites" are rioting.

    Under your arguments, those "whites" are genetically less.

    Of course you're wrong on all the other points too, but it'll be amusing watching you try and dig yourself out.
    original thead

  • Nah.

    There's no reason to expel a citizen, and the only reason to banish a citizen is if they tried to expel another citizen.
    original thead

  • nods

    Victimhood politics. I despise it.
    original thead

  • Gods, what TV have you been watching lately? Television does not say that. Rather the opposite in fact. According to popular TV, all the world's problems are caused by greedy heterosexual "white" men out to exploit anyone and everyone. And most of them are Republicans.
    original thead

  • No, you haven't refuted my claims.

    Here, I'll summarize.

    Not all 'blacks" are rioting.

    Some "whites" are rioting.

    There are clear and distinct cultural differences between "blacks" who riot and those who don't.

    There is no measurable genetic difference between "blacks" who riot and those who don't.

    There is no measurable genetic characteristic for those who are prone to riots and those who are not.
    original thead

  • Only after you have been banished to a melting iceberg.
    original thead

  • Actually I did.

    Think about how much our math and science is based on the assumption of sequential time.

    That doesn't make the science right or wrong, it just means it has certain assumptions. The next bit would be to look at cultures that don't recognize sequential time and see if their assumptions work. If those assumptions work within the contexts of those cultures, then any intelligence test that does not recognize that is culturally biased.

    See, psychology and other social sciences don't really have an objective bias and are highly dependent on the observer effect.
    original thead

  • nods That and public education were the two giant killers, especially in the inner cities.

    Which just happened to be governed by Democrats.
    original thead

  • And I mentioned trade routes.

    Incidentally, you really really should bone up on the history of sub-Saharan Africa, particularly before the European colonialism. There were cities that surpassed Rome, right down to covered sewer systems.

    Anyway, back to the point. You talked about exploration, and then you qualified that with circumnavigating the globe. There are some intriguing hints that others did reach America, but in terms of documented history, well, we don't know. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means there is not widely accepted proof.
    original thead

  • My mom's family didn't have internal plumbing until just a few years before they moved to Arizona.

    The second half of the 20th saw more economic and technological advancement than any other period in history.
    original thead

  • I also pointed that Johnson's Great Society programs were deliberately introduced to keep those under the programs permanently dependent. The two worst results were the dismantling of public education while eliminating private alternatives and incentivizing single mothers. Zoning was also a big factor, as was eradicating neighborhoods in favor of "project" housing.

    All this was introduced in the name of compassion, but it was intended to keep people on the government teat just enough so that it was too much trouble to find another way.
    original thead

  • Would that be the same television(s) that told people that Hillary Clinton was going to be elected President? Would that be the same television(s) that routinely tells people that mankind is doomed because of anthropogenic climate change? Would that be the same television(s) that says that all men are misogynistic rapists unless they are Democrats?

    It's a narrative and a P.R. campaign.
    original thead

  • Would that be the same television(s) that told people that Hillary Clinton was going to be elected President? Would that be the same television(s) that routinely tells people that mankind is doomed because of anthropogenic climate change? Would that be the same television(s) that says that all men are misogynistic rapists unless they are Democrats?

    It's a narrative and a P.R. campaign.
    original thead

  • With a couple of provisos, it works to start. First is the understanding that culture is never monolithic, there will always be variations. Second is that cultures and subcultures do not exist in isolation, they interact and react.
    original thead

  • In other words, you can't refute and your only answer is to demand that I give up.
    original thead

  • Because my choice of debate tactics and examples is not dictated by you. Do you think I chose linear time by accident?

    And I am certainly not going to be defined by your fears and inferiorities.

    I didn't say anything about "whitey" oppressing "blacks," I said that progressives had created a culture of dependency in exchange for "black" votes and the "blacks" who didn't accept that did much better than the ones who chose victimhood.

    Duality and the law of the excluded middle are only effective in very limited circumstances. Or, as I like to put it, as a rule, absolutes don’t.
    original thead

  • Moving the goalposts again.
    original thead

  • You keep asking the wrong questions, if they can be called questions at all. You're trying to lock me into either/or premises.

    My premise is that an artificial culture is causing the problem. One that was crated to exploit "blacks" and keep them perpetual victims.

