❝Because LIBERTY demands more than black and white❞

remarks around the web

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.
  • I said this my PITA thread a few dozen replies ago. That was when I wrote that your choices don’t control my actions. Just because you declare “we’re done” doesn’t obligate me to follow your orders.

    Of course I’m doing the “last post on this thread” thing. I’ve told you that several times.

    This is your cue to throw out another unsupported accusation against me.
    original thread

  • Well, there are readers here who do not like what I think or write. I'm not going to defend that here, mainly because I don't think it should be defended.

    I will say that I feel that if you feel you need to be protected from people saying or posting "hurtful" things, you're not going to fit into World, online or offline.

    Also, who decides what is "hurtful" and under what circumstances and with what people involved?

    But then, that is a self-admitted troublemaker writing.
    original thread

  • Along the way you’ve made untrue allegations and accusations. Do you think you would have accepted that if it had been done to you?
    original thread

  • That should apply to cops too.
    original thread

  • Forty-five and a half posts since I’ve discussed that argument on this thread. How is that defending anything?
    original thread

  • You’re making excuses. You’re still trapped in that dominance/submission thing and you can’t even admit it to yourself.
    original thread

  • And you still can’t do it. You flat out say you are going to walk away, still you post.
    original thread

  • Nope, I still get a "this is waiting to be approved by The Wild Hunt."
    original thread

  • I disagree. I think a good woman is just as important as a good man. I think that civilization means making things work for your kids, and women certainly have a stake there.
    original thread

  • Now that wasn’t so hard, was it?
    original thread

  • How in the World did you get a link to post here?
    original thread

  • I won’t continue that argument on this thread.
    original thread

  • grins

    Now would I do that?
    original thread

  • Just how many untruthful allegations are you going to make against me?
    original thread

  • Nope.
    original thread

  • You really have those dominance cravings, don’t you?

    Surely you are not claiming our discussion is real life?
    original thread

  • Wrong game.
    original thread

  • It depends. I want government protecting life and liberty, sure. But I don't want government protecting me from being triggered, excusing someone's behavior because of skin color or "race," or deciding that a virus that kills people on the same scale as the annual flu demands a lockdown with masks and social distancing.

    The results are ugly, and I think we're seeing people give up on the system now because the system already gave up on them.
    original thread

  • Depends on my objective. And the game too, but that should go without saying.
    original thread

  • Sometimes it's enough to keep the other from scoring.
    original thread

  • shrugs You have more faith in the "system" than I do.
    original thread

  • What you believe is immaterial. You don't get to choose for anyone else.

    You don't get to choose what is and is not acceptable. You don't get to choose under what circumstances an argument can be made. You don't get to define the rules of the disagreement.

    We tried it other ways. Now I am making the point in the most obvious way possible.

    You don't get to choose for anyone else.

    I'm still here.
    original thread

  • I'm not sure we can "return to traditional values." Which ones are we going to drop?

    And frankly, most of the people talking about "returning to traditional values" are pushing for just as extreme a position as any on the left. There is very little talk of moderation or a middle way.

    Meanwhile, we still have those progressive people. They aren't going away.

    I don't have a solution where the nation survives.
    original thread

  • I think it does matter now. Trump is one man and you can't depend on him to "drain the swamp." If you really want lasting change, the American people are going to have to get involved despite government.

    While I am seeing a lot of anger out there, I'm not seeing people making a stand. I see people demanding that government make a stand for them.
    original thread

  • Again, you try to resurrect a disagreement that you said was done. A disagreement that I walked away from on this thread thirty-four and a half posts ago.

    You tried to get me to submit to your dominance game by claiming that you had told me something first when I referred to what I told you a year ago. I didn't claim it was prophetic, only that it might explain what is happening now on this thread. For more than that, you'll have to read it yourself.

    Why do you need to rewrite what I write?
    original thread

  • Does he?

    Who is going to save us then?

    I'm not asking this to be difficult. As I said, people are pushing for Trump to win, but no one wants to answer what happens after Trump.
    original thread

  • That was just the first time I asked why you give someone else your passion. Passion, not necessarily anger. Then as now you assumed the passion had to be anger.

    If you had reread that post, it might clue you into what is happening now on this thread.

    Stars above, I hand people the truth and they still don't accept it.
    original thread

  • So, no partial allies are allowed.

    And you are still craving dominance.

    I told you a year ago about the passion thing. I use it often, it was a hard lesson for me to learn.
    original thread

  • ymarsakar, are sure you want to get into an insult contest with me?

    Be sure. Be very sure.
    original thread

  • The difference between us is that you think electing Trump will make a difference in the long run.
    original thread

  • I disagree with the idea of "objective truth," but this isn't the time or place for that conversation.

    I want to point out that no matters what happens in November, no matter what happens in four years come November, these people are still going to be there. They are done hiding. They will still infest the institutions. of government, education, entertainment, and culture. they won't quit just because they lost, and they will see every win as confirmation that they are fighting the good fight..

    They won't go away.

    What happens then?
    original thread

  • I agree they are still in bully mode. From what I've seen, I don't think most of them have the intestinal fortitude for an actual confrontation.
    original thread

  • No, it's not what I require. This thread is different. It's about me being a PITA deliberately. I'm not gong to submit to your orders or rules. Nor would you if the situation was reversed.

    Along the way, you have made a number of statements about me that have been factually incorrect. And you've have to back off on them when called on it. My favorite so far was when you wrote I "defaced" your post.

    I said I left that disagreement on this thread and I have. I've made my point in that debate. Now all I am doing here is not letting you have the last word. You see, it's been obvious that you need me to back down and submit. How much of that is intentional I still don't know. But I do know that you measure your "success" by it. It's easy enough for me to deny you that. More frustrating for you, I'm willing to do it without establishing a clear "win." Even now as you read this, you're working out how you might show your dominance.

    A long time ago, I asked you a question I often ask people who have proven they can think. Why are you letting them control your passions? On this thread, I've asked you why you think I must submit for you to win? I don't expect you to give me answers, but I hope you will think about those questions. Here's another. Why do you need to win? This is a minor conflict with someone who agrees with you on many important subjects. Do you really need to win me over on the details of your plan?

