djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 26, 2017 20:43:01 GMT -5
I'm not quite sure what you're asking here, but if it's "Does not supporting these policies make one anti-science-in-government?", the answer is "Yes". In particular because these are presently the only ways science intersects our governance in controversial ways.
i don't understand your concern, that's all. let me try again:
to some degree, the GOP supports list "A" (the list you constructed above that includes "carbon credits") to some degree, "liberals" also support list "A"
however you ONLY seem to be bothered about liberals supporting it. therefore, it must be something about liberals OTHER THAN LIST "A" that bothers you. what is it?
my guess is that is the fact the liberals purport to be pro-science in a way that conservatives are NOT. is this correct? in other words, you are attacking hypocrisy, not list "A". is that it?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2017 20:49:08 GMT -5
Here's a policy that I'd like implemented: 100% removal of religion from government.
NO "Under God" in our pledge. NO "In God We Trust" on our money. NO swearing in for office on the Bible (how about swearing in on the Constitution... Or maybe a Book of Law like John Quincy Adams and Franklin Pierce).
(we can keep "holy books" for swearing to tell the truth in court, but must have one book from each and every religion, no exceptions, even including Extreme Fantasy Land religions like Scientology {Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard, would likely be that religion's "book"}, on hand, so everyone can swear according to their own faith... either that or do away with all of them)
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 26, 2017 20:50:32 GMT -5
Liberals don't want people to be or be thought of as sexless automatons... they just wasnt them all treated equally under the law ANFD society. Paleoliberals typically want the latter. Contemporary liberals want the former, with or without the "automatons" part. This includes "gender spectrums" taught in schools, mandated use of preferred gender pronouns, mandated affirmation (which goes beyond mere tolerance) of people's "gender decisions", hate crime classification for speech and research critical of transgenderism, quotas for transgendered hiring, punishment for parents who don't allow children to ritually "choose" their gender (I wish I was kidding) and a dozen other perverse, illiberal policies besides. Incidentally, contemporary liberals consider all of the above to be part and parcel of "treated equally under the law ANFD [sic] society". Another reason why we have to dig deeper than sanitized party literature to find out what people really mean when they invoke concepts like "equality" and "human rights". Of all people on the board, Richard, you're probably the most libertarian on the liberal-to-libertarian spectrum (or progressive-to-libertarian spectrum, if you prefer). As far as I can tell, your only progressive viewpoint is your stance on anti-discrimination laws. You're pure libertarian otherwise. To the point of absurdity, even.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 26, 2017 20:53:10 GMT -5
I'm not quite sure what you're asking here, but if it's "Does not supporting these policies make one anti-science-in-government?", the answer is "Yes". In particular because these are presently the only ways science intersects our governance in controversial ways. i don't understand your concern, that's all. let me try again: to some degree, the GOP supports list "A" (the list you constructed above that includes "carbon credits") to some degree, "liberals" also support list "A" however you ONLY seem to be bothered about liberals supporting it. therefore, it must be something about liberals OTHER THAN LIST "A" that bothers you. what is it? Self-identifying liberals are typically the only ones I've ever seen claiming they're "pro-science" and their opponents (conservatives) aren't. Hence my one-sided critique. Is your experience different?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 26, 2017 20:56:45 GMT -5
Here's a policy that I'd like implemented: 100% removal of religion from government. NO "Under God" in our pledge. NO "In God We Trust" on our money. NO swearing in for office on the Bible (how about swearing in on the Constitution... Or maybe a Book of Law like John Quincy Adams and Franklin Pierce). When the union dissolves, if you wind up in a former blue state, you'll possibly get your wish.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 26, 2017 20:57:50 GMT -5
Virgil: Self-identifying liberals are typically the only ones I've ever seen claiming they're "pro-science" and their opponents (conservatives) aren't. Hence my one-sided critique.