    Looking at "since the 1960s" without considering the politics is foolish at best and seriously misguided.
    original thead

  • Everybody complains. The riots will stop when the rioters pay a price for their actions (I'm thinking about the 1992 rooftop LA Koreans). We've been told that Americans should look the other way because "black" rioters are justified. That's a license to destroy.

    You've been a sport too. And you don't resort to insults. Thank you.
    original thead

  • I just haven't adhered to the narrative you want to sell.
    original thead

  • Actually, it's the same explanation that has been handed around for decades. Frederick Douglass and George Washington Carver made the case. The Moynihan Report popularized it. It's been a basic plank of trustworthy conservatism since at least the 1900s. It's been statistically verified numerous times.

    It's also very inconvenient for progressives and racists.
    original thead

  • Again, adjust for culture. You say "blacks" commit more murder, but which blacks?

    I was just reading about a group of disaffected voters in Grosse Pointe Woods near Detroit and I am pretty sure they don't commit more murders.
    original thead

  • Well blazes. I deleted too much in the copy/paste. Sorry about that.

    wanders off searching for caffeine
    original thead

  • Yes, the tests really are culturally biased. For example, one common assumption is that time is linear. And then we get into examination of what is actually being tested, if intelligence is actually a thing or several things, and if intelligence in one culture can be applied across cultures.

    I am not "hate whitey." That would be stupid, especially since my own ethnicity is "mutt." I just don't think there is an inherent specialness because of skin color. Odd that you seem to take that very personally.
    original thead

  • Yes, you were.

    "Europeans went on a binge of exploring the planet in a way nobody had done before."
    original thead

  • That's moving the goalposts. From exploration to literature and architecture. It's called grasping at straws.
    original thead

  • shrugs As far as I am concerned, there is one race and it's human. The rest is ethnic and cultural. And these days, deliberately chosen labels to separate us from commonality.

    I don't take my thoughts or orders from you. All you will do is frustrate yourself terribly if you attempt to change that.
    original thead

  • The Democrat elites set out to create perpetual dependency in exchange for votes. It looks good on the surface, goodies without cost. But dependency means the designated victim group can never be given all they want or even need, or they might leave the abuser.

    Think of this as a bad sugar daddy relationship. "Blacks" get some freebies as long as they don't "step out of line" and attack on cue.

    It's dehumanizing.
    original thead

  • I didn't say anything about appeasing and I didn't say anything about giving more.

    BLM is not all "blacks," that's the lie they use so people cower and give in to their demands.

    "Blacks" should get exactly the same opportunities and rights as anyone else. No more, no less.
    original thead

  • And yet you are still posturing.
    original thead

  • "…it's just when someone says something so blazingly stupid, it actually makes me a little angry sometimes."

    It annoys me, particularly when they do it to forward a flawed and offensive narrative.
    original thead

  • No lies. I'm sworn to veritas. I don't lie. I may not tell all I know, I may be mistaken, but I don't lie.

    You haven't eliminated culture as a cause. You've gone out of your way to avoid discussing it.
    original thead

  • You haven't been debating. Me, I've been more interested in all those upvotes you've been collecting. Especially since most of them are not regulars here.

    We know that culture (and specifically the politics of victimhood) are extremely disruptive to "blacks." The people who choose responsibility are the ones who succeed. I'm not going to pass out extra chances or more blame because of skin color.

    As for your "science," you haven't been using it for anything except justifying your opinion.
    original thead

  • But I do have one, one that explains the observed behavior better than yours.

    It just doesn't fit your narrative.

    My theory answers everything about why, but it robs you of a scapegoat.
    original thead

  • I can take the activists of today's Democrat party and show a "higher predilection for anti-social violence."

    If the behavior happens among people who aren't "black" and not all "blacks" demonstrate the behavior, then it's not due to genes.
    original thead

  • “I've never been fond of “safe spaces” or the cancel culture. Locking away the memory is not going to protect you or your children. All it does is take away the tools you need to fight. Part of becoming an adult is finding ways to deal with parts of the World that you don't like.

    Because that is what it really comes down to, isn't it? If you don't think your ideas can succeed without overwhelming force and fear, then maybe you are afraid that your ideas aren't really an answer. And if that is true, that says more about your fear than the ideas that you dare not face.”Courage & Continuity

    original thead

  • Yeah, you really do.

