# Vale Sir Roger Scruton



## Guest

I'm very sorry to learn about the death of this great man, whose work will be continued by the wonderful Douglas Murray - who wrote this moving panegyric to his mentor and friend:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/01/roger-scruton-a-man-who-seemed-bigger-than-the-age/

Scruton and Murray shared important characteristics: well-reasoned argument based upon history and learning, respect and calm. Both eschew/ed hatred, hysterics, hand-wringing and apocalyptic eco-evangelism.

Vale Sir Roger Scruton.


----------



## Jacck

he was well known and respected in Czech Republic, he also spoke Czech
https://www.radio.cz/en/section/books/roger-scruton-and-a-special-relationship


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

A bold and outspoken thinker. Though I disagree with most of his major views, I've always been impressed with his respectfulness and eloquence. I recently listened to this:



which was quite enjoyable and informative and may be of interest to fans of Scruton and music.

By the way, has anyone read _The Aesthetics of Music_? It seems pretty interesting.


----------



## Guest

I can't say I was a fan, but I recognise his contribution to public debate in the UK. I was more saddened (if that's the right word - I'm not sure what to make of the death of public figures grown old) by the passing of Tony Garnett.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jan/12/tony-garnett-tv-and-film-producer-dies-aged-83


----------



## Strange Magic

I too am saddened by the passing of Roger Scruton, a man with whom I too had disagreements but also many areas of agreement. I would, though, note that like many of a somewhat conservative persuasion who are not scientifically literate, Scruton failed to understand--or rather failed to accept--the fact that, in the long run, if not in the short, profound change will be required to deal with the sustainability of our planet. Scientists began becoming uneasy about population and pollution issues many scores of years ago, before AGW appeared as a dire threat compounding the others and being compounded by them. Conservatives such as Scruton by nature hate the idea of profound change, however necessary, and almost always thus are ill-suited to be reliable guides to a better future when presented with such existential issues as worldwide climate change and biosphere degradation. Thus, it is in the areas of esthetics and cultural norms and decent behavior where he will be most sorely missed.


----------



## Guest

I wouldn't say conservatives hate the idea of profound change; it's just that they've seen change and realized it's not synonymous with 'improvement'. Let's mention change and the Left's embrace of it: the Bolshevik Revolution, Pol Pot, China, Venezuela.

Carefully calibrated reforms are what conservatives value.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> I wouldn't say conservatives hate the idea of profound change; it's just that they've seen change and realized it's not synonymous with 'improvement'. Let's mention change and the Left's embrace of it: the Bolshevik Revolution, Pol Pot, China, Venezuela.
> 
> Carefully calibrated reforms are what conservatives value.


...and the "Right's" embracing of change: eg Pinochet and Franco...let's not play this simplistic game.


----------



## Strange Magic

Christabel said:


> I wouldn't say conservatives hate the idea of profound change; it's just that they've seen change and realized it's not synonymous with 'improvement'. Let's mention change and the Left's embrace of it: the Bolshevik Revolution, Pol Pot, China, Venezuela.
> 
> Carefully calibrated reforms are what conservatives value.


Carefully calibrated reforms are something most everyone can support--it's all in the details, the timing, the sincerity with which reforms are proposed. And change is certainly looked upon with disfavor when the outer milieu is itself changing slowly or not at all. The expression "Let No New Thing Arise!" is attributed to many times and cultures. But we are living at a time of rapid and malignant change imposed on us by many factors we have chosen to not address or control; the question today is what magnitude of change will be sufficient.


----------



## philoctetes

In my experience there are a gazillion kinds of liberals, it's the nature of liberal philosophy and "open minds", to the point where two different liberals wind up fighting over political resources for different purposes.

So why can't there be more than one kind of conservative?


----------



## Strange Magic

Let the record show that I, for one, was opposed to the Bolshevik Revolution, Pol Pot, China (China??), Venezuela (ditto). I assume that what is being referenced are the Maoist victory over Chiang and the subsequent dark years, and the rise of Chávez/Maduro. These are all aspects of Left Fascism. Bleeding-heart, knee-jerk Liberals like myself don't like such regimes. Don't like MBS, Bolsonaro, Duterte, Erdogan, or Vladimir Putin either.


----------



## KenOC

“Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others.” -Ambrose Bierce


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> ...and the "Right's" embracing of change: eg Pinochet and Franco...let's not play this simplistic game.


They were certainly not held up as models of socialism and fairness. Good try, though.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Let the record show that I, for one, was opposed to the Bolshevik Revolution, Pol Pot, China (China??), Venezuela (ditto). I assume that what is being referenced are the Maoist victory over Chiang and the subsequent dark years, and the rise of Chávez/Maduro. These are all aspects of Left Fascism. Bleeding-heart, knee-jerk Liberals like myself don't like such regimes. Don't like MBS, Bolsonaro, Duterte, Erdogan, or Vladimir Putin either.


China was 'changed' into Communism by Mao - so it's a leader in 'equality' of opportunity, even if they had to kill (millions) for it. Erdogan is protecting his country - formerly communist - from unchecked immigration, as that country has a right to do. Putin is still wedded to the structures and regime of the former communist USSR; in fact, he's trying to get humpty dumpty back again. Conservatives are opposed to such social engineering, no matter what the government. They are usually free market types as they know this is the most effective measure of getting people out of poverty. Historically this has been the case. They're not into 'change' for the sake of change.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> "Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others." -Ambrose Bierce


Brilliant. I absolutely love it.


----------



## bz3

Great thinker that I should read more of. Is anyone familiar with the operas he wrote?


----------



## Strange Magic

Christabel said:


> China was 'changed' into Communism by Mao - so it's a leader in 'equality' of opportunity, even if they had to kill (millions) for it. Erdogan is protecting his country - formerly communist - from unchecked immigration, as that country has a right to do. Putin is still wedded to the structures and regime of the former communist USSR; in fact, he's trying to get humpty dumpty back again. Conservatives are opposed to such social engineering, no matter what the government. They are usually free market types as they know this is the most effective measure of getting people out of poverty. Historically this has been the case. They're not into 'change' for the sake of change.


Proving yet again that Donald Trump, Boy President, is no conservative (but we all knew that.) We'll add your name to the list of real conservatives that loathe Trump and his sycophants, and who have either quit the "Republican" Party and/or oppose his re-election and/or call for his removal from office. You will be in excellent company!


----------



## mmsbls

This thread is about Roger Scruton. Some of his work concerned political matters so people could mention that work (e.g. biographical information), but please do not post purely political comments.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> I wouldn't say conservatives hate the idea of profound change; it's just that they've seen change and realized it's not synonymous with 'improvement'. Let's mention change and the Left's embrace of it: the Bolshevik Revolution, Pol Pot, China, Venezuela.
> 
> Carefully calibrated reforms are what conservatives value.