    Here's an unspoken question that you should really consider, but I don't think you are ready for it. If you're willing to treat a partial ally like this, who is your real adversary?
    original thread

  • "Authorized?"
    original thread

  • Thirty and a half posts and you still haven't left the conversation you said was done.

    And you say I am obsessed.
    original thread

  • Based on your behavior, I'd have to say you are. Especially since you keep going after people for things that other people have done and the only thing they share is skin color.

    This thread isn't the first time you and I have tangled.
    original thread

  • Not interested in obeying your instructions or dictates. The only reason I'm prolonging this is so people can see you for what you are. No matter what their skin color.
    original thread

  • I've not insisted on that. It's part of the conversation that you said was done yet you keep coming back to.
    original thread

  • No, it means there are factors you haven't accounted for. More accurately, factors you won't account for.
    original thread

  • I said zoning laws were racist and you were making racist attacks.

    Those attacks of yours were based on skin color and labels, not on the individual or their actions. And you tried desperately to take offense when I pointed out that by your logic, Joe Biden was "better" than Thomas Sowell.

    In short, I went after your actions and words, not after your character and ability.
    original thread

  • Not nearly meaningless enough, since you keep acting racist. You're advocating depriving people of rights because of skin color. You're making BLM's case for them.
    original thread

  • That's not the discussion we've been having for quite some time.
    original thread

  • As should be obvious at this point, I think that a Trump victory will at best delay the inevitable. Government is still growing, spending is skyrocketing, and regulations are increasing.

    Trump victory or no, I don't think these progressives will be restrained by the law. And when push comes to shove, I think other Americans will choose protecting their own over protecting the government.
    original thread

  • No, I say things that you disagree with and you can't find a way to refute. That's why you go the insult route. If you can't effectively dispute the point, you go after the person.

    In my case, it doesn't work because I have to either respect you to begin with or be seeking your approval. Otherwise the insults are useless.

    See? You learned something.
    original thread

  • Once you start excusing racist laws, it's pretty clear that you are racist yourself.

    But we knew that already, didn't we? You are just looking for excuses.
    original thread

  • The fact that there are any means that there is something else going on.

    The voting trends you are talking about are relatively recent. Look at the party membership of the "blacks" first elected to Congress.
    original thread

  • I already said why I am doing this on this thread. I'm doing it by stating facts.

    You can't seem to let go of an argument even after you said "We're done."
    original thread

  • You can call me whatever you want. Insults don't work all that well with me. I can't help wondering why you place so much value in them.
    original thread

  • Twenty-six and a half posts on this thread without me addressing the original issue.

    You've accused me of "defacing" the issue. You've said I plagiarized. And when I stop posting about an issue because you were trying for the last post, you claim I am weaselly.

    So far your batting average isn't all that good.

    Stop demanding I submit to your directives.
    original thread

  • Do you really think foaming at the mouth is going to do you any good? The only people upvoting you are the ones who already agree with you.
    original thread

  • The point you keep ignoring, of course.
    original thread

  • “We are done here - our positions could not be more explicit.”

    “Yes, we are done here.”

    “We are done.”

    “Yes, we are done here.”

    Yet you keep trotting out the same argument.
    original thread

  • Are you going to address the point I made? Or are you going to keep trying desperately to distract me?
    original thread

  • I said the zoning laws were racist. You've yet to address that. I've found when people start by going after other people rather than the argument, that's a pretty good sign they don't believe their own arguments.
    original thread

  • But if skin color is the only determining factor that matters, then by your own argument Biden is a better man than Sowell can ever hope to be.
    original thread

  • Then why bring it up?
    original thread

  • I'm not talking about demographics.

    I'm talking about people and their attitudes.
    original thread

  • That's the same argument that you said multiple times was finished.

    Why are you still trying to have it?
    original thread

  • Biologically, there is only one race.

    Some of the "white" people are part of the problem.
    original thread

  • Actually I'm a mutt.

    I was talking about the zoning laws being racist and locking people into dependency.

    As far as less civilized members of society, you have been paying attention to the rioters, right? All sorts of skin colors there. It's not skin color they are attacking.
    original thread

  • The record is clear. You keep trying to resurrect a disagreement that I stopped discussing twenty-three and a half posts ago.

    Even now, you're trying to make me submit. Still won't work.
    original thread

  • I didn't deface anything. I replied. I didn't threaten. I didn't plagiarize. I dealt with the situation as it stands.

    It's not irrelevant. I've been demonstrating that you don't decide when someone is done with a thread. All I have to do is post something, anything on this thread, and you reveal your own frustrations. Admittedly you project them, but we can't have everything.

    I told you exactly why I was being a PITA on this thread. And while I don't always or even usually play "last man posting," in this instance it's justified. Will I do it again? That depends.

    You can end this anytime you want. You just can't make me submit.
    original thread

  • Many of who happen to be "white."
    original thread

  • There's one race and it's human.

    There are all sorts of people from all sorts of places that have emigrated here, and most of them have done fairly well. But many "blacks" (and to a lesser extent Amerinds) were already here and have been trapped in poverty and dependency.

    The difference is that we've been paying too much attention to "race" and telling people that they are victims. That no matter how hard they try they will stay victims. That they are not good enough to be adults. That they must be protected and shielded.

    That's the attitude you should be attacking.
    original thread

  • OK.

    I'd be happy to discuss it with you if you change your mind.
    original thread

  • Again, check the attitude.
    original thread

  • What I said is that the premises of zoning laws are racist. II'm not the only one who said that. I also pointed out that Democrats regularly use the law to keep minorities in "their place." That is in line with the original article.
    original thread

  • This is the twenty-first and a half post since i stop participating in the original disagreement. I haven't said anything else about it on this thread. Yet you are still trying to bring it up. That's not going to work.
    original thread

  • Bush League did go haywire with it.
    original thread

  • Wars are about power and money, religion and politics are the excuses but not the reason. Religion just means people ask fewer questions.

    But, you should look at the spread of Protestantism in Northern and Central Europe and compare it to the spread of communism. WWI was a crusade in religious terms, with Lutheran Germany lighting the fuse against the Eastern Orthodox Church. Korean and Viet Nam were certainly about different belief systems.
    original thread

  • Stop paying attention to the skin color, that's the least important part of the problem.
    original thread

  • What I see is plenty of "blacks" who didn't buy into the Democrat line that they needed government help and didn't get locked into intergenerational dependency.