Is your experience different? i think this rapidly devolves into a semantics battle, which i have learned better than to have with you. the subject that interests me is whether the GOP has any worries about the upcoming election. judging by the response here, i think the answer is NO. they (or their proxies on this board) seem to think that Mueller is going to get discredited and removed, and that Trump will coast to an easy victory on a parade of upbeat economic results, high paying jobs, and tax payola. interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2017 21:00:03 GMT -5
Liberals don't want people to be or be thought of as sexless automatons... they just wasnt them all treated equally under the law ANFD society. Paleoliberals typically want the latter. Contemporary liberals want the former, with or without the "automatons" part. This includes "gender spectrums" taught in schools, mandated use of preferred gender pronouns, mandated affirmation (which goes beyond mere tolerance) of people's "gender decisions", hate crime classification for speech and research critical of transgenderism, quotas for transgendered hiring, punishment for parents who don't allow children to ritually "choose" their gender (I wish I was kidding) and a dozen other perverse, illiberal policies besides. Incidentally, contemporary liberals consider all of the above to be part and parcel of "treated equally under the law ANFD [sic] society". Another reason why we have to dig deeper than sanitized party literature to find out what people really mean when they invoke concepts like "equality" and "human rights". Of all people on the board, Richard, you're probably the most libertarian on the liberal-to-libertarian spectrum (or progressive-to-libertarian spectrum, if you prefer). As far as I can tell, your only progressive viewpoint is your stance on anti-discrimination laws. You're pure libertarian otherwise. To the point of absurdity, even. You can't have a "genderless spectrum" or "sexless spectrum". It's an oxymoron because "genderless"/"sexless" means "zero genders/sexes" and "spectrum" means a wide range of options". Zero will NEVER equal "wide range of options"... no matter how hard you try and mold them.
***** I'm pure libertarian on anti-discrimination laws as well... Libertarians aren't anarchists. We recognize that SOME laws MUST exist for society to function... because people can be assholes. Anti discrimination "Laws" (plural) don't need to exist in the thousands though... there just need to be one (in keeping with the "less laws is better laws", Libertarian philosophy): "Treat everyone equally." Three simple words. That's it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 26, 2017 21:00:13 GMT -5
Virgil: Self-identifying liberals are typically the only ones I've ever seen claiming they're "pro-science" and their opponents (conservatives) aren't. Hence my one-sided critique.
Is your experience different? i don't really hang out with any non-scientists, so i am the wrong person to ask. but at least i understand your point. i would also like to add that BECAUSE i can't really make a case either way, i am done discussing this "idea" with you. the subject that interests me is whether the GOP has any worries about the upcoming election. judging by the response here, i think the answer is NO. they (or their proxies on this board) seem to think that Mueller is going to get discredited and removed, and that Trump will coast to an easy victory on a parade of upbeat economic results, high paying jobs, and tax payola. interesting. I'm perpetually amazed that anyone here cares which party is in power in the US. But I'll leave you to it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2017 21:03:08 GMT -5
Here's a policy that I'd like implemented: 100% removal of religion from government. NO "Under God" in our pledge. NO "In God We Trust" on our money. NO swearing in for office on the Bible (how about swearing in on the Constitution... Or maybe a Book of Law like John Quincy Adams and Franklin Pierce). When the union dissolves, if you wind up in a former blue state, you'll possibly get your wish. Secession isn't legal anymore (the "States' Rights" issue was settled in 1865, or have you forgotten? The right to secede was one of those pesky "States' Rights" that the Confederates were fighting for).
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 26, 2017 21:03:43 GMT -5
I'm pure libertarian on anti-discrimination laws as well... You won't find a solitary libertarian organization or party whose position on anti-discrimination laws agrees with your own. It's an acute anomaly. Likely due to your hatred of religion, which is rare among libertarians. You're an odd creature. I've told you that many times.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 26, 2017 21:05:43 GMT -5
When the union dissolves, if you wind up in a former blue state, you'll possibly get your wish. Secession isn't legal anymore (the "States' Rights" issue was settled in 1865, or have you forgotten? The right to secede was one of those pesky "States' Rights" that the Confederates were fighting for). As I've said to many members on many different occasions: watch and be amazed. We're cluttering up DJ's thread. Let's get back to polling, terrified parties, and such.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Dec 26, 2017 21:06:34 GMT -5
Virgil: Self-identifying liberals are typically the only ones I've ever seen claiming they're "pro-science" and their opponents (conservatives) aren't. Hence my one-sided critique.