It seems the "purely political" emerged here, though in response to a comment about Scruton's conservatism, and consequently 'inviting' a counter comment from me. I wonder what should be posted in a thread about Scruton's passing. A mere nod of respect? A thorough explanation of his life and works? A critical analysis of his values and politics?

What is the best way to honour the passing of any public individual? How can we discuss Scruton without noting the controversy he prompted, and, almost inevitably, replicate some of that dispute?


----------



## mmsbls

MacLeod said:


> It seems the "purely political" emerged here, though in response to a comment about Scruton's conservatism, and consequently 'inviting' a counter comment from me. I wonder what should be posted in a thread about Scruton's passing. A mere nod of respect? A thorough explanation of his life and works? A critical analysis of his values and politics?
> 
> What is the best way to honour the passing of any public individual? How can we discuss Scruton without noting the controversy he prompted, and, almost inevitably, replicate some of that dispute?


I understand that discussing Scruton without getting into details of politics is not trivial. I suppose we could have simply deleted this thread before approving it with the explanation that it was political. I think people can talk about Scruton by associating their comments closely with him. Rather than discuss political ideas independent of Scruton, people can relay his thoughts and non-TC member reactions to those thoughts.

Basically, focus on Scruton and not one's personal views of political ideas. I realize that can be somewhat difficult, but many posts so far don't come remotely close to attempting that.


----------



## Jacck

if I read some Scruton quotes
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/12399.Roger_Scruton
I find myself agreeing with many, but having also objections to some

for example Scruton says "Conservatism starts from a sentiment that all mature people can readily share: the sentiment that good things are easily destroyed, but not easily created."

but what are those "good things"? Many so called conservatives do not mind the mass extinction of species, although it took milions of years for nature to create them, but we destroy them in a century. I suspect that the reasons are religious, conservatism is almost synonymous with Christianity, and if someone believes that all the species were created by God, they do not mind their dissapeareance.


----------



## Guest

This is wrong. Conservatives are conservationists; one cannot exist without the other. They love the environment - natural and built - because it is regarded as part of society. "The mass extinction of species" is propaganda and hyperbole - especially since you do not know what has gone on for millennia previously.

Conservatives like myself, for example, want 'the science' to demonstrate with key performance indicators the exact mitigation of global temperatures for any 'action' that we (Australia, for example) take on climate change. Science is used by the eco-evangelists but they don't have or want those same tools for the people they expect to 'fix' the problem. Now, that's more than a little disingenous and I'm calling it out. Science in/science out. Otherwise a nonsense. You wouldn't put somebody on a chemotherapy regime to clean up cancer without evidence about the results. And we need to talk about nuclear, which the Greenies won't have. They do want everything on their own terms. 

Anyway, getting back to Roger Scruton, I loved this quote. He was talking in 2006 about globalists (he called then 'oikophobes') of the type who recently denounced Brexit:

“The oikophobe repudiates national loyalties and defines his goals and ideals against the nation, promoting transnational institutions over national governments, accepting and endorsing laws that are imposed from on high by the EU or the UN, and defining his political vision in terms of cosmopolitan values that have been purified of all reference to the particular attachments of a real historical community.”


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^"Conservatives are conservationists": Well, some are, and some aren't. To assert "conservatives are conservationists" as an axiom at the outset of one's post is to invite immediate disbelief and then laughter.

To deny that Earth is in the throes of a mass extinction of species occurring right now will be difficult to explain to the grandkids. It also betrays (again) a triumph of ideology over factual evidence. But perhaps there are Alternative Facts.

Again, given a choice between attending to the overwhelming consensus of the (evil Global!) scientific community, including those most familiar with Earth's environmental concerns, and the noisy Bandar-Log of non-scientist cornucopian "economists" and other assorted ideologues, simple prudence dictates that we address the climate and population issues seriously, rather than waiting "to see what happens". I have no other planet to escape to, though others seem to live in entirely different "factual" worlds.


----------



## Jacck

Christabel said:


> Anyway, getting back to Roger Scruton, I loved this quote. He was talking in 2006 about globalists (he called then 'oikophobes') of the type who recently denounced Brexit:
> 
> "The oikophobe repudiates national loyalties and defines his goals and ideals against the nation, promoting transnational institutions over national governments, accepting and endorsing laws that are imposed from on high by the EU or the UN, and defining his political vision in terms of cosmopolitan values that have been purified of all reference to the particular attachments of a real historical community."


I have the feeling that some of these British conservatives are still mentally living in the past at a time of the British empire, and want to return the past glory of the empire and that is also the basis for their their anti-EU sentiments. 
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/2...nglosphere-european-union-empire-colonialism/
If they were able to realistically weight their options in the current geopolitical situation, they can either become the 51st US state, though even they are having second thoughts in the age of Trump, or they can orient themselves to the EU and accept all its rules but without any say in the shaping of those rules (like Norway). And the conservatism in the US will be of a similar kind. With the power of the US empire slowly waning
https://theconversation.com/a-new-world-is-dawning-and-the-us-will-no-longer-lead-it-98362
both the US elite and the public will need to mentally psychologically readjust to the new reality. And those unable to do so will be living in the past at the height of the US empire and will want to return to some past glory ("make america great again"). So conservatism is not so much about "conserving" what is, but about return to some half-fictious past of glory.


----------



## amfortas

Jacck said:


> So conservatism is not so much about "conserving" what is, but about return to some half-fictitious past of glory.


Half? I call that a generous assessment.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> I have the feeling that some of these British conservatives are still mentally living in the past at a time of the British empire, and want to return the past glory of the empire and that is also the basis for their their anti-EU sentiments.
> https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/2...nglosphere-european-union-empire-colonialism/
> If they were able to realistically weight their options in the current geopolitical situation, they can either become the 51st US state, though even they are having second thoughts in the age of Trump, or they can orient themselves to the EU and accept all its rules but without any say in the shaping of those rules (like Norway). And the conservatism in the US will be of a similar kind. With the power of the US empire slowly waning
> https://theconversation.com/a-new-world-is-dawning-and-the-us-will-no-longer-lead-it-98362
> both the US elite and the public will need to mentally psychologically readjust to the new reality. And those unable to do so will be living in the past at the height of the US empire and will want to return to some past glory ("make america great again"). So conservatism is not so much about "conserving" what is, but about return to some half-fictious past of glory.


I disagree with this entirely and certainly would take zero notice of "The Conversation" - which always has a political ax to grind to say the very least (their other academic/research articles are often interesting).

I cannot speak about the British Conservatives since I do not live in that nation, but I do see that post-Blair many of the fashionable PC and 'woke' ideologies have persisted under subsequent so-called conservative governments. In short, the Left is winning the arguments and culture wars but losing all the elections as a consequence. The argument has also been made that conservatives want a return to some prior glory days - as per the post subsequent to yours. I've heard this many times myself, but I think that complaint misses the point (rather conveniently). Firstly, there were periods in the not-too-distant past of full employment, community cohesion, national loyalty and institutionalized religion (which provided a further impetus to the notion of the community). Those things were seen in abundance during periods of existential threat, and for very good reasons.