    It's not skin color that makes the difference, it's attitude.
    original thread

  • So all those "white" Democrats had nothing to do with it.

    Interesting.
    original thread

  • My response has been appropriate under the circumstances.

    Don't make the mistake of assuming that I play to win. I usually don't in discussions.
    original thread

  • Do you remember all the complaints and worries after the Patriot Act was passed?

    All for the best of intentions. The very next President abused it.
    original thread

  • Yep. Still a crusade though.
    original thread

  • So I didn't plagiarize, you just accused me. Right. You're not making yourself look good here.

    You wanted to stop talking about the discussion, so I obliged. You also thought you could order me to leave, but I choose not to feed your power cravings.
    original thread

  • Well, we're going to disagree there. I don't think we should worry about electing the "right" person (of course I intended the pun). I think we should reduce the size and scope of government so it can never be a danger if crusaders take it over.

    Right now, progressives are worse. But I do not think conservatives would be better in the same positions and same temptations. Power wants to be used.
    original thread

  • So you aren't admitting plagiarism, you are accusing me of plagiarizing. Even though you quoted something without so much as an anonymous.

    Exactly what is it I am supposed to have plagiarized?

    My SCA days were long before cosplaying became a thing. Like many members, part of my interest was in the skimpy costumes, even if they weren't strictly "period." Chain mail bikinis are much more interesting viewed in person. That time also didn't last more than a year or two. I didn't want to dress up in garb, I wanted to do.
    original thread

  • Do you think crusades stopped in the Middle Ages? The Christian colonization movement, the spread of Islam, the temperance movement, the eugenics movement, two world wars, Korea, Viet Nam, the climate change crisis crowd, the war on drugs, United Fruit and I don't know how many small wars/revolutions.

    All characterized by the use of deadly force against the unbeliever.
    original thread

  • In all fairness, zoning started out as pretty racist. It didn't help when post WWII banking practices incorporated zoning laws. And the less said about the neighborhood devastation created by various public housing projects, the better.

    The important thing to take away is that traditionally Democrats have wanted to control where the poor and those not quite rich could live and shop.
    original thread

  • Scared of me? Why?

    You've said yourself that I'm no threat.
    original thread

  • "Religion can't be allowed the coercive power of government and government can't be allowed the moral justification of religion."
    One of my passalongs.
    original thread

  • Fiction and ymarsakar's fantasies aside, there is no way widespread satanic rituals, satanic ritual abuse, or satanic human sacrifice could be hidden in the United States. The number of people involved in the ritual and the even larger number required to cover it up staggers imagination.

    There's a lot of poseurs seeking attention out there.
    original thread

  • So it gets reduced to a Holy Crusade.

    Students of history know what the Faithful do when someone disagrees.

    And yes, the progressive "agenda" is far worse than what the conservative agenda is. For the moment. Because that is the dirty secret, dogma never tolerates dissent when dogma rules.
    original thread

  • You're showing the cravings then, and justifying to yourself.
    original thread

  • laughs

    Why do you think I must submit?
    original thread

  • Defaced a post? How?

    Did I post profanity? Did I scratch it off your screen? Did I spray paint over it? Have I insulted you? Have I done anything to you except treat you politely and question your behavior towards me specifically?

    I didn't raise the topic. You did, and without my prompting. Apparently you can raise old topics but that isn't allowed for lesser people.

    I suspect and I told you that your issues aren't with what I have said. It's that I dare to disagree.
    original thread

  • You're trying to return to the original disagreement. For twelve and a half posts I've not discussed that.

    I'm continuing this now because I'm wondering how far you'll push the submission thing without owning up to it. Again, your choice doesn't control my actions.
    original thread

  • Why?
    original thread

  • Ten and a half.
    original thread

  • That would be logical.
    original thread

  • Actually for my last eight and a half posts on this thread (including this one), I haven't written word one about the original disagreement. Before that I tried repeatedly to shift the conversation enough so we might find common ground.
    original thread

  • When someone stands for liberty and the future, should they let go?
    original thread

  • In ancient Rome, a pagan was a rural, a rustic, someone who didn't know about the benefits and pleasures of living the big city. Yokel is probably the closest modern American equivalent of the original use.

    As Christianity spread, it tended to focus on the cities. Some of the rural population held on to their old faiths. Later these faiths were actively suppressed, but even then fragments slipped through to the mainstream. Margaret Murray's "witch cult" probably never existed, but there were isolated and largely unorganized "pockets" throughout Europe. Very few of these "pockets" managed to preserve both their inner and outer mysteries, which meant that average peasant pagan might know the forms but not the meaning.

    As time went on, pagan simply meant non-Christian. And that is how it stayed for centuries.
    original thread

  • I'm going to point out some of the obvious here. For our last few encounters, you've been imperialistic. You've tried to establish a moral absolute, you've tried to call me cowardly, and you've tried to dictate the "rules" under which I am allowed to engage.

    Your choice doesn't control my actions.

    Yes, I've been a PITA about it this time around, but I've also been the receiving end from you because I won't submit to your declarations. I'm not sure how intentional the submission thing is and it would take more than it's worth to find out. Acting on that knowledge is not the person I want to be.

    We're going to disagree on voting and probably a few dozen other things. But you have a brain and you know how to use it. Just because it doesn't give you the same answers mine does doesn't mean that one of us must be destroyed. This last bit of me being an ass when you wanted to walk away excepted, I've treated you respectfully and courteously. You can't provoke me with insults and I won't back down from defending what I believe in. You can accept that or not as you choose, but you can't change me.
    original thread

  • Yet you keep posting.
    original thread

  • Do you think it will help?
    original thread

  • Getting a little emphatic there.
    original thread

  • So you say.
    original thread

  • Your choice.

    Aren't you glad I didn't declare it the greater evil?
    original thread

  • You're just now noticing?
    original thread

  • I'm not sure it's practical or ethical to repeal a right that a given group already has. I'm not sure how that would go over in the UK, but if something similar happened in the US there would be armed revolution.
    original thread

  • "Moral equivalence" is your schtick, not mine. My point has been that playing the game and expecting anything other than a momentary advantage is silly.
    original thread

  • And this choice is different, how?