Is your experience different? i don't really hang out with any non-scientists, so i am the wrong person to ask. but at least i understand your point. i would also like to add that BECAUSE i can't really make a case either way, i am done discussing this "idea" with you. the subject that interests me is whether the GOP has any worries about the upcoming election. judging by the response here, i think the answer is NO. they (or their proxies on this board) seem to think that Mueller is going to get discredited and removed, and that Trump will coast to an easy victory on a parade of upbeat economic results, high paying jobs, and tax payola.
interesting. It appears the RW spin machine has suckered a bunch a people in again, IMO. This whole year has been an interesting experience politically. When Obama was elected there were people who had IMO unrealistic and irrational hopes. The good news, was they mostly snapped out of it early, and certainly were more grounded about everything 6 months in than what I see going on in the Trump/conservative supporter realm. Its like some of them get more and more detached from reality as time progresses.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2017 21:09:21 GMT -5
I'm pure libertarian on anti-discrimination laws as well... You won't find a solitary libertarian organization or party whose position on anti-discrimination laws agrees with your own. It's an acute anomaly. Likely due to your hatred of religion, which is rare among libertarians. You're an odd creature. I've told you that many times. LOL... I don't have any hatred for religion. How can someone hate a made up fantasy? What I hate is people that think that they have the right to force their beliefs onto others... especially in a society that's supposed to have separation of Church and State. It's not the religion that I have a problem with... it's the wackaloons that think it's their "divine right" (or other crap) to subjugate others and bend them to their beliefs. I'm perfectly fine with religion, and I'm perfectly fine with believers in any religion... as long as those believers keep their religion to themselves. If they don't want others' beliefs forced on them... they shouldn't force their beliefs on others.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 26, 2017 21:11:02 GMT -5
Virgil: Self-identifying liberals are typically the only ones I've ever seen claiming they're "pro-science" and their opponents (conservatives) aren't. Hence my one-sided critique.
Is your experience different? i don't really hang out with any non-scientists, so i am the wrong person to ask. but at least i understand your point. i would also like to add that BECAUSE i can't really make a case either way, i am done discussing this "idea" with you. the subject that interests me is whether the GOP has any worries about the upcoming election. judging by the response here, i think the answer is NO. they (or their proxies on this board) seem to think that Mueller is going to get discredited and removed, and that Trump will coast to an easy victory on a parade of upbeat economic results, high paying jobs, and tax payola.
interesting. It appears the RW spin machine has suckered a bunch a people in again, IMO. This whole year has been an interesting experience politically. When Obama was elected there were people who had IMO unrealistic and irrational hopes. The good news, was they mostly snapped out of it early, and certainly were more grounded about everything 6 months in than what I see going on in the Trump/conservative supporter realm. Its like some of them get more and more detached from reality as time progresses. if Trump even ATTEMPTS to remove Mueller, anyone left of the GOP is going to absolutely lose it. there will be such insane pressure brought down on congress that they will not get anything done other than impeachment.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 26, 2017 21:18:14 GMT -5
Virgil: I'm perpetually amazed that anyone here cares which party is in power in the US. But I'll leave you to it.
forgive me if i have my doubts about the veracity of the last five words of this statement.
as to the previous words, i think it is more interesting now than any time in the post WW2 period. but since you don't seem even slightly interested in the subject, i won't explain why.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Dec 26, 2017 21:18:43 GMT -5
Liberals don't want people to be or be thought of as sexless automatons... they just wasnt them all treated equally under the law ANFD society. Paleoliberals typically want the latter. Contemporary liberals want the former, with or without the "automatons" part. This includes "gender spectrums" taught in schools, mandated use of preferred gender pronouns, mandated affirmation (which goes beyond mere tolerance) of people's "gender decisions", hate crime classification for speech and research critical of transgenderism, quotas for transgendered hiring, punishment for parents who don't allow children to ritually "choose" their gender (I wish I was kidding) and a dozen other perverse, illiberal policies besides. Incidentally, contemporary liberals consider all of the above to be part and parcel of "treated equally under the law ANFD [sic] society". Another reason why we have to dig deeper than sanitized party literature to find out what people really mean when they invoke concepts like "equality" and "human rights". Of all people on the board, Richard, you're probably the most libertarian on the liberal-to-libertarian spectrum (or progressive-to-libertarian spectrum, if you prefer). As far as I can tell, your only progressive viewpoint is your stance on anti-discrimination laws. You're pure libertarian otherwise. To the point of absurdity, even. Sigh. Is it you inventing words or what? Paleoliberals does not even make sense as a concept. Do you really think there were huge discussions between liberals and conservatives back in the hunter gathering days? Oy.