Today we have an 'anything goes' culture; you can be any sex you want, say what you like (as long as it is 'approved'), do what you like (again, if it's 'approved'), commit a crime and not seriously be punished, swear at the teacher, your parents, the system and destroy reputations and businesses on Twitter and other social media. Far from being 'progressive', I've never witnessed in my lifetime more aggressive, angry, entitled, drug-addled and disrespectful people and nations. Hate is the engine oil which fuels much of this and it was never a characteristic in my formative years. Hatred's wellspring is, of course, self-loathing. Now my children and their children deal with it and they don't like it one bit. When I was teaching high school there were still lots of conservative kids that came from conservative families; they were, without exception, happy within themselves and often completely trustworthy. They're still around; it's just that there are less of them.

So, some 'past of glory' has a good deal of truth to it. And I say what I've always said; if you don't have a real stake in the society with family, assets and a modicum of wealth you're not going to care at all if the system is collapsing. As my late father used to say, "everything is ALWAYS all about who gets what".


----------



## amfortas

Christabel said:


> So, some 'past of glory' has a good deal of truth to it. And I say what I've always said; if you don't have a real stake in the society with family, assets and a modicum of wealth you're not going to care at all if the system is collapsing. As my late father used to say, "everything is ALWAYS all about who gets what".


Your late father sounds like a wise man. Everything is indeed always all about who gets what . . . including whether you're in a privileged enough position to look nostalgically on some 'past of glory.'


----------



## bz3

Jacck said:


> I have the feeling that some of these British conservatives are still mentally living in the past at a time of the British empire, and want to return the past glory of the empire and that is also the basis for their their anti-EU sentiments.
> https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/2...nglosphere-european-union-empire-colonialism/
> If they were able to realistically weight their options in the current geopolitical situation, they can either become the 51st US state, though even they are having second thoughts in the age of Trump, or they can orient themselves to the EU and accept all its rules but without any say in the shaping of those rules (like Norway). And the conservatism in the US will be of a similar kind. With the power of the US empire slowly waning
> https://theconversation.com/a-new-world-is-dawning-and-the-us-will-no-longer-lead-it-98362
> both the US elite and the public will need to mentally psychologically readjust to the new reality. And those unable to do so will be living in the past at the height of the US empire and will want to return to some past glory ("make america great again"). So conservatism is not so much about "conserving" what is, but about return to some half-fictious past of glory.


So what's this 'new reality' that the US public (which includes me) needs to 'psychologically readjust' to?

For some reason I have the sneaking suspicion that it involves focus-group tested platitudes like 'our diverse and multicultural social fabric' as well as the ceding of political autonomy to supranational quasi-judicial bodies in the name of other platitudes like tolerance or inclusiveness - you know, sort of like the world I've spent my whole life in.


----------



## amfortas

bz3 said:


> For some reason I have the sneaking suspicion that it involves focus-group tested platitudes like 'our diverse and multicultural social fabric' as well as the ceding of political autonomy to supranational quasi-judicial bodies in the name of other platitudes like tolerance or inclusiveness - you know, sort of like the world I've spent my whole life in.


Personally, I'm good with tolerance and inclusiveness. But if you have better platitudes to offer, I'm happy to listen.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> Anyway, getting back to Roger Scruton, I loved this quote. He was talking in 2006 about globalists (he called then 'oikophobes') of the type who recently denounced Brexit:
> 
> "The oikophobe repudiates national loyalties and defines his goals and ideals against the nation, promoting transnational institutions over national governments, accepting and endorsing laws that are imposed from on high by the EU or the UN, and defining his political vision in terms of cosmopolitan values that have been purified of all reference to the particular attachments of a real historical community."


At first misunderstanding the term 'oikophobia', I congratulate him on his erudition, but not on his sentiment. This is typical of what I have heard of his opinion (though I've never read anything longer than a newspaper article by him, I have seen him speak on TV and heard him on the radio enough over the years to have a fairly clear view of his values).


----------



## Jacck

bz3 said:


> So what's this 'new reality' that the US public (which includes me) needs to 'psychologically readjust' to?


the most difficult idea to drop is the idea of American exceptionalism. That idea was never true during the whole history, though it was reinvigorated by the objective fact that America became the strongest nation on Earth, though the reasons were largely incidental (WW2). But out of this idea some national myths developed, that the US is special and different and thus infallible, and thus has the right to impose its will and rules on other nations etc. It will be difficult to drop this idea and start being more realistic about itself and own place in the world. The more the relative US power is going to wane, the more some people will want to prove American strength through further wars and demonstration of force. And that could be dangerous.



> For some reason I have the sneaking suspicion that it involves focus-group tested platitudes like 'our diverse and multicultural social fabric' as well as the ceding of political autonomy to supranational quasi-judicial bodies in the name of other platitudes like tolerance or inclusiveness - you know, sort of like the world I've spent my whole life in.


I also believe that the left took its crusade too far. I am for full equality before the law and equality of oportunity irrespective of race, gender and religion, but I am against the SJW agenda, the cult of diversity, affirmative action, political correctness, policing of speech on campuses, toxic feminism etc. I certainly think that society has much more pressing problems than this.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> It seems the "purely political" emerged here, though in response to a comment about Scruton's conservatism, and consequently 'inviting' a counter comment from me. I wonder what should be posted in a thread about Scruton's passing. A mere nod of respect? A thorough explanation of his life and works? A critical analysis of his values and politics?
> 
> What is the best way to honour the passing of any public individual? How can we discuss Scruton without noting the controversy he prompted, and, almost inevitably, replicate some of that dispute?


Bravo. Excellent comment.

This is the brave, new 'progressive' world that Sir Roger Scruton was heavily critiquing in his work, inter alia:

*Child suicide rate increases in Queensland*
There were 37 suicides of people under 18 years in Queensland last financial year.

By CRAIG JOHNSTONE
JANUARY 15, 2020

Suicide remains the leading cause of death among Queensland children outside of disease or other natural causes, and the rate is increasing.

The state government's latest report on deaths of children and young people found that there were 37 suicides of people under 18 years last financial year, the highest rate since the state began the Child Death Register in 2004.

The report, released on Wednesday, said the rate of child suicides was a "marked increase from previous years, which ranged from 15 to 26 per year".

Transport was the second leading cause of child death with 22 recorded in the state in the 2018-19 year.

Sixteen children and young people drowned, with five 1-4-year-olds drowning in private swimming pools.

*Seven children died as a result of suspected or confirmed assault and neglect*.

The report, compiled each year by the Queensland Family and Child Commission, found that there were a total of 386 deaths of children and young people registered in Queensland last financial year.

Of these, 68 per cent, or 261, were the result of disease or other natural causes.