    It's the same argument time and time again. It's always the end of the county. It's always escalating. What is going to stop this from happening again?
    original thread

  • What satanic rituals? You keep talking about them, but you never produce proof.
    original thread

  • What satanic rituals? You keep talking about them, but you never produce proof.
    original thread

  • Except you are not tolerating.

    Tolerating would be "I disagree."

    Moralizing means going after dissent with constant lectures about the "greater evil." It's pretty much the textbook example of intolerance.

    You think voting for Trump is going to save the nation and anything else is supporting the "greater evil." I think the system is set up so people get excited about voting down The Other Guy while never noticing the house is on fire, collapsing due to earthquake damage, and is infested with black mold.
    original thread

  • "Because pretty soon you're going to go off about how not voting for Trump is supporting the greater evil."
    original thread

  • Then provide them.
    original thread

  • You dodged the question.

    Roddenberry loved the "sufficiently advanced but humanly flawed" trope. Both pilots of the original series used it, as did multiple episodes. One entire series used the idea of space gods as one of it's assumptions. In this case, I rephrased one of the best quotes from Star Trek V.

    From an anthropological viewpoint, a good starting definition of a god is a being beyond human experience and understanding. Under those circumstances, it's Roddenberry's conceit that a god can be flawed. It's more likely that the god is misunderstood by humans.

    That definition is pretty impersonal, but it will do for our purposes here. Of course what you really wanted was for me to go into a long riff about how the god (insert name here) made a difference in my life so you could find something about that being that you might pick apart.

    And that brings us back to the question that started this. You know, the one you're avoiding.
    original thread

  • "Good intentions" by Republicans made the Patriot Act law. The Patriot Act enabled some of Obama's behavior.

    That won't happen just yet. Democrats tried to set that up in 2016, they are considerably less organized now. I think part of it is that the Powers That Wanna Be behind the throne don't trust any politico who can do it without their help (and control). HRC may have been the last Democrat "leader" worthy of the title. And she didn't trust the process or Democrat voters to make up their own minds.

    Also the game depends on scapegoating the Other Guy. Without a highly visible target during a crisis, the game doesn't work and the voters wander off to do their own thing.
    original thread

  • F. Paul Wilson. The LaNague Chronicles
    original thread

  • Locked into the game.
    original thread

  • That would be a step in the right direction.

    There was a novel I read once where elected officials had all their assets assumed by the state upon them taking office. The only way they could increase their assets was to make sure the economy grew, and if it shrank, their assets shrank. Skin in the game works wonders.
    original thread

  • No, not really. Offhand, I think this is the third time recently you've used similar phrasing to make the same point. That's why I responded this time around. That and I am fairly sure that your original post was indirectly aimed at me at least in passing.

    My choice is to not play the game this round.

    And I am doing as I usually do in these situations. There is less to work with this time around because after all we are discussing opinions about the future and not something that can be verified right now. Still, the point stands. You want people to choose, but you don't accept my choice as valid. You're locked into the game.
    original thread

  • I think if is off the table. We might be able to choose when and where and maybe blunt some of the damage.

    You're right, any successor state would be worse. The one after that would probably be worse still. But the one after that stands a pretty good chance.
    original thread

  • With apologies to Star Trek, why would a god need chakras?
    original thread#disqus_thread

  • Nope.

    Because pretty soon you're going to go off about how not voting for Trump is supporting the greater evil. I've no objection to you pushing Trump. I have every objection to you sanctioning Trump as the Man on the White Horse holding off the Democrat Horde and how "failing to choose" (that which you support) is choosing.

    Before you complain too much, ask yourself if I were taking a stand against climate change, third wave feminism, trans advocacy, or disbanding the police, wouldn't you be cheering me on?

    It's not that I keep this exchange going, it's that I keep going with positions where we disagree.
    original thread

  • ºOption (d), we dissolve the Federal government and start again.
    original thread

  • Annnnnnnd you misunderstood. Again. I didn't say anything about there being no difference between lesser and greater evil.

    My point all along is that the game destroys what you want to protect. As long as you play the game and follow the rules, you cannot win. The system is rigged against long term gains, especially mired as it is in party politics. Voting for Trump or whatever the designated Democrat is the distraction that keeps you from seeing how much the system costs you. We've passed the point where the system can be reformed.

    Meanwhile, there is going to be time without Trump. It may be this January, it may happen four years later. So far, everything that Trump has done can be reversed by the next President or the next Congress. You can't "win," you can only score the next goal. Maybe.

    The Democrats will still be there. They will be just as mad. If the Republicans are defeated in January, they will be mad. And now they see no reason to be polite about it. As long as everyone plays the political game, it will get worse. Trump is at best a failed holding action that only delays the collapse.

    All I am saying is that it's time for thinking about what comes next.
    original thread

  • The only questions I've asked on this thread haven't been answered. Including THE biggie that no conservative or Trump supporter has answered since I started asking it three years ago.
    original thread

  • I am relevant. You just don't approve. Which is your right, but don't try to sell this scam that Trump can make a lasting difference.
    original thread

  • Electing Trump is not my fight.
    original thread

  • You picked the wrong example. I've my own history with the Republican Right's version of free speech.

    Show me an evidence from the last forty years.

    What happens after Trump?
    original thread

  • Disqus is really acting weird today. I just saw this one.

    It's not my fight. Republicans have to prove that they can win this according to their own stated principles.
    original thread

  • I give Trump credit as a disrupter, but I want to know what happens next.
    original thread

  • Actually I don't. I want less government than absolutely necessary.

    What frustrates me is that Republicans push more government and then say that their brand will be better. Neither the Democrat Left or the Republican Right is delivering liberty. That is a false choice.

    Meanwhile, you're claiming that voting Republican will solve all of our problems. What evidence do you have in the last 40 years that Republican politicos are interested in liberty? Or even conservatism? What do we have other than broken promises?

    And there is still that vital question, what happens after Trump?
    original thread

  • I've said for years that I marginally prefer conservatives over liberals.

    I choose not to recognize Republican virtue because I am still waiting to see some consistently.

    The same party that gave us Goidwater and Crenshaw also gave us John McCain, Roy Moore, Joe Arpaio, Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell and George W. Bush. The brand name isn't enough anymore, Republicans will have to deliver conservatism or be discarded. The vice or virtue isn't in the label, and it's not worth voting Republican just to be sold out the next time politicos can benefit.
    original thread

  • You really should look at the motto on my political site.