Its hard to take stuff you posted seriously because you are off trying to differentiate people you don't understand, while meanwhile showing a serious lack of understanding of what most liberals accept and what some might want or do. Until you can discipline yourself enough to stick with provable majority opinions, even if they are Canadian centric, no I won't discuss any of this.
Focus. Get clear. If you want to help the conservative cause, get them to stop being loser people who can't seem to tell the difference between one and many, some and the majority. Until you, and most conservatives fix this, I will hear the equivalent of the Peanuts 'blah blah blah blah blah'. Basically nonsense.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2017 21:20:01 GMT -5
I'm pure libertarian on anti-discrimination laws as well... You won't find a solitary libertarian organization or party whose position on anti-discrimination laws agrees with your own. It's an acute anomaly. Likely due to your hatred of religion, which is rare among libertarians. You're an odd creature. I've told you that many times. Since the Libertarian Party agrees with the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, they are half way there (agreeing that the government can't discriminate). What they don't agree with is business anti-discrimination laws... which actually, in a perverse sort of way, invalidates their core belief in the individual rights of people which is "people have the right to associate or not associate with whomever they want". The problem Libertarians have (and why I'm not actually a Libertarian... even though we agree on a LOT of things) is... Even though they seem to think otherwise, Businesses ARE NOT PEOPLE. They are licensed extensions of society. And society must be run/molded by government... or it devolves into chaos/anarchy.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Dec 26, 2017 21:21:59 GMT -5
It appears the RW spin machine has suckered a bunch a people in again, IMO. This whole year has been an interesting experience politically. When Obama was elected there were people who had IMO unrealistic and irrational hopes. The good news, was they mostly snapped out of it early, and certainly were more grounded about everything 6 months in than what I see going on in the Trump/conservative supporter realm. Its like some of them get more and more detached from reality as time progresses. if Trump even ATTEMPTS to remove Mueller, anyone left of the GOP is going to absolutely lose it. there will be such insane pressure brought down on congress that they will not get anything done other than impeachment. I hope you are right. I'm thinking Trump and co have just cranked up the PR and fake news machine hoping Mueller will disappear. In the beginning I thought Trump might not be connected. Now, I am wondering how he is and how convoluted the money trail might be.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Dec 26, 2017 21:24:00 GMT -5
Virgil: Self-identifying liberals are typically the only ones I've ever seen claiming they're "pro-science" and their opponents (conservatives) aren't. Hence my one-sided critique.
Is your experience different? i think this rapidly devolves into a semantics battle, which i have learned better than to have with you. the subject that interests me is whether the GOP has any worries about the upcoming election. judging by the response here, i think the answer is NO. they (or their proxies on this board) seem to think that Mueller is going to get discredited and removed, and that Trump will coast to an easy victory on a parade of upbeat economic results, high paying jobs, and tax payola. interesting. Worries about upcoming elections? Of course there are. Didn't anyone learn anything from Hillary in 2016? The democrats have sold the country that it is a bad tax bill for everyone but the rich, and it will take two years to prove the negative incorrect, and the midterms will be history before that happens. Mueller will not be removed. He is the best thing going for Trump, because there is no "there" there. Trump coasts to victory in 2020.......see my first sentence in my response, but I think he serves two terms, if he wants it. And the major factor is who runs on the ticket from the Democrats?
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Dec 26, 2017 21:29:02 GMT -5
Virgil: Self-identifying liberals are typically the only ones I've ever seen claiming they're "pro-science" and their opponents (conservatives) aren't. Hence my one-sided critique.