    That is your entire case.

    As for IQ, the tests are culturally biased. Just look at what a police officer means to different subcultures.
    original thead

  • Not true. Chinese and Arab explorers were fairly common. Try websearching for ancient trade routes.

    The difference is that the European exploration was tied more directly into commerce. Of course, all that gold ended up destabilizing European economies, but that is another topic.
    original thead

  • Except the "whites" weren't particularly rich until the last half of the 20th.
    original thead

  • Yeah, let's take a look at that shall we?

    Before the Civil War, they wouldn't have been allowed to assimilate.

    Woodrow Wilson turned back government reforms that would have allowed integration. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, local laws including Jim Crow and zoning restricted "blacks."

    Wilson also resegregated the military. That wouldn't change until Harry Truman in the wake of WWII.

    Meanwhile, "soft" racism like zoning laws were the rule, not the exception. All this came to a head with the civil rights movement of the 1950s to 1960s. At which time, "blacks" were doing better despite the legal restrictions.

    Then came Johnson's Great Society programs and the bottom dropped.
    original thead

  • Ah ah ah. That's the problem with absolutes, you can't have it both ways. The claim was for "blacks."

    That's what makes my bit here so easy. All I have to do is point out the exceptions.
    original thead

  • You claimed that genetics are the reason why "blacks" fail.

    Prove your claims. What genetic factor makes someone riot? Why are there "whites" rioting? Why are there successful blacks?

    You can't hide behind statistics for this one. Your claims were never about statistics.

    Those claims were never about science either, but we'll stick to one set of claims at a time.
    original thead

  • Show me the genetic differences between successful "blacks" and unsuccessful "blacks." Until you can do that, your "theory" is codswallop.
    original thead

  • The same is true for any group prior to the 20th Century. The groups that embraced T.I.T. are the ones that grew more successful.
    original thead

  • You're really reaching here.

    I can differentiate based on culture. I can say that this group of "blacks" is more successful because of culture.

    You can't explain why one group of "blacks" is more successful than others based on genetic differences between "blacks." All you can do is make distinctions between "blacks" and other skin colors.

    As long as there are successful "blacks," your claims are invalid.
    original thead

  • You're trying to shame me?

    Now if you were part of the climate change panic crowd or a third wave feminist, I could say that you ran out of arguments and the only thing you had left was trying to make me look bad. But that couldn't possibly be true with you…

    Could it?
    original thead

  • Except I didn't say "blacks" in other nations. I said other nations and other cultures. Skin color is the distraction.
    original thead

  • Nope.

    Because it isn't "white" standards of behavior. It's what works.
    original thead

  • Again, allowing for the culture there is no real difference. Certainly not a genetic one.
    original thead

  • Prior to FDR, more "blacks" were becoming successful. But the real game changer was Johnson's Great Society. Before the programs, crime was declining, education was improving, and there were fewer out-of-wedlock births. Afterwards all those trends reversed drastically.

    Government interference kept people poor. To this day, the biggest poverty rates are on the Amerind reservations. Yet the folks who stepped outside of what was officially sanctioned have done well for themselves and their children.

    Government is not your friend.
    original thead

  • Your question is flawed.

    You accept that a "few black individuals" (it's more than a few) are doing well, but you haven't shown genetic differences that prevent "blacks" from doing well.

    On the other hand, I've pointed out that cultural differences do make an impact. What's more, I'm not the only one making that claim. In fact, I just read a letter that makes that point. People from Barry Goldwater to Walter Williams made the exact same point. They were right.
    original thead

  • I don't like (or trust) Trump. But the Democrats keep making him look good by comparison.

    Ever since Trump came down that escalator, the experts in the media have been telling us he's a joke. And that he is going to screw up. And the next Really Big Thing is going to topple his reign.

    But they can't tell me why he's going to flop face first down the stairs.

    Trump's biggest virtue is that he is a disruptor. The Dems are feeling it now, and the Repubs are beginning to notice. At this point I only give the party system about a 3 in 5 chance, and that is assuming the country survives.
    original thead

  • The easiest way to test would be to factor out the cultural differences.

    What cultural norms are shown by successful people and what cultural norms are shown by unsuccessful people?