    Re the quote you cited. Look in a mirror.

    Offer something lasting and we'll talk. Until then, electing Trump won't make a difference.
    original thread

  • "Vote for us. At least we're not the scary Other Guy!"

    In the short term, that is exactly the same argument that the Democrats offer.

    In the long term, when was the last time a Republican President or a Republican Congress reduced the size of government and increased liberty? Republicans have made a lot of promises, but they don't follow through except "incrementally" because "politics is a compromise."

    It may not make me popular here, but I say it's time for Republican politicos to back up their bluff. Deliver substantial, concrete results for the long term or stop pretending. I'd rather ride out the collapse and work to make something better afterwards than face the same excuses again and again. Otherwise in a few years, despite your high minded protests, we are in the same game with you saying that it's now or never.

    If you are holding up Trump as an example of restoring freedom, just remember he has had four years. Right now, the nation faces a economic crippling plandemic over a bad case of flu. It's going to take more than winning the Presidency and Congress to prevent a rerun. The Democrats aren't going anywhere, and their arguably worse replacements are already warming up in the bullpen. If you don't have a plan except winning elections, then you're fighting a holding action doomed to failure.

    Oh, and the right's goal is power too. They just have different things they want to use it on.
    original thread

  • Well, that didn’t fix it. Same problem showed up this morning.

    I’ve removed it from the partial on the problem page. Not sure what to do next.
    original thread

  • I think that another Trump term will at best delay things for a bit, but will probably make things worse. I don't think electing Trump is "remotely helpful."

    I'm not jumping on the bandwagon by giving you something that will help get Trump elected, "smashing" the Democrats, or waving the flag for law and order. The Democrats are good for at least another decade. As it stands now, the next Democrat president is going to do some terrible things. Trump will have made it possible, There could have been no Obama without 9-11 and the Patriot Act.

    The Deep State didn't start with Obama. It didn't start with Bush League. It didn't even start with former CIA Director Bush the Elder. Kennedy wanted to smash the CIA into a million pieces. Truman and Eisenhower both privately suspected that the OSS was more "involved" with certain things than it was supposed to be.

    I'm not being theoretical and I am not tip toeing around. I just don't think the game of Trump versus Biden has any lasting consequences. If Republicans don't take advantage of a Trump victory to drastically downsize government, then Democrats will use government and the political process to destroy the Republican party.

    How's that for either/or?
    original thread

  • No, not "virtually everyone." For decades every progressive and every leftist I've met and spoke with raises the exact same topics. I'm not talking about the virtue signaling by the elites or the media. I'm talking about everyday interactions.

    Three and I am done with you for this thread.
    original thread

  • Politics is an artificial system designed to control the mechanisms of government and other people. It's about as real as chess or a Spiderman comic book. Or those headlines they used to run about hemlines predicting who is going to be elected.

    The only reason politics is "important" is because enough people have bought the con that politics matters. It doesn't, only the control matters. And if I had my way, there would be less control.

    The fact is both major parties have been spouting the same all-or-nothing rhetoric at least since I started paying attention with Carter's election. And it's always "this time is different." Meanwhile, what you want and what I want and what the couple the next street over wants gets swept out the door.

    You keep talking about how Trump is the only practical choice, the real world choice, but in four years we get to play this silly game all over again. Do you really think your options will be better then?
    original thread

  • Hydroxychloroquine and zinc may be a solution. I don't trust all the people denouncing it.

    But this woman should not be the face of this treatment.
    original thread

  • Two.

    I'm about as plugged into the environmental movement, the feminist movement, gay rights, feminism and most of the rest of the progressive causes as much as any non-progressive can be. I know exactly which topics take up all the oxygen. I talk to the people. I see the blog posts. I get sent the tweets even though I avoid Twitter. My legitimate email gets buried under semi-literate screeds that set out to prove me wrong.

    Every time we have BLM riots, I see dead people venerated and sanctified to the cause not because of anything they did but because they died with a proper skin color in an convenient encounter with police. Meanwhile hundreds with the same skin color die every month killed by criminals with the same skin color. The people making the noises about skin color are the very same ones who impose and then ignore serious social issues that keep people dependent and dying.

    Most people (especially younger folks) could care less who you sleep with. They just don't want to bow down to your sexuality as if you were a Brave Pioneer fighting for your rights.

    Progressives define sexism as not giving women the win on demand. Almost all American men respect women who can hold their own, but despise whiners throwing tantrums.

    When you demand that your virtue signaling defines my behavior, I tell you KYFHO. And if you don't like it, tough.
    original thread

  • Your false premise is…

    (wait for it)

    FALSE!

    One.
    original thread

  • Politics is most emphatically NOT the "real world."
    original thread

  • Thank you. That did it. Then I replaced the old partial with a new partial so any changes in one spot would show up on the other fifteen pages.

    Sorry I thought it was a CMS problem rather than a Foundation issue.
    original thread

  • I actually first wrote a version of that sentence in a memo during my Corporate Clone days. Even if I asked for a third solution, they'd usually give me a "sacrifice" solution that they knew I wouldn't like. If I asked for seven alternatives and said that each solution could be no longer than a page, they'd do most of the thinking and the monkeys would stay on their back instead of jumping on mine.

    I think that political solutions are usually abstract and not real world.

    The article is well reasoned, but I disagree. It assumes that there has to be an overreaching government and that is a good thing. I really don't like the "least objectionable" option, especially when the "least objectionable" takes victory as a mandate for their stated (but seldom actual) platform and they themselves. This nation didn't elect Trump in 2016, it voted not to elect Hillary Clinton.
    original thread

  • ❝I've found that when someone insists that there are two and only two choices, it's time to look for a third, fourth, and seventh alternative.❞
    dualism from my lexicon

    original thread

  • So it's "sins of the fathers."
    original thread

  • I just want to make sure I understand.

    No one alive today committed the crime. Germany has a completely different government and government structure than it did then. No one living in Nemi saw the crime. But Germany is responsible for something that happened to people decades ago who have long since passed? And the ships were built centuries ago by people whose great great grandchildren are long gone…

    So who living has been wronged and how?
    original thread

  • And it's just another thing done For Our Own Good that we aren't allowed to question.