Is your experience different? i don't really hang out with any non-scientists, so i am the wrong person to ask. but at least i understand your point. i would also like to add that BECAUSE i can't really make a case either way, i am done discussing this "idea" with you. the subject that interests me is whether the GOP has any worries about the upcoming election. judging by the response here, i think the answer is NO. they (or their proxies on this board) seem to think that Mueller is going to get discredited and removed, and that Trump will coast to an easy victory on a parade of upbeat economic results, high paying jobs, and tax payola.
interesting. It appears the RW spin machine has suckered a bunch a people in again, IMO. This whole year has been an interesting experience politically. When Obama was elected there were people who had IMO unrealistic and irrational hopes. The good news, was they mostly snapped out of it early, and certainly were more grounded about everything 6 months in than what I see going on in the Trump/conservative supporter realm. Its like some of them get more and more detached from reality as time progresses. You are effing kidding me. Pelosi? Schumer? Anyone from the Black Caucus circus? They are all grounded after a year of Trump??
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 26, 2017 23:17:14 GMT -5
Virgil: Self-identifying liberals are typically the only ones I've ever seen claiming they're "pro-science" and their opponents (conservatives) aren't. Hence my one-sided critique.
Is your experience different? i think this rapidly devolves into a semantics battle, which i have learned better than to have with you. the subject that interests me is whether the GOP has any worries about the upcoming election. judging by the response here, i think the answer is NO. they (or their proxies on this board) seem to think that Mueller is going to get discredited and removed, and that Trump will coast to an easy victory on a parade of upbeat economic results, high paying jobs, and tax payola. interesting. Worries about upcoming elections? Of course there are. Didn't anyone learn anything from Hillary in 2016? The democrats have sold the country that it is a bad tax bill for everyone but the rich, and it will take two years to prove the negative incorrect, and the midterms will be history before that happens. Mueller will not be removed. He is the best thing going for Trump, because there is no "there" there. Trump coasts to victory in 2020.......see my first sentence in my response, but I think he serves two terms, if he wants it. And the major factor is who runs on the ticket from the Democrats? 1) good. i am glad you have midterm concerns. they are warranted. 2) i am also glad you don't think Mueller is enough of a threat to be removed, and hope that it is a widely shared belief. 3) i would not be nearly that confident, were i you. Trump has single term written all over him. and it doesn't matter who they run, imo. nobody had heard of Obama before 2006. and that turned out to be a good thing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2017 23:29:14 GMT -5
Worries about upcoming elections? Of course there are. Didn't anyone learn anything from Hillary in 2016? The democrats have sold the country that it is a bad tax bill for everyone but the rich, and it will take two years to prove the negative incorrect, and the midterms will be history before that happens. Mueller will not be removed. He is the best thing going for Trump, because there is no "there" there. Trump coasts to victory in 2020.......see my first sentence in my response, but I think he serves two terms, if he wants it. And the major factor is who runs on the ticket from the Democrats? 1) good. i am glad you have midterm concerns. they are warranted. 2) i am also glad you don't think Mueller is enough of a threat to be removed, and hope that it is a widely shared belief. 3) i would not be nearly that confident, were i you. Trump has single term written all over him. and it doesn't matter who they run, imo. nobody had heard of Obama before 2006. and that turned out to be a good thing.For Obama... yes. For the country... no.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Dec 27, 2017 2:41:25 GMT -5
It appears the RW spin machine has suckered a bunch a people in again, IMO. This whole year has been an interesting experience politically. When Obama was elected there were people who had IMO unrealistic and irrational hopes. The good news, was they mostly snapped out of it early, and certainly were more grounded about everything 6 months in than what I see going on in the Trump/conservative supporter realm. Its like some of them get more and more detached from reality as time progresses. You are effing kidding me. Pelosi? Schumer? Anyone from the Black Caucus circus? They are all grounded after a year of Trump??
Did you read my post? I was talking about voters I knew who voted for Obama, who snapped out of their delusions quicker than what I see here from Trump supporters. So I am comparing 2009 to now. Voters I know. Not politicians.