    Which makes that very very relevant to the conversation. And it makes it extremely obvious that the issue is not and never has been skin color.

    You're trolling. And you aren't doing a good job.
    original thead

  • Wrong question.

    We're the exception not the rule. The right question is what makes our culture successful and can others do the same?

    The short answer is that we didn't do it right from the start. There was a lot of trial and error. There were a lot of slips and backsliding. But at it's core is what I call the T.I.T. ratio. Trade. Immigration-Emigration. Tolerance. Technically that is T.I-E.T., but I bet you remember T.I.T.

    As people strive for these things to make their lives better, they slowly change the culture to make that easier.
    original thead

  • Some friends and I were discussing monument sites. Somebody observed that a century or so ago, this wouldn't have been considered vandalism. In many nations, it still wouldn't be. We speculated that it was only after WWII (and to a lesser extent WWI) that WestCiv started making the ancient sacred because it was ancient.

    I'm a product of my time and I do think we should honor those who came before. But I have to admit, it is probably a post-modern trait.
    original thead

  • Your trolling is getting a tad obvious there.

    You had to go outside the country and to another continent to find "examples."
    original thead

  • Well, hello there.

    As a small "l" libertarian, I'm for repealing most American laws.

    It's not a "war on whites," in case you hadn't noticed there are a whole lot of "whites" leading the charge, particularly when it comes to "shaming" conservatives. (Most progressives tend to dismiss libertarians).

    More freedom, less law. Nothing all that utopian about that.
    original thead

  • It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture. Starting with the rule of law. Then there are property rights and the ability to show clear title so the owner can borrow against it.

    Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto spent a book explaining it better than I could. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else.
    original thead

  • Immaterial.

    Unless you are claiming that sub-Saharan Africans are being smuggled into the US to destabilize the country.
    original thead

  • Do you understand economic incentives? We subsidized behaviors that in any other part of our society we would not tolerate. Starting with FDR, that was the "deal." Free stuff for votes. And if anyone dared speak out against the "deal," well, they were totally racist and guilty as sin of Things Too Terrible to Mention.

    Government policy created a permanent underclass. Most Republicans were too guilty to speak
    original thead

  • We pick up the pieces when the wind stops blowing.
    original thead

  • Not true.

    There are intelligent and accomplished "blacks," so skin color and genes aren't factors.

    On the other hand, we know that civil rights movement was hijacked by people who wanted victims instead of heroes. It's way too easy to be a victim, especially when there are whole departments dedicated to keeping you down and very dependent on government.
    original thead

  • I think that Trump is better at playing the media in all it's forms better than any politico in history.
    original thead

  • It's not controlling that is the problem, it's excusing people from the consequences of their actions.
    original thead

  • Thanks. I think that's my only Firefly meme, but I have a gallery page of freedom and libertarian memes. The top section is the most recently added, the middle section is a random selection of 50, and the bottom section is my old site banners. There are several hundred, and I am still going through my picture files and uploading.

    Oh, and I am a fan. I have the series on Blu-Ray and Apple TV.
    original thead

  • original thead

  • That's not true. It has nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with the culture that they grew up in and were conditioned to embrace.

    It's the progressive lie that has been sold since the 1930s. "You're a victim, you'll always be a victim, and you can never survive without help," "Blacks" who didn't buy into that lie did well and their children did better still.

    Define it in terms of skin color and you lost your argument before you began. Worse, you lost your chance to make things better.
    original thead

  • Interesting bit about that Raiders scene. Harrison Ford was ill when it was shot. He convinced Spielberg to do one take with him improvising.
    original thead

  • It gets the discussion going.

    I agree with Francis W. Porretto, the Federal system is beyond tweaks. I'd also point out that it did away with the presumption of innocence and laid the groundwork for ex post facto laws. The whole tax withholding scheme is designed to fleece people without them understanding just how much they are paying and to discourage self-employment and entrepreneurship.