    ETA: This is over the top and a little long, but it asks questions that we should ask.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII9NZ8MMVM
    original thread

  • Considering the timing, I've always thought that the reason for the 16th was the Federal Reserve Act. It had been kicking around for a couple of years, but when the semi-secret plans for the Federal Reserve emerged, it just suddenly happened.

    No wonder libertarians get called conspiracists.
    original thread

  • That would mean taking responsibility instead of putting on a show.
    original thread

  • That height wasn’t something I changed this last go around when I was working on that top banner. RapidWeaver shows them both set to 33px. I changed the blog post page to 35. No change, so I set it back to 33 and republished. I went to the blog list page and then into the partial and set it to 55. RapidWeaver showed all pages that used that partial as changed. I republished, and then republished all files for good measure. No change. So I set it back to 33, republished, then republished all pages. No change. Then I changed the font size in the partial hoping to force a change and republished. No change. Then I changed the font size back.

    They do look the same in RapidWeaver. After republishing, I double checked in Firefox to make sure it wasn’t a Safari cache issue. No change.

    Is there something I can change with BBEdit since RapidWeaver seems determined to publish that 95?
    original thread

  • I think in 2008, the Republican vice-presidential nominee was more capable, more honorable, and certainly more stable than the Republican presidential nominee. And certainly more so than either the Democrat presidential nominee and vice presidential nominee.
    original thread

  • I was going to let this one slide, but "diplomat/social worker?" Seriously? The queen has "no ability?" Also you are conflating bards and druids for some reason.
    original thread

  • You know, it's fascinating how you answer my posts but don't actually address those posts to me. It's even more fascinating that you have to claim I wrote or said things that I never said to "prove" your point. You presume to speak for me.

    Good luck finding a "Divine Source" in the concept of yin and yang. The ancient Greeks did not use the concept of yin and yang. Homosexual "boy love" in ancient Greece was specifically not a meeting of equals.

    Mostly I don't care when you go off the rails. You're not really harming anyone but yourself. And I think experienced readers here recognize it. Every couple of months you shift gears and change phrasing and which authorities you quote. I can almost picture you doing web searches to come up with an angle that shields you from criticism.

    Do I draw lines against religious authoritarianism? Only when it's offered as THE solution.

    The thing is you get some things right. I suspect you quote without giving credit, but I'm not going to run down the sources.
    original thread

  • Yin and yang represents a philosophical concept. One drastically overused, oversimplified, and misunderstood aspect might apply to personality and interpersonal relationships. It's another example of a very small piece of something altered to fit carefully selected Western expectations without supporting observations and reasoning.
    original thread

  • I'd rather see the 16th and 17th repealed.
    original thread

  • I don't think it is someone's gender as such. I think it's because certain groups have been "given" liberty and power while being shielded from the consequences of their actions.

    I think that most of the Democrat party sees women not as partners, but as victims to be protected. Even the women who are nominally in charge.
    original thread

  • If you knew one blessed thing about yin and yang, you'd know that if either was in "submission," there is something drastically wrong.
    original thread

  • Since the Constantine comic character was based on Sting, the movie wasn't accurate. The TV series was better. The TV series actor voices the character in the animated DC universe, I've only seen one movie with him and it seemed pretty good.

    Of course I only read a couple of issues of the comic. I do remember the character from Swamp Thing though. That was about the time that series got really interesting, I was in a couple of pagan discussion groups that talked about the implications.
    original thread

  • nods Made my Watching Headlines page a couple of days ago. Here's the link.

    ‘Bring your flags!’ Are the Portland rioters trying to change their brand to patriotism?
    original thread

  • I’ve got extra space in the top banner on the blog posts page. That’s the only page it shows. I think it is a CMS issue, I don’t see how, but I’ve tried fixing everything else obvious.
    original thread

  • "The Democrats will rein in the protests when they think it suits them best,"
    Implies that the Democrats control the protests/riots and won't withdraw the protesters/rioters until the Democrat leadership gets what it wants.

    Looks like a threat. Sounds like a threat. Smells like a threat.

    By golly, it IS a threat.
    original thread

  • That makes entirely too much sense.
    original thread

  • Drawing from my own experience, I'm really not impressed if someone is religious or not. And I am certainly not impressed with which religion has "contributed" most. It's what an individual chooses to say and do, not the label. The label has no vice or virtue, no worth except what the individuals brings.

    I've known amazing atheists and terrible Christians, Great Muslims and lousy Jews. Worthy Satanists and despicable pagans. Religion can free your mind or impose tyranny. It's the individual that makes that happen.
    original thread

  • Ah yes, we're fallen and doomed. We didn't end slavery. We didn't end child labor. We didn't make sure women could vote. We didn't take one step forward.
    original thread

  • I don't like or trust Trump. But Democrats make Trump look good.

    I'm not misstating your argument. You are the one who used the threat.
    original thread

  • You do realize that your last paragraph says that the Democrat leadership will break the law if people don't cower and do as they are told by progressives…
    original thread

  • Interesting. It still comes down to which religion.

    For example, I'm pretty sure you are not going to accept a fatwa. Why should you, it's not your faith. There's many pagans actively pushing climate alarmism, some are pushing a socialist view as part of "the Greater Good." I'm pretty sure you wouldn't accept that either. If you don't accept theirs and they don't accept yours, what's the solution other than eradication and war?
    original thread

  • Having read the Federalist papers, the Anti-Federalist papers, and some of the debate of the Constitutional convention, it amazes me what did and didn't make it into the document. Of course the classic example is the three-fifths compromise, but that is hardly the only thing.

    One of the more interesting is if the new document needed a bill of rights. Many of the delegates felt that specifically enumerating rights would mean that any right not listed would not be recognized by the new national government. That is why the powers of government were very carefully and explicitly stated. And that is why Congress proposed twelve amendments in 1789.

    Please don't speak or write for me. My view is my own and I am perfectly capable of telling people what that view is.
    original thread

  • Okay, I have a frustration that I haven’t been able to fix.

    On most of the pages in my site, I have a double menu bar with a slogan. The spacing works on every page except the blog post page.

    https://paganvigil.com/blog/post/

    The blog list page (https://paganvigil.com/blog) works fine, as do all the other pages that use it that double menu combination.

    It’s the same three partials. That’s why I am using partials.