But if you want to go there, Bannon and Trump are more deranged after a year as are others like Ryan.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 27, 2017 9:16:38 GMT -5
LOL... I don't have any hatred for religion. How can someone hate a made up fantasy? What I hate is people that think that they have the right to force their beliefs onto others... especially in a society that's supposed to have separation of Church and State. This is tantamount to saying you don't hate cars, you just hate it when people drive them on public roads, or keep the parked in public lots, or use the word "cars" in governmental documents. Strangely enough, you're still indistinguishable from somebody who hates cars. Call it what you want. We're no strangers to agreeing to disagree. My point is that it motivates your non-libertarian view on anti-discrimination laws.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Dec 27, 2017 9:24:25 GMT -5
You are effing kidding me. Pelosi? Schumer? Anyone from the Black Caucus circus? They are all grounded after a year of Trump??
Did you read my post? I was talking about voters I knew who voted for Obama, who snapped out of their delusions quicker than what I see here from Trump supporters. So I am comparing 2009 to now. Voters I know. Not politicians.
But if you want to go there, Bannon and Trump are more deranged after a year as are others like Ryan.
Yes, and I am referencing the Democratic leaders, and the angry women of today. They are all as hysterical today as they were the weekend after the election.. We can do this all day.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Dec 27, 2017 9:27:10 GMT -5
Worries about upcoming elections? Of course there are. Didn't anyone learn anything from Hillary in 2016? The democrats have sold the country that it is a bad tax bill for everyone but the rich, and it will take two years to prove the negative incorrect, and the midterms will be history before that happens. Mueller will not be removed. He is the best thing going for Trump, because there is no "there" there. Trump coasts to victory in 2020.......see my first sentence in my response, but I think he serves two terms, if he wants it. And the major factor is who runs on the ticket from the Democrats? 1) good. i am glad you have midterm concerns. they are warranted. 2) i am also glad you don't think Mueller is enough of a threat to be removed, and hope that it is a widely shared belief. 3) i would not be nearly that confident, were i you. Trump has single term written all over him. and it doesn't matter who they run, imo. nobody had heard of Obama before 2006. and that turned out to be a good thing. I left an important thought off my post. The democrats thought they could ride Obama's coat tails and continue to run the Congress and state capitals. Obama had no coat tail. Trump is basically the same thing. His coat tail will not carry the few party faithful he has to victory either. They win or lose on their own abilities in 2018
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,439
|
Post by thyme4change on Dec 27, 2017 9:33:52 GMT -5
Paleoliberals typically want the latter. Contemporary liberals want the former, with or without the "automatons" part. This includes "gender spectrums" taught in schools, mandated use of preferred gender pronouns, mandated affirmation (which goes beyond mere tolerance) of people's "gender decisions", hate crime classification for speech and research critical of transgenderism, quotas for transgendered hiring, punishment for parents who don't allow children to ritually "choose" their gender (I wish I was kidding) and a dozen other perverse, illiberal policies besides. Incidentally, contemporary liberals consider all of the above to be part and parcel of "treated equally under the law ANFD [sic] society". Another reason why we have to dig deeper than sanitized party literature to find out what people really mean when they invoke concepts like "equality" and "human rights". Of all people on the board, Richard, you're probably the most libertarian on the liberal-to-libertarian spectrum (or progressive-to-libertarian spectrum, if you prefer). As far as I can tell, your only progressive viewpoint is your stance on anti-discrimination laws. You're pure libertarian otherwise. To the point of absurdity, even. You can't have a "genderless spectrum" or "sexless spectrum". It's an oxymoron because "genderless"/"sexless" means "zero genders/sexes" and "spectrum" means a wide range of options". Zero will NEVER equal "wide range of options"... no matter how hard you try and mold them.