    Yes I have a plan. Abolish the Federal income tax. Cap taxes so that the total of all taxes combined doesn't exceed ten percent of the value of the thing taxed. The Federal government gets ten percent of all taxes collected within it's jurisdiction. But, state governments get ten percent of any Federal fees, taxes, or levies collected within their borders. Let government accountants argue it out.
    original thead

  • Only if you thump them on the head when you leave…
    original thead

  • I don't think the problem is that we vote for individuals. I think the problem is that we expect government to do too much and give it the power to coerce us when we don't do what it demands. For decades I've been having an argument about global warming. In that time, government has interfered and mandated low flow appliances, lower wattage bulbs, and low flow toilets that take more flushes and are harder to keep clean.

    Some libertarians make the case that licensing should be replaced by competing insurance companies. If a insurance company is on the hooks for a restaurant that serves spoiled food or a doctor who botches surgery, that insurance company has a vested interest in quality control. That would probably translate to higher premiums for higher risk, giving the business owner incentive to lower their cost by raising quality.

    Maybe government should do less? Then the morality of the politicos and technocrats wouldn't matter so much.

    Should unions have coercive power over their members? Shouldn't the members be able to walk away if they aren't happy with the union?
    original thead

  • Couldn't really make out the discussion in the second link, but the first one was interesting.

    I think that unions go off the rails when they have coercive power, "you only get the job if you belong to a union." That being said, when even FDR was against public sector unions, they probably aren't a good idea. We do know right now that states and cities face tremendous obligations because of public pensions, obligations which they probably aren't going to meet. That being said, employer provided pensions are a bad idea and should not exist. After you've left someone's employment, why should they have power over your pension?

    You talk about the lack of "good moral leaders," but doesn't that mean we're expecting too much from government? What options does Josephine Citizen have if bad cops screw her over? What chance does she have if she can only vote for corrupt party one or corrupt party two? Can she take her business elsewhere if her income taxes are audited three years in a row?
    original thead

  • I can live with that.
    original thead

  • There we go. "Me is mine, you is yours." I'd put up the video link but Disqus would insist on embedding the video.
    original thead

  • Well, we disagree there.

    I think there are rules we can agree on and rules where we will disagree. Not harming another or their property, most would agree that is a good one. But what about mixing fibers from two plants (Leviticus 19:19)? And then there is the thing about cotton/poly blends.

    I've no problem with honoring my father and mother (and for that matter, a slew of ancestors actual and adopted). But I like god/dess statues. And I'm not about to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.

    If I had my druthers, we'd move away from a proclamation lifted from some dusty book and move to something we can agree on. One of my parlor games is showing how a workable legal system might be derived from the ethic of reciprocity that Christians call the Golden Rule.
    original thead

  • "If you don't have police to enforce the laws, why have the laws?"

    That is an extremely important question.

    I'm not pushing no law, but many laws on the books are about supporting the institutions of government no matter what. Others are protecting businesses from competition. Still others are about regulating things that don't really need to be regulated. Still other things are about assigning power to government that could really be handled better privately.
    original thead

  • That's an interesting take. Not sure I agree, but it's worth discussing.
    original thead

  • I've been thinking about how to respond without being misunderstood.

    No matter how amazingly great and fantastic and true you believe your faith is, it doesn't apply to anyone who hasn't chosen it. That's it, full stop. All those fundamental truths that you base your life, your morality, and your hopes on do not exist for anyone who does not share your faith.

    Does that make your faith less? No. Does that make your faith untrue? That's a discussion I would rather not have, but in a nutshell, no faith is objectively true even if it is a core principle of your faith that there is only one G*d and only certain ways to approach Him/Her/It.

    That's the hub right there. If I deny that your faith controls my faith and praxis, then it's all too easy to claim that I am attacking your faith. After all, that is against one of the basic tenets. Now we're moved into a place where my faith is "controlling" yours simply because I say my faith is different and has it's own rules and assumptions. My faith becomes an affront because I do not place yours above mine.

    Look, the Bible is great poetry. There's even some pretty good morality buried in there in and among a "god of love" periodically whipping out death and destruction at the drop of a hat. But at the end of the day, tain't mine. Insisting that your faith (and by extension you yourself) have a Higher Truth that I must submit to, well, that isn't going to happen.

    My problem isn't with your religion. It's with the people who claim to speak for your religion AND claim dominion over others because of it.
    original thead

  • Just so you don't think the libertarian is totally crazy.

    ❝Four things mark the politics of victimhood. First, the designated victim is never responsible, even if their circumstances are caused by their own actions or lack of actions. The victim draws their “power” from the guilty pity of others.