Family and Child Commissioner Cheryl Vardon said suicide was a tragedy.

"It deeply impacts family, friends and the community," she said.

"A suicide can also cause a ripple effect, affecting the mental health of others. While some young people may have been struggling with their mental health for some time, other deaths come with few warnings. This makes preventing suicide a challenge."

(The Australian)


----------



## Strange Magic

Since we're now in a discussion of the increase in childhood suicide rates, I attribute much of it to Internet social media cyberbullying, which has devastated the feeling of self-worth among millions of children. The NRA has done its part also here in the USA by so saturating our social space with guns that suicide is now easy as pie and certain of result. Whereas before guns--especially handguns--became so abundant, people tried hanging, poison, wrist-slashing, etc.--all of which were either less inherently lethal or capable of quick intervention. Real conservatives will be strongly in favor of examining both social media and our gun obsession and proposing both education and legislation to ameliorate these and similar societal ills.


----------



## Guest

I think I've been misunderstood. Noting Scruton's sometimes controversial views does mean rehearsing them in detail here. Nor does it merit tedious side swipes at those who hold a particular opinion.


----------



## Strange Magic

MacLeod said:


> I think I've been misunderstood. Noting Scruton's sometimes controversial views does mean rehearsing them in detail here. Nor does it merit tedious side swipes at those who hold a particular opinion.


Excellent point. The introduction of this thread on Roger Scruton reminds me of the similar thread bemoaning the passing of David Koch (of the Koch Brothers)--we had a similar bit of ideology passed along with the elegiac remembrance of the deceased, thus inviting commentary (positive and negative) from those with pronounced views on the deceased's life, views, and effect upon his/her society. As I noted then, the Groups are likely the better place to ride such hobbyhorses. Or, we should be more inured to such discussions following the paths that they do.


----------



## Jacck

a year ago or so we discussed a docu in the main forum - it was in the context of beauty vs modern art. I watched it then, but did not know it was by Scruton


----------



## Roger Knox

Jacck said:


> a year ago or so we discussed a docu in the main forum - it was in the context of beauty vs modern art. I watched it then, but did not know it was by Scruton


RIP Sir Roger Scruton ... I've read some of the philosopher Roger Scruton's writings on aesthetics, especially music, and always have come away impressed. For people like me who don't agree with his politics, I still recommend his aesthetics work as readable and thought-provoking. It is sad that now some people basically are trying to do away with aesthetics -- for classical music lovers there has been a lot of high-quality, sensible work published in the past few decades.


----------



## bz3

amfortas said:


> Personally, I'm good with tolerance and inclusiveness. But if you have better platitudes to offer, I'm happy to listen.


Maybe it's because I'm from the extraordinarily cynical generation that was raised on and endured the Iraq and Afghanistan boondoggles as well as the Great Recession (as it is termed) but I'm not very good with any platitudes that come from Washington DC's backside, otherwise known as the national news media. But even as far as platitudes go tolerance and inclusiveness are too feminine for my taste, too insipid even.

What we need is a healthy dose of intolerance.


----------



## bz3

Jacck said:


> the most difficult idea to drop is the idea of American exceptionalism. That idea was never true during the whole history, though it was reinvigorated by the objective fact that America became the strongest nation on Earth, though the reasons were largely incidental (WW2). But out of this idea some national myths developed, that the US is special and different and thus infallible, and thus has the right to impose its will and rules on other nations etc. It will be difficult to drop this idea and start being more realistic about itself and own place in the world. The more the relative US power is going to wane, the more some people will want to prove American strength through further wars and demonstration of force. And that could be dangerous.
> 
> I also believe that the left took its crusade too far. I am for full equality before the law and equality of oportunity irrespective of race, gender and religion, but I am against the SJW agenda, the cult of diversity, affirmative action, political correctness, policing of speech on campuses, toxic feminism etc. I certainly think that society has much more pressing problems than this.


Fair enough but I think as is often the case with continental Europeans you assume far too much as to how most Americans feel about being world police/the middle east's bullyboy. It's true there are mostly older Americans who really believe in the Pax Americana but we were always a reluctant empire and I seriously doubt even 25% of under-40 Americans think this ridiculous charade is sustainable, let alone desirable.


----------



## amfortas

bz3 said:


> What we need is a healthy dose of intolerance.


Sounds like you're off to a good start.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> I think I've been misunderstood. Noting Scruton's sometimes controversial views does mean rehearsing them in detail here. Nor does it merit tedious side swipes at those who hold a particular opinion.


Sorry. I did of course mean "does *not *mean rehearsing them here".


----------



## Jacck

bz3 said:


> Fair enough but I think as is often the case with continental Europeans you assume far too much as to how most Americans feel about being world police/the middle east's bullyboy. It's true there are mostly older Americans who really believe in the Pax Americana but we were always a reluctant empire and I seriously doubt even 25% of under-40 Americans think this ridiculous charade is sustainable, let alone desirable.


I think that overall it is true that Pax Americana was good for the world, that the US was a relatively benign empire that also did a lot of good things for the world, and in any survey in most countries in the world, people think that American leadership was good for the world. I think that too. People who really destroyed America were Bush jr, Cheney, Rumsfeld et co. Some people say that "Trump is the worst president in US history". I do not think it is true. That honor belongs to Bush. The invasion of Iraq was the worst strategic mistake the US ever did in its entire history, and it is also ultimately the reason for the likely coming collapse of the empire. The damage was not only to human life, but also that it eroded America morally both domestically and internationally. And I am convinced that the end of Pax Americana will be BAD for the world.

Concerning the exceptionalism. That in itself is very unexceptional. All nations suffer from similar delusions and the bigger the nation, the bigger the delusions. Also, not all people in a nation are the same. What worries me is that if the situation in US gets any worse (like people get even poorer, economic stagnation, crisis etc), then this toxic mix of nationalist myths, religious delusions and empoverishment could lead to actual fascism. This was exactly the situation in Germany in 1920s-1930s, ie poor economy + nationalist delusions.

Anyway, we live in very turbulent times. It is likely not only the end of the American empire
https://theintercept.com/2017/09/24/decline-american-empire-donald-trump/
but Russia and China are on very shaky ground too
https://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/International/Will-Russia-And-China-Collapse-Before-2020.html

I think we are on the brink of a new tectonic shift in world order (like between the 19th and 20th century) and nobody knows yet what the new world will look like. We can only hope that it will be based on the values of human liberty, human rights and cooperation between the nations.


----------



## Room2201974

Ahhhh,nevermind, toomuchcoffeerant!!!


----------



## WildThing

Roger Knox said:


> RIP Sir Roger Scruton ... I've read some of the philosopher Roger Scruton's writings on aesthetics, especially music, and always have come away impressed. For people like me who don't agree with his politics, I still recommend his aesthetics work as readable and thought-provoking. It is sad that now some people basically are trying to do away with aesthetics -- for classical music lovers there has been a lot of high-quality, sensible work published in the past few decades.