***** I'm pure libertarian on anti-discrimination laws as well... Libertarians aren't anarchists. We recognize that SOME laws MUST exist for society to function... because people can be assholes. Anti discrimination "Laws" (plural) don't need to exist in the thousands though... there just need to be one (in keeping with the "less laws is better laws", Libertarian philosophy): "Treat everyone equally." Three simple words. That's it. Lol. Lawyers and other assorted assholes would have a field day with that law. That eliminates ALL ADA compliance and all special education. I can only imagine how far someone on a mission could go on this law.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 27, 2017 9:37:47 GMT -5
LOL... I don't have any hatred for religion. How can someone hate a made up fantasy? What I hate is people that think that they have the right to force their beliefs onto others... especially in a society that's supposed to have separation of Church and State. This is tantamount to saying you don't hate cars, you just hate it when people drive them on public roads, or keep the parked in public lots, or use the word "cars" in governmental documents. Strangely enough, you're still indistinguishable from somebody who hates cars. Call it what you want. We're no strangers to agreeing to disagree. My point is that it motivates your non-libertarian view on anti-discrimination laws. I remember someone on this board suggesting religion is like a penis. It only becomes an issue when someone pulls theirs out and starts playing with it in public.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 27, 2017 9:39:01 GMT -5
fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-democrats-wave-could-turn-into-a-flood/the generic ballot was +18D the day after the tax bill. the GOP is counting on several things: 1) their tax-cut and borrow agenda will resonate with Reagan Democrats 2) as time goes on, this bill will be viewed as wildly popular among Independents 3) this is the first of many successes that will lead to ballot success in 2018 i think this is all wrong for a variety of reasons. but rather than giving you the temperature, why doesn't everyone here tell me why i am right (or wrong)? note: i have noted that the political divide is very strong on this, so i am especially interested in hearing from the INDEPENDENTS on this board (those that have no political affiliation) 1) After Obama Democrats (admittedly aided and abetted by the GOP) that mention the deficit will be greeted with a chuckle. Tax cuts ARE resonating- as is the end of the "new normal" which was just traded in for 4+ percent GDP growth, and full employment. 2) The overall Trump economic record- "Are you better off now than you were four years ago" will be widely popular. 3) On this point, they should be cautious. Trump is unpopular personally, and Congress is more unpopular than at any point in history. But more importantly- while the base loves Trump, members of Congress do not particularly excite the GOP base, whereas Democrats, encouraged by VA and AL, are very motivated. That being said- there are two important things you're missing: 1) The economy and more money in paychecks starting in February- 148 million Americans seeing their withholding decrease as their job prospects and salaries increase? That's going to matter. 2) The Democrats have no compelling alternative agenda. Their agenda is singular, and transparent: Impeach Trump- because "Russia", I guess? Or maybe because racistsexistbigothomophobexenophobeislamophobe and now rapistpedophile will work against every candidate? You need a positive alternative agenda to win, and the Democrats only have an anti-Trump agenda. Good for base turnout-- which will have an impact because there are more registered Dems than Republicans-- but will Impeach Trump excite independents watching in horror as the banana-republic style spying and coup attempt is unraveling? Doubtful. You also have to ask yourself if Americans are excited enough about going back to the individual mandate and highest in the world corporate tax rates to vote Democrat? Or maybe they like massive burdensome regulation? They might possibly be motivated to return to mass illegal immigration and the possibility of amnesty and citizenship for 12 million illegal aliens? Odds are pretty good actually that the long term trend of Democrats losing power will continue apace.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 27, 2017 9:41:18 GMT -5
Sigh. Is it you inventing words or what? Paleoliberals does not even make sense as a concept. It makes perfect sense and I didn't invent the term. duckduckgo.com/?q=paleoliberal&t=ffnt&ia=webAlso known as "classical liberalism". Do you really think there were huge discussions between liberals and conservatives back in the hunter gathering days? Oy. Look up the meaning of the Latin prefix "paleo". As a famous movie character once said: "I don't think that word means what you think it means." I also recommend looking up paleoconservatism and paleolibertarianism to get a tack on what these terms mean. Its hard to take stuff you posted seriously because you are off trying to differentiate people you don't understand, while meanwhile showing a serious lack of understanding of what most liberals accept and what some might want or do. I'd say the exact same thing about you. Hence we understand each other. The difference between us is that I'm willing to defend my arguments and explore yours, while your only interest seems to be in making up excuses. If that wasn't bad enough, you're disparaging my thesis rather than plainly stating you aren't interested in a debate. If you want to help the conservative cause, get them to stop being loser people who can't seem to tell the difference between one and many, some and the majority. Until you, and most conservatives fix this, I will hear the equivalent of the Peanuts 'blah blah blah blah blah'. Basically nonsense. I'll get right on telling my loser contemporaries to ignore everything they've seen and heard. Optimist assures me those angry throngs aren't social liberals... or at least their doctrines don't enjoy majority adoption yet. It's surely not worth considering what social liberalism is and where it's headed.
|
|