    Second, the designated victim is shielded from criticism.

    Third, there is a hierarchy of victimhood defined by vicious infighting with some designated more victimized by society than others.

    Finally, positive benefits created by others must be transfered to the victims because they are victims.❞
    politics of victimhood from my lexicon

    original thead

  • Pardon, but not everyone agrees that there is "a" god (capitalized or not), or that She/He/it handed down a universal moral code.
    original thead

  • Pardon, but not everyone agrees that there is "a" god (capitalized or not), or that She/He/it handed down a universal moral code.
    original thead

  • ❝We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.❞
    The roots were already there, it just took a while to blossom.
    original thead

  • Somebody forgot to tell the minions that they were minions.
    original thead

  • Tasers are "less lethal," not "non-lethal."

    Oh, and one.
    original thead

  • The official name may be Black Lives Matter, but the motto is Black Votes Matter. Which means that no one making noise is interested in the issues or the people, only in winning the next election.
    original thead

  • They can't be sent to Gitmo, nor can they be tried under military law.
    original thead

  • They aren't protests, they are riots and looting. Nor were they triggered by a "white" police officer killing a "black" man. That is the excuse, not the reason.

    These points seem almost impossible for some to accept.
    original thead

  • Oh, and FYI.

    I'm not the smartest guy in the room
    original thead

  • Is there any doubt that if I wanted people to agree with me all the time, I would write exactly the right things?

    Is there any doubt that if I were trolling, I'd have everyone here much more worked up than the any of the agitators we've seen?

    Do you really think if I had intended a parting shot, I would have stopped short of linking your words to the emblematic behavior of all conservatives?

    You may not believe it (and that's okay), but most of the time I don't respond to things I see here. Or any of the dozen or so other boards I frequent but don't usually comment on. I honestly don't have time. I'm taking the time here to make a few points.

    Look, I read a lot. I don't think most people realize just how much news and opinion I go through daily. Here's a list of headlines that have caught my eye recently. Not what I've read, just what I found interesting. As I write this, the top fifteen are the ones I've added today. I expect to add more a couple more times before I go to bed. That doesn't count the other things I'm reading right now.

    You say I go off the rails when it comes to religion and political philosophy. Did it ever happen except when someone else claimed theirs displaced mine? Stars above, I certainly hope not, because I've spent the better part of a decade trying not to go off like I used to.

    Of course we're going to differ. In a healthy society with healthy people, arguments happen. I know that there is no one best way, although I think the EoR is a pretty good start that works most of the time. But when I make a passing observation about shifting moral expectations, I shouldn't have to prove it as if it were a fundamental point of economics or climate science. And yes, I'm pretty sure if the observation hadn't been criticism against conservatives, you and everyone else here would have let it go.

    Does that make it valid? Well, we don't know yet, do we? I (still) think it is the beginning of a trend. And yes, I'm hypersensitive to that because I've been on the receiving end.

    Is there a moral divide in this nation? Yes, but more times than not the vocal conservatives lump me in with the progressives no matter what my stand is.

    I have reasons to doubt the good faith of conservatives. They just aren't sneaky about it.
    original thead

  • If it had only been good faith.
    original thead

  • Did I claim that there was a preponderance of evidence? When I brought it up, did I write anything except that it worried me?
    original thead

  • No, I don't think so. Let's look at what happened here, shall we?

    I made a point about the unrest being artificial.

    Then I made two observations, neither or which I claimed to be "gospel" and neither of which was intended to be a general case. It was one of those observations that several of the readers here chose to take personally. It was that observation that you wanted me to treat as fact with evidence.

    Here's your evidence. I was critical in an observation of some conservatives. You and others here took that as a blanket condemnation of all conservatives. When I wrote it was not, you challenged me to produce proof as if it were and as if i had made it a central point of an argument. What's more, you took offense when I did not trot out the proof on demand and under the terms you specified.

    I said It worried me that every day more conservatives feel justified in suppressing any and all dissent. Congratulations, you just "proved" that point. No matter what your good intentions, it happened.

    Everything I said that usually happens just happened here, in the small scale.