Totally agreed. Here's a really stimulating discussion on Wagner's operas that any Wagner lover will be able to appreciateL


----------



## Guest

Sir Roger was an accomplished pianist and organist, so says Douglas Murray in his tribute to RS in this week's "Spectator".


----------



## Guest

I've been watching this lecture today by Sir Roger Scruton from April, 2017. He's so very much missed. And there isn't a scintilla of anger, hatred or vitriol in any of his words; he just didn't need it!


----------



## Bulldog

Jacck said:


> I think we are on the brink of a new tectonic shift in world order (like between the 19th and 20th century) and nobody knows yet what the new world will look like. We can only hope that it will be based on the values of human liberty, human rights and cooperation between the nations.


Canada will lead the charge!!


----------



## Jacck

Bulldog said:


> Canada will lead the charge!!


I think it is a worldwide phenomenon. And the transformation will come with the replacement of the Baby Boomers as the dominant political force
https://time.com/5770140/millennials-change-american-politics/
"But a progressive youthquake is coming. *Research has shown that people's experiences in early adulthood have the greatest impact on their lifelong political leanings*, and millennials, for the most part, have experienced an America riven by inequality, endless wars, a financial collapse, a student debt crisis, and inertia in the face of climate change. All that has made them distinctly more liberal than their elders. According to Pew, 57% of millennials hold "consistently" or "mostly liberal" opinions, while only 12% report having conservative views. Even Buttigieg, who is often cast as a moderate in this Democratic presidential primary, is significantly more liberal than centrists of the previous generation, favoring universal health care, student debt relief and urgent action on climate change."

The current wave of conservative populism in the world is likely its last desperate gasp before it is obliterated.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> I think it is a worldwide phenomenon. And the transformation will come with the replacement of the Baby Boomers as the dominant political force
> https://time.com/5770140/millennials-change-american-politics/
> "But a progressive youthquake is coming. *Research has shown that people's experiences in early adulthood have the greatest impact on their lifelong political leanings*, and millennials, for the most part, have experienced an America riven by inequality, endless wars, a financial collapse, a student debt crisis, and inertia in the face of climate change. All that has made them distinctly more liberal than their elders. According to Pew, 57% of millennials hold "consistently" or "mostly liberal" opinions, while only 12% report having conservative views. Even Buttigieg, who is often cast as a moderate in this Democratic presidential primary, is significantly more liberal than centrists of the previous generation, favoring universal health care, student debt relief and urgent action on climate change."
> 
> The current wave of conservative populism in the world is likely its last desperate gasp before it is obliterated.


The Left is winning all the arguments and losing all the elections. Australia, UK, USA and Trudeau only got in by doing a deal as did the NZ Prime Minister. Merkel had to wait ages to see if she'd still be Chancellor.

Don't confuse social media and educational institutions with the real world. It's a well-known fact that the older people become the more conservative they grow. What's the old saying: "if you're not a socialist at 18 you have no heart and if you're still a socialist at 40 you have no brains". I think that's very true. Millennials will mature just like all the generations before them. They'll grow to appreciate and be thankful for all the world has to offer; freedom from disease, air transport, computers, university education, food and shelter of a historically high order, peace and order in *democratic* countries. There are some problems, yes, but there always were. In making over society to create the utopia you need to be extremely careful what you wish for. This has been tried and failed in the past. But if young people aren't taught history anymore (which most aren't) they're never going to know this. Sadly.

Listen to or read Sir Roger Scruton's words; he was a grateful human being.


----------



## Jacck

Christabel said:


> The Left is winning all the arguments and losing all the elections. Australia, UK, USA and Trudeau only got in by doing a deal as did the NZ Prime Minister. Merkel had to wait ages to see if she'd still be Chancellor. Don't confuse social media and educational institutions with the real world. It's a well-known fact that the older people become the more conservative they grow. What's the old saying: "if you're not a socialist at 18 you have no heart and if you're still a socialist at 40 you have no brains". I think that's very true. Millennials will mature just like all the generations before them. They'll grow to appreciate and be thankful for all the world has to offer; freedom from disease, air transport, computers, university education, food and shelter of a historically high order, peace and order in *democratic* countries. There are some problems, yes, but there always were. In making over society to create the utopia you need to be extremely careful what you wish for. This has been tried and failed in the past. But if young people aren't taught history anymore (which most aren't) they're never going to know this. Sadly. Listen to or read Sir Roger Scruton's words; he was a grateful human being.


You are wrong. My formative decade was the 1990's, ie at the intersection between the gen X and millenials, and I am not becoming more conservative. I see the current conservatives as political dinosaurs destined to die out. The 4 decades of dysfunctional social experiments in the name of neoliberalism (Reagan, Thatcher, deregulation, "state is always bad") is coming to an end. History is like a pendulum, swinging back and forth. And if it swings to much in one direction, then it will be compensated in the opposite direction. I see Trump not as a beginning of some new conservative world order, but as its death knell.


----------



## Jacck

and BTW, I can respect some intelligent conservatives, who can present some coherent worldview based on Christian ethics, family values, healthy dose of nationalism. I can and do respect Sir Roger Scruton. But much of the current conservatives have degenerated into political parties of no principle running on false and disproved ideologies and their only goal is to provide profit for the rich
Neoliberalism - the ideology at the root of all our problems
The era of neoliberalism, which lasted for 40 years, is coming to an end. Trump, the ultimate archetype of corruption, and self-serving narcissism, is the harbinger of its destruction. The current conservative parties deserve to die. The young voters will not forget Trump, just like the young voters in Britain will not forget brexit (just find out what the polls are among the younger generations). That is why the conservative parties have no future. Maybe after 2 more generations, the pendulum will again swing in the oposite direction. Maybe they can renew themselves, if they can rediscover some moral principles, maybe not.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> and BTW, I can respect some intelligent conservatives, who can present some coherent worldview based on Christian ethics, family values, healthy dose of nationalism. I can and do respect Sir Roger Scruton. But much of the current conservatives have degenerated into political parties of no principle running on false and disproved ideologies and their only goal is to provide profit for the rich
> Neoliberalism - the ideology at the root of all our problems
> The era of neoliberalism, which lasted for 40 years, is coming to an end. Trump, the ultimate archetype of corruption, and self-serving narcissism, is the harbinger of its destruction. The current conservative parties deserve to die. The young voters will not forget Trump, just like the young voters in Britain will not forget brexit (just find out what the polls are among the younger generations). That is why the conservative parties have no future. Maybe after 2 more generations, the pendulum will again swing in the oposite direction. Maybe they can renew themselves, if they can rediscover some moral principles, maybe not.


Yes, Jacck, that's the trouble with democracy; the wrong people get to do the voting. What can we do about that? Use China, North Korea, Iran and the old USSR as models, I guess. There's always a HUGE body count with that.