    I’ve tried redoing the partials. I’ve tried redoing the Top Bar menus. I’ve tried redoing the page from scratch. It’s a minor glitch, but I am very visually oriented and it’s bugging me every time.

    What incredibly obvious thing am I overlooking?
    original thread

  • If you remain incapable of speaking for me, why in the World do you think you can know what I fear?

    You could just ask, you know.
    original thread

  • Despite what you believe I do not wake up every morning deciding how to take down conservatives. Nor do I go to bed every night plotting to eliminate progressives. While I am drawn to politics, I've learned enough to know that they are at best a no win situation.

    Let me put this clearly. I want less government than absolutely necessary. Me, singular. No committee, no compromise solution, no politics. I think people should mostly do for themselves. Individual liberty and responsibility.

    You consistently fail to address my specific points, instead dragging out some "Libertarian" agenda. Even though I've made it clear that there are significant differences between large "L" Libertarianism and small "l" libertarianism.

    Tell you what. If you can point to where in the Constitution it authorizes arming non-military agents (or authorizing Federal prisons or Federal property), I'll not post here for a month. I'll even apologize before I go.

    As much as possible, the Founders wanted law enforcement to answer to local government. Considering the events leading to the American Revolution, that isn't surprising. You say it's "necessary," I disagree.
    original thread

  • See, while I think #1 may be admirable, I don't see it as necessary. But I do think #2 is the keystone of Western Civilization, even if it probably originated elsewhere.

    What puzzles me is if #1 is subject to interpretation and may not even include Deity, why is it necessary?
    original thread

  • Precedent yes, but not legal authority. The Founders had some very strong reasons for not wanting the Federal government to arm anyone except the military.

    Classic liberals have raised questions about armed Federal agents since before the Civil War. I've not read anything about it prior to that. After the Civil War, America's first gun control laws were introduced to keep guns out the hands of freed slaves. That was probably what started the discussion.

    The Civil Rights Act of 1871 and the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 laid the ground work for "qualified immunity" for police and government agents. After WWI, new gun laws meant certain weapons could only be used by the military or designated government agents.

    But the real consideration goes back to why there is a Second Amendment in the first place. It's not to protect hunters, it's so citizens could defend themselves and their neighbors against government tyranny.

    We've lost the lessons of the Whiskey Rebellion.
    original thread

  • Disqus is weird today.

    I did read the commentary. I know about your interpretation, but the words don't really allow that.

    My problem is that I've encountered that very same quote from way too many who wanted me to submit to them and not to the words. No, not everyone, not even most. But the ones who do more than make up for their lack of numbers.

    It's way to easy to use higher authority for politics. After all, if it's "God's law," how can mere mortals question it? And by extension, how can mere mortals question someone "speaking" for the Divine?
    original thread

  • "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
    The Federal government has no powers to arm agents. It can arm the military and send it in.

    I think you mean Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 -18. There is nothing about arming anyone except the military anywhere in the Constitution. No law can supersede the Constitution.

    Ordering military intervention in domestic affairs is a special circumstance. It's outside the ordinary and people will be watching and questioning closely. Most importantly, it's temporary. Afterwards, there is no agency that can be casually ordered into action. There's no mechanism for government agents to persecute citizens.

    But creating or empowering an agency means it's there from then on out. The power exists just waiting for a reason. Do you think when Bush League signed the Patriot Act he had any idea how it would be misused? Not just by his successor, but by he himself?

    The American government has a long history of breaking it's promises.
    original thread

  • It's not a matter of the FedGovs using force, it's that there is no Constitutional provision for using armed Federal agents. There is no provision of Federal agents. Armed forces, yes, militia, yes.

    Send in the troops if absolutely necessary. I don't really approve, but that is Constitutional.
    original thread

  • Again, the Constitution trumps that, specifically the Tenth Amendment.

    Let him send in troops as his predecessors did. But armed Federal agents are illegal and unconstitutional.
    original thread

  • Pardon, but no, I'm not.

    Federal law enforcement officers are not militia or armed forces.

    There is no provision in the Constitution for law enforcement officers, much less armed ones.
    original thread

  • I've no proof that it happened, only some very strange rumors and allegations. But I am convinced that a deal was struck between the Clintons and Obama. In exchange for open Clinton support to get Obama elected in 2008, Obama would make sure HRC got the nomination in 2016. That meant getting rid of the effective first and second rank political operatives who might oppose her, and incidentally who might pose a threat to Obama's power. So come 2016, all that was left was political faces without any real strength and a bunch of third rate hacks who couldn't manage anything more than a state election.

    If the Democrat party survives, it's going to take a decade or so to place people who actually can do things in places where it will count.

    The problem for Republicans and conservatives is that there are very few in their leadership who can be trusted and most of those are dispersed where they can't threaten the existing power structure and institutions.
    original thread

  • Working to minimize violence is not the same as giving in. From later in the linked article:

    "Trump's announced "surge" of federal forces into American cities is yet another dubious inversion of the American constitutional order. The federal government is one of enumerated powers. The provision of domestic criminal justice is not among those powers. The states were traditionally understood to have broad "police powers," which gives them the authority to take extraordinary actions to combat an epidemic but also gives them the authority to take routine actions to protect public safety from the violent and lawless. The Constitution vests the states, not the federal government, with the authority to do what the president announced and take measures "to restore public safety, protect our nation's children, and bring violent perpetrators to justice" and generally respond to "violent crime."

    original thread

  • Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., The Other America, 1967

    Stars above, if you are going to quote someone, at least give them credit. Something which I can't help notice took place 53 years ago. Are you honestly saying that America is in the same place and facing the same choices now as we were then?

    Or maybe, someone has conspired to make it that way.

    American Racism.
    original thread

  • No, it's not dubious.

    This is how it ALWAYS starts. Without fail. Time and time again. Expand government power and authority "for the emergency" and it WILL be used against you. Probably sooner than you think.

    Remember this when the next Democrat President uses DHS in questionable ways and you start wondering how we gave a government agency that power.
    original thread

  • Napolitano is not the only one.I linked three stories that made my Watching Headlines page, but I've seen ten or fifteen others in the last 48 hours, and they weren't all or even mostly from the mainstream media.
    original thread

  • There's no doubt that the riots happened because local police were ordered to stand down. Nor is there any doubt that police are being scapegoated for ongoing situations which progressive politicos have utterly failed to fix.