    Would I have accepted it if I had been "proven" wrong? We'll never know, will we?
    original thead

  • "I get the distinct impression that you're trying to treat two ideological groups (conservatives and "progressives") as somehow being two sides of the same coin."

    Yes. Their goals differ. But not necessarily the means. Coerce. Force. The state.

    Oh, not all of them. No group is monolithic. And the best of humanity always finds a way to shine through in the most unexpected ways. But until I see evidence of that individuality, it's a good bet that any conservative or progressive wants the state to enforce it's morality. Maybe it's against global warming crony capitalism. Maybe it's against porn or the sex trade. Maybe it's against competition. And maybe it's just using the state to "protect" their interests and ideas against dissent.

    "What's good for General Bullmoose, is good for the USA."

    Some of you here have claimed that the "Left" is worse than the "Right." What no one on either "side" want to accept is that as long as it is winner take all, the conflict will continue. It's not about liberty, it's about the best (government sanctioned) alternative. It's not your interests you're serving, it's about perpetuating the fight. No one can be fully allowed to win and no one can be fully allowed to lose. That is the way that the rules are written.
    original thead

  • Read what I wrote again.

    I didn't use all, I wrote more.

    We've got conservatives worried because some of the population is apparently allowed to break the law with few consequences and are even celebrated for doing so. No one is disputing that.

    People in general think that stricter law enforcement during civil disorder is good. No one is disputing that.

    Then we get into my observation. More conservatives want to target the people who disagree with them. This is a perfectly natural reaction considering that many conservatives have been targeted for disagreeing with progressives and the approved narratives. But it is worrisome and not a practical answer. If anything it will prolong the problems.

    What I wrote wasn't a general observation. I didn't present it as a failure of conservatism. I didn't even claim that it was most conservatives.

    Meanwhile, more conservatives joking or not are openly proclaiming that Democrat behavior should be suppressed.

    People are frustrated. But you can't afford to make those jokes. Because some people take the jokes seriously.
    original thead

  • They aren't going to climb in on their own.
    original thead

  • Who said I gave up?
    original thead

  • Talking about putting words in someone's mouth.

    I'll break this down. In my first post on this thread, I didn't cite evidence. That's because what I had seen was anecdotal and undocumented. I do think it was reflective of what's happening. Most law abiding people don't like public disorder and tend to become more and more law-and-order as the disruption continues. They also accept a certain loss of liberty "for the duration of the emergency." It happened in the Viet Nam war, it happened with the war on drugs, and it happened in the wake of 9-11.

    The conversations I have in person or in emails are private. I do not casually share details unless I have specific permission, especially when rudely demanded on a public forum.

    I identified what I think is a trend. It doesn't make conservatives "bad people," nor are they entirely wrong. I wrote that it worried me, and it does.

    I have no idea why you took that personally, nor do I really care. You haven't annoyed me yet, but you are getting there.
    original thead

  • "…let the rest of us who feel strongly about this country (as it once was) and the Constitution do the dirty work for you."

    original thead

  • It's not "blacks." It's some people, "white" and "black."

    Can't tell the players without a program.
    original thead

  • Just because I don't share private conversations doesn't mean my observations aren't accurate.

    I'm not looking for your approval or validation.
    original thead

  • No.
    original thead

  • Of course I've been paying attention, as should have been obvious from the first post I made on this thread.

    This has been a long time coming. Before 9-11, it might have been turned around. Now, I doubt it.

    That's not naval gazing, that's observation. You tell me, in a nation that routinely surveils it's citizens, where law enforcement, the military, and intelligence agencies routinely work to undermine the elected president, and property is seized without trial, exactly why do you trust the existing government and why do you think it can be cleaned up?
    original thead

  • No, my response is telling you to stop attacking me because I am critical of conservatives and make sure that your side keeps playing by the rules. No matter what the temptation.

    I am not a modern liberal or progressive, stop assuming that I am one.

    I do not trust conservatives and you are not helping.
    original thead

  • And I am aghast at the draconian penalties that are routinely suggested by conservatives in their fight against progressives and Democrats. You have the wrong villains in your sights.

    As I keep telling conservatives, the problem isn't progressives. The problem is an ever expanding government and a "winner take all" mindset that promises control of government to the victor.

    If you don't want government ruling you, then make it so government doesn't rule, period.
    original thead