Your tone is one of anger and veiled threats ('deserve to die') and I don't believe there's any point arguing with anger and hatred. 
This is your modern face of progressivism. Thanks, but no thanks.


----------



## Jacck

Christabel said:


> Yes, Jacck, that's the trouble with democracy; the wrong people get to do the voting. What can we do about that? Use China, North Korea, Iran and the old USSR as models, I guess. There's always a HUGE body count with that.
> 
> Your tone is one of anger and veiled threats ('deserve to die') and I don't believe there's any point arguing with anger and hatred.
> This is your modern face of progressivism. Thanks, but no thanks.


I have no hate. I just think that parties that spread climate change denialism or tax-cuts for the rich or deregulations for corporations for profit do not deserve to exist. I am not advocating some violent revolution. I think that all revolutions and social changes start in the unconsious psychologogy of the people, under the surface. And all these crises like global warming, loss of biodiversity etc. are impacting the minds of the younger generations all over the world. They will have different ideologies. The changes in psychology are happening everywhere, including countries like Russia and China. I read some articles how the Russian youth are losing faith and interest in the Kremlin values of patriotism, wars etc. Putinism is the old, destined to die, and the younger generations will take over. 
https://112.international/article/p...change-in-russia-dr-stefan-meister-27098.html
the same is happening in China. The old communists will slowly be replaced by a different breed.


----------



## Bulldog

Jacck said:


> I have no hate. I just think that parties that spread climate change denialism or tax-cuts for the rich or deregulations for corporations for profit do not deserve to exist.


You wouldn't even give them a chance at conversion therapy?


----------



## Jacck

Bulldog said:


> You wouldn't even give them a chance at conversion therapy?


they might be able to save themselves, but they will have to do some serious rethinking how to attract younger voters. Climate denialism will not work, trickle-down economics will not work etc. It will depend if they can reinvent some new conservative ideology that is better suited to a changed world. But the conservatives are always the old. At some point in history, conservatives were the monarchists and progressives were the republicans. Nowadays, there are no more monarchists.


----------



## bz3

Jacck said:


> You are wrong. My formative decade was the 1990's, ie at the intersection between the gen X and millenials, and I am not becoming more conservative. I see the current conservatives as political dinosaurs destined to die out. The 4 decades of dysfunctional social experiments in the name of neoliberalism (Reagan, Thatcher, deregulation, "state is always bad") is coming to an end. History is like a pendulum, swinging back and forth. And if it swings to much in one direction, then it will be compensated in the opposite direction. I see Trump not as a beginning of some new conservative world order, but as its death knell.


And I see Trump and Brexit as the beginning of the end of mass immigration and neoliberalism. No idea how you conflate the 2 phenomena with a continuation of the neoliberal order... Anyway it's probably just going to be a worsening of ethnic strife we already see and then an upsurge of violence leading to something new. As someone who came of age in Czechoslovakia I'm sure you know the pattern.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> I have no hate. I just think that parties that spread climate change denialism or tax-cuts for the rich or deregulations for corporations for profit do not deserve to exist. I am not advocating some violent revolution. I think that all revolutions and social changes start in the unconsious psychologogy of the people, under the surface. And all these crises like global warming, loss of biodiversity etc. are impacting the minds of the younger generations all over the world. They will have different ideologies. The changes in psychology are happening everywhere, including countries like Russia and China. I read some articles how the Russian youth are losing faith and interest in the Kremlin values of patriotism, wars etc. Putinism is the old, destined to die, and the younger generations will take over.
> https://112.international/article/p...change-in-russia-dr-stefan-meister-27098.html
> the same is happening in China. The old communists will slowly be replaced by a different breed.


You want people killed but you have no hate. Sure; pull the other one!!! All you see is a world with the glass half empty "Guardian" style. I actually feel sorry for you. "By their fruits shall ye know them".

In our family we have an acronym for the futility of hatred, DALT (Dead A Long Time).


----------



## Jacck

Christabel said:


> You want people killed but you have no hate. Sure; pull the other one!!! All you see is a world with the glass half empty "Guardian" style. I actually feel sorry for you. "By their fruits shall ye know them".
> In our family we have an acronym for the futility of hatred, DALT (Dead A Long Time).


I don't want anyone killed. Where did I say that? All I did was point out likely future trends. The current political parties stopped adressing actual problems. Most people are now dissatisfied with democracy
Global dissatisfaction with democracy at record high, new report reveals
unfettered neoliberalism led to the creation of oligarchies, and not democracies. And the conservatives became totally holowed out, morally bankrupt, "a zombie party"
'A zombie party': the deepening crisis of conservatism 
what positive vision for the future do they have? How do they adress actual problems of society like the increasing gap between the rich and the poor, the ecological problems etc? All they do is tax cuts for the rich, deregulations for corporations, destruction of social safety nets, all of which causes or perpetuates the crises. They became parties of evil, of lies, of corruption, of wars, of death penalties, of bigotry, of intolerance. Once you lose moral principles, you are doomed.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> I don't want anyone killed. Where did I say that?


You didn't, Jacck; you wrote (in post #50) that certain _political parties_ _deserve_ to die. I don't see your post as being full of hate at all. It seems to me that Christabel has (intentionally?) misinterpreted part of your post.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> I wouldn't say conservatives hate the idea of profound change; it's just that they've seen change and realized it's not synonymous with 'improvement'. Let's mention change and the Left's embrace of it: the Bolshevik Revolution, Pol Pot, China, Venezuela.
> 
> Carefully calibrated reforms are what conservatives value.





MacLeod said:


> ...and the "Right's" embracing of change: eg Pinochet and Franco...let's not play this simplistic game.


Let's mention change of the Left's embrace of it: the NHS in Britain.
From Wikipedia:
Dr Somerville Hastings, President of the Socialist Medical Association, successfully proposed a resolution at the 1934 Labour Party Conference that the party should be committed to the establishment of a State Health Service.
Hm, let me read that again: President of the _Socialist_ Medical Association. I suppose then that Dr Hastings must have been under 40.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> *You want people killed* but you have no hate. Sure; pull the other one!!! All you see is a world with the glass half empty* "Guardian" style*. *I actually feel sorry for you*. "*By their fruits shall ye know them*".
> 
> In our family we have an acronym for the futility of hatred, DALT (Dead A Long Time).


To take the four bolded points above:
1) False; Jacck said certain _political parties deserve_ to die. Please read text carefully. Personally, I hope the EDF (English Defence League) dies in the sense that the party disbands, self-implodes, becomes defunct, ceases to exist.
2) Guardian style: I take this to be a mocking, somewhat sneering reference to the Guardian newspaper, a left-leaning publication; I assume it offends your right-leaning sensibilities. This would be a shame, as it's really one of the most honest on the market.
3) Writing "I actually feel sorry for you" is quite condescending, and it is small-minded.
4) Who are the false prophets, then?