    But Trump's legal authority to dispatch armed Federal agents against the rioters is on the shady side of murky at best.

    Judge Andrew Napolitano: In Portland, actions of federal agents are unlawful, unconstitutional and harmful

    The Federal Coup to Overthrow the States and Nix the 10th Amendment Is Underway

    Federalism and Law and Order
    “The administration's particular actions are dubious under federal statutes, and they are misguided from the perspective of deescalating violence.”

    The Department of Homeland Security is an abomination that never should have existed. It's agents aren't trained in crowd control and apparently have no idea how to do much more than thump heads.

    I agree that there should be a law and order solution. I disagree that the President and the Federal government have the authority, mandate, or obligation to provide that solution.

    (Check out my Watching Headlines page.)
    original thread

  • sigh

    Which god?
    original thread

  • At least four versions, depending on translation. In my lexicon, I allow for the Protestant, Catholic, and Hebrew.

    I didn't really want to include any at all. It's another case where a pagan saying anything is usually taken badly. But I'm also wise enough to recognize that the Decalogue is a major part of legal history.

    Besides, a friend who was a classmate before I dropped out of seminary bet me that I wouldn't do it.
    original thread

  • "Consent" is better defined now than it was. Our history and literature are filled with examples of rape "because she was asking for it." As far as changing consent to non-consent, well, that's why there is Sex Rule Three.

    My rules are not something I knocked up in ten minutes. There is quite a bit of research, some practical experience, much discussion with sex-positive people, and way too much dealing with the worst examples of second and third wave feminists. Not to mention the sexual alphabet squads.

    Animals don't consent. That's the point.

    What's perverse in one time may not be perverse in another. What one culture considers normal may be perverse in another.

    Two examples from comparatively recent American history. Prior to WWII, child brides were common, especially in rural areas. Extended childhood is very much a post WWII phenomena. Today marrying a twelve or thirteen year old is perverse.

    Prior to about 1970 or so, marriages between different ethnicities was rare. It was even rarer when there was a radical skin color difference. In many areas, such marriages were frowned on. Today, it's accepted.
    original thread

  • I'd agree except now the cry is that masks save lives. One side's narrative keeps changing.
    original thread

  • If we don't share a common or related faith, we can't use our belief to govern the words and actions of another. I have a completely different idea of the afterlife than you do, and it has very little to do with reward/punishment. Nor am I the only one with differing beliefs.

    What common ground do we share then?
    original thread

  • Exactly. They are great rules for me. It took me a while to work them out. Before that, I did some stupid and hurtful things. Your rules don't match mine. My rules don't match yours. My idea of perverse and your idea of perverse probably don't match.

    It's subjective.
    original thread

  • Sex Rule One.
    original thread

  • It's taught me that change happens, no matter what my feelings or intent.
    original thread

  • While monotheists call the Decalogue a "good starting point for morality," they seem to forget that the first four or five commandments (depending on which version you're using) are strictly religious rules. If your religion isn't one that recognizes the Decalogue, then the Decalogue relegates your faith to the back seat of an abandoned car in a locked garage in a bad part of town,

    And once you start dropping the commandments that don't necessarily apply, how many are you left with? Six? Three? One?

    If we're going to have a common moral basis, it's hard to go wrong with the Ethic of Reciprocity. Christians call it the Golden Rule, although I'd argue that it should be balanced with the Silver Rule, the Iron Rule, and the Platinum Rule. It's perfectly possible to build a moral system using the EoR and not involve Deity of any sort.
    original thread

  • Thanks for acknowledging some of my concerns. I have two main others though, so I'm going to spit this into two posts.

    First, perverse is awfully subjective. I prefer to go nude when I can, does that make me sexually perverse? More or less so than a singer twerking in a barely-there dress? What if the dress is on a cross-dresser?

    I've eight main sex rules. As far as I am concerned, sticking to the first two would easily solve 97% of sex problems in America today. But aside from #1, none of them control who you have sex with, what the gender is of who you sleep with, how many you sleep with at any one time, or how many active sexual relationships you can maintain. Does that make me perverse? Would that change if you knew I was a straight male? How about if I told you I had poly tendencies?

    My definition of perverse is someone who breaks one of my sex rules, especially the first two. But I don't see nudity as sexual, much less forbidden, so I really can't call that perverse.

    I have no idea if they are still there, but Disneyland's Penny Arcade used to have viewers where you looked at photo cards advanced by turning a crank. Some of them showed things that were risqué when they were made, but are pretty innocent by today's standards. A couple kissing, a can can dance, a lady showing off her ankles.

    So what is really perverse?
    original thread

  • So basically because I don't put trans interests and activities above my paganism, trans news is more worthy than pagan news on a pagan news site?
    original thread

  • I greet the dawn every morning. Well, almost every morning. But that isn't exactly newsworthy.
    original thread

  • Okay, a little bit of magick there. But I don't really see what this has to do with "Pagan News & Perspectives."
    original thread

  • Three.

    It's the difference between what is said and what is done. Don't feel bad, the Democrat leadership hasn't learned that about Trump yet either.

    And I'm done with you on this thread.

    Don't you feel special that you got to spin your wheels?
    original thread

  • Two.

    But Trump is effective. Whenever Democrats go after Trump with anything less than absolute truth, they end up losing much more ground than they can afford.

    That was my point. You might not like it. But this is what Trump does again and again and again. Yet Democrats can't accept that they can meet Trump on this field and expect to win. I don't like it and I don't think it is honorable, but I can't deny that at the end of the day it works.

    Trump is dragging Congress out of the technicalities that it likes to hide behind.
    original thread

  • One.

    Did I write anything about the Constitution? I specifically said "personally." As in an opinion, a desire not supported by law.

    Then I stipulated that Trump probably did not have the legal authority, but was using his office to bring the subject front and center despite Congress trying to bury it for decades. This is one of Trump's favorite tactics, he makes a loud noise and watches opposition politicos scramble to find moral justification for their past and present behavior.

    If you are going to pick a fight with me, you are going to get thumped. Since you personally are one of those who usually annoy me, I probably won't wait for you to attack.
    original thread

  • I believe there is a saying about a mote and a beam that might apply. Now where do you suppose we might find that saying?
    original thread

  • The next step is no pay…
    original thread