There is no hatred in what Jacck has posted; rather, you seem to be pushing an agenda that is, may I say, unpleasant. I think finally I can see why you appreciate *Scruton* so much.


----------



## Guest

Of course, I fully expect Christabel (AKA "*Contenance angloise*" and her other *sock puppets* on this forum) to take umbrage at the push-back and declare something along these lines: "I've had enough of this stupid forum, I'm out of here."


----------



## Guest

I sense infractions could very well be winging their way toward me...
That would be a pity. There you go.


----------



## KenOC

Christabel said:


> Brilliant. I absolutely love it.


Ambrose Bierce was a Civil War veteran who famously wrote the _Devil's Dictionary_. A colorful character, he disappeared in Mexico in 1914 and was never seen again. He left behind a treasure trove of cynical but keenly accurate quotes.


----------



## Guest

TalkingHead said:


> Of course, I fully expect Christabel (AKA "*Contenance angloise*" and her other *sock puppets* on this forum) to take umbrage at the push-back and declare something along these lines: "I've had enough of this stupid forum, I'm out of here."


Stop with the projections (Psychology 101).


----------



## Guest

TalkingHead said:


> To take the four bolded points above:
> 1) False; Jacck said certain _political parties deserve_ to die. Please read text carefully. Personally, I hope the EDF (English Defence League) dies in the sense that the party disbands, self-implodes, becomes defunct, ceases to exist.
> 2) Guardian style: I take this to be a mocking, somewhat sneering reference to the Guardian newspaper, a left-leaning publication; I assume it offends your right-leaning sensibilities. This would be a shame, as it's really one of the most honest on the market.
> 3) Writing "I actually feel sorry for you" is quite condescending, and it is small-minded.
> 4) Who are the false prophets, then?
> 
> There is no hatred in what Jacck has posted; rather, you seem to be pushing an agenda that is, may I say, unpleasant. I think finally I can see why you appreciate *Scruton* so much.


Absolutely priceless!! xx


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> I think it is a worldwide phenomenon. And the transformation will come with the replacement of the Baby Boomers as the dominant political force
> https://time.com/5770140/millennials-change-american-politics/
> "But a progressive youthquake is coming. *Research has shown that people's experiences in early adulthood have the greatest impact on their lifelong political leanings*, and millennials, for the most part, have experienced an America riven by inequality, endless wars, a financial collapse, a student debt crisis, and inertia in the face of climate change. All that has made them distinctly more liberal than their elders. According to Pew, 57% of millennials hold "consistently" or "mostly liberal" opinions, while only 12% report having conservative views. Even Buttigieg, who is often cast as a moderate in this Democratic presidential primary, is significantly more liberal than centrists of the previous generation, favoring universal health care, student debt relief and urgent action on climate change."
> 
> The current wave of conservative populism in the world is likely its last desperate gasp before it is obliterated.


Then this can only be attributed to poor education and radical brainwashing and an unforgivable deficit in history education. This is one of the most peaceful times this planet had ever experienced. Consider that the first half of the 20th century experienced two world wars. Now we have minor "regional" wars. We are at the most prosperous we have ever been, particularly in Western Nations, where most of these youth you refer to live. We have made unprecedented strides in medicine that makes standards of living the highest in history. The global poverty level continues to drop. We can feed more people than ever before. We are making incredible strides in New cleaner energy production. We have recovered from the financial collapse. More Americans are going to college than ever before.

If they look at all of this and only see misery, then I blame crappy education and teachers and professors who think pushing an ideological agenda is more important than actually teaching. The debt crisis in education is hardly that, as those students stand to make a lot more money than their counterparts who don't go to college. If they are accumulating debt to earn useless degrees, then again someone's failed them for not being honest about their prospects. A degree in grievance studies will not repay massive college debt. And government subsidized college loans have only encouraged universities to raise tuition much faster than inflation.


----------



## Guest

TalkingHead said:


> Let's mention change of the Left's embrace of it: the NHS in Britain.
> From Wikipedia:
> Dr Somerville Hastings, President of the Socialist Medical Association, successfully proposed a resolution at the 1934 Labour Party Conference that the party should be committed to the establishment of a State Health Service.
> Hm, let me read that again: President of the _Socialist_ Medical Association. I suppose then that Dr Hastings must have been under 40.


We're nearly a century from that. How long will you milk that point as proof that socialism is good? Anything you can point to in actual living memory?


----------



## Strange Magic

KenOC said:


> Ambrose Bierce was a Civil War veteran who famously wrote the _Devil's Dictionary_. A colorful character, he disappeared in Mexico in 1914 and was never seen again. He left behind a treasure trove of cynical but keenly accurate quotes.


The _Devil's Dictionary _ is the first place to turn when seeking a definition. Then try Samuel Johnson.

Here is Bierce on Happiness, _n._. An agreeable sensation arising from contemplating the misery of another.


----------



## Strange Magic

Some preceding posts suggest we look at Bierce's definition of:

Optimism, _n._. The doctrine, or belief, that everything is beautiful, including what is ugly, everything good, especially the bad, and everything right that is wrong. It is held with greatest tenacity by those most accustomed to the mischance of falling into adversity, and is most acceptably expounded with the grin that apes a smile. Being a blind faith, it is inaccessible to the light of disproof--an intellectual disorder, yielding to no treatment but death. It is hereditary, but fortunately not contagious.


----------



## Jacck

DrMike said:


> We're nearly a century from that. How long will you milk that point as proof that socialism is good? Anything you can point to in actual living memory?


the word socialism is apparently like a red rag to a bull to you. Once you hear the word, like a Pavlov dog, negative associations automatically come to your mind. Social market economy is a pretty good model
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy
it combines the best of free market and socialism, it compensates for the worst evils of capitalism like the huge gap between the rich and the poor, and thus decreases social tension etc. The social problems that you now have in the US were caused by capitalism, because the capitalists were too greedy and ripped the population off too much. I'd rather pay 40% of my salary in taxes than to live in pure capitalism. Do not forget, that Marxism was created as a reaction to the ills of predatory capitalism. If the greed of the rich empoverishes the population too much, you are risking social unrest and revolution. So some measure of wealth redistribution through socialism is actually in the interest of the rich too.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> the word socialism is apparently like a red rag to a bull to you. Once you hear the word, like a Pavlov dog, negative associations automatically come to your mind. Social market economy is a pretty good model
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy
> it combines the best of free market and socialism, it compensates for the worst evils of capitalism like the huge gap between the rich and the poor, and thus decreases social tension etc. The social problems that you now have in the US were caused by capitalism, because the capitalists were too greedy and ripped the population off too much. I'd rather pay 40% of my salary in taxes than to live in pure capitalism. Do not forget, that Marxism was created as a reaction to the ills of predatory capitalism. If the greed of the rich empoverishes the population too much, you are risking social unrest and revolution. So some measure of wealth redistribution through socialism is actually in the interest of the rich too.


Socialism is parasitic by design. It can't actually survive without leaching off of capitalism. Where pure socialism has been tried, misery and mass murder have followed. In contrast, the rise of capitalism launched an unprecedented exponential improvement in the human condition, in spite of the abuses that can come with capitalism. The fact that there is potential for abuse within capitalism does not negate the fact that no other economic system ever devised had lifted mankind so far out of poverty and increased the standard of living of so many as capitalism has. Socialism can only work in incredibly small doses and only where it has a robust capitalist system from which to leach..


----------



## starthrower

The leaching works both ways. The other side of the coin is corporate welfare.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> Socialism is parasitic by design. It can't actually survive without leaching off of capitalism. Where pure socialism has been tried, misery and mass murder have followed. In contrast, the rise of capitalism launched an unprecedented exponential improvement in the human condition, in spite of the abuses that can come with capitalism. The fact that there is potential for abuse within capitalism does not negate the fact that no other economic system ever devised had lifted mankind so far out of poverty and increased the standard of living of so many as capitalism has. Socialism can only work in incredibly small doses and only where it has a robust capitalist system from which to leach..


A country, please, practicing pure socialism (maybe North Korea, but who wants to live there?--certainly not the North Koreans! The usual straw man of "Socialism" is rituallly dragged out and set on fire by followers of Ayn Rand or her fellow travelers, when everybody else is discussing the enlightened social democracies of northwestern Europe. Typical effort to distract.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> The leaching works both ways. The other side of the coin is corporate welfare.


The difference is that that is a bug of capitalism, not a feature. Capitalism could exist in the absence of a state from which to receive corporate welfare. Socialism can't work without the existence of a coercive State that can take control. And it can't actually work unless that state has already been made successful by capitalism. Socialism, by it's very nature, requires state restriction of freedom in some form. Capitalism doesn't have any requirement for restricted liberty. It can exist in a purely free form, where everyone is free to enter into, or not, a transaction with another.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> A country, please, practicing pure socialism (maybe North Korea, but who wants to live there?--certainly not the North Koreans! The usual straw man of "Socialism" is rituallly dragged out and set on fire by followers of Ayn Rand or her fellow travelers, when everybody else is discussing the enlightened social democracies of northwestern Europe. Typical effort to distract.


You didn't read what I said. Pure socialism can't exist. It only works when heavily diluted in a majority capitalist system from which it can sustain itself, parasitically. At best, it can only be successful as a very minor role in a majority capitalist economic system. But the rubes who now declare themselves socialists, like Jaack was arguing, don't recognize that. Their illiteracy about what socialism actually is has led them to call for the replacement of capitalism with socialism, not just the introduction of some socialist policies. Read what it is we are actually discussing before you bring your own misinterpretation of what I'm saying.


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> The difference is that that is a bug of capitalism, not a feature. Capitalism could exist in the absence of a state from which to receive corporate welfare. Socialism can't work without the existence of a coercive State that can take control. And it can't actually work unless that state has already been made successful by capitalism. Socialism, by it's very nature, requires state restriction of freedom in some form. Capitalism doesn't have any requirement for restricted liberty. It can exist in a purely free form, where everyone is free to enter into, or not, a transaction with another.


Except for the fact that capitalism never does exist without government handouts. And how about the glorious freedom and happiness workers experienced in the good old days of unregulated capitalism? It's a fallacy. Anyone can read about the sweatshops, child labor, 7 day work weeks, filthy work conditions, no heath care or worker's compensation for injured or maimed employees. And the peanuts they were paid while the bosses were making tens of millions of dollars worth 15 times as much as the value of today's dollar. The horror stories are all in the history books. The kind they don't tell kids about in school.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> You didn't read what I said. Pure socialism can't exist. It only works when heavily diluted in a majority capitalist system from which it can sustain itself, parasitically. At best, it can only be successful as a very minor role in a majority capitalist economic system. But the rubes who now declare themselves socialists, like Jaack was arguing, don't recognize that. Their illiteracy about what socialism actually is has led them to call for the replacement of capitalism with socialism, not just the introduction of some socialist policies. Read what it is we are actually discussing before you bring your own misinterpretation of what I'm saying.


Straw men, armies of them, on the march. Talk of illiteracy about socialism, we all know--or should know--that when "socialism" is being discussed, it is in terms of the democratic socialism, or social democracy, or Christian socialism of the progressive countries of Europe. To discuss such socialism as a "parasite" within capitalism is to fail to understand that the "parasite" is largely responsible for the overall health and well-being of those societies--which exceed the US in virtually every conceivable measure of human felicity. What is keeping America afloat these days is not the grotesque inequality of income and wealth fostered by crony capitalism, but rather massive increases in debt, deficits, government borrowing from its children on a scale hardly equaled. Despite the supposed increase in taxes that was expected from all this drug-induced growth, the deficit has mushroomed beyond recognition under today's crony capitalism. The Rich get richer; the rest of the country struggles along.

Are those calling for the replacement of capitalism with socialism, equal in number to those calling for the ability to discriminate against others on the basis of some kind of religious enthusiasm? Cutting food stamps? Slashing environmental regulations? Where are the socialists demanding subsidy of the coal industry--as good socialists, that should be item #1.

If you are going to discuss these issues, clearly state at the outset that you choose not to believe the statistics/facts concerning the measured higher quality of life in the social democrat economies of NW Europe--you have "alternative facts" showing these to be hell-holes of misery and want. And try to show that the USA has done a much better job of bringing well-being throughout its economic structure, top to bottom.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> Except for the fact that capitalism never does exist without government handouts. And how about the glorious freedom and happiness workers experienced in the good old days of unregulated capitalism? It's a fallacy. Anyone can read about the sweatshops, child labor, 7 day work weeks, filthy work conditions, no heath care or worker's compensation for injured or maimed employees. And the peanuts they were paid while the bosses were making tens of millions of dollars worth 15 times as much as the value of today's dollar. The horror stories are all in the history books. The kind they don't tell kids about in school.


And yet even with such flaws (not quite as widespread as socialists would have you believe, as they can only ever point too the same handful of complaints) capitalism is still the driving factor behind the unprecedented advancement of mankind. Show me one country based predominantly off off some other economic system that has produced anywhere near the improvements in the standard of living that capitalism. Even China has come to realize the need for some capitalist reforms for their economy to survive. No majority socialist economic system has brought anything but misery. It is parasitic and socialists should thank capitalism for making, at best, minor socialist policies possible.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> And yet even with such flaws (not quite as widespread as socialists would have you believe, as they can only ever point too the same handful of complaints) capitalism is still the driving factor behind the unprecedented advancement of mankind. Show me one country based predominantly off off some other economic system that has produced anywhere near the improvements in the standard of living that capitalism. Even China has come to realize the need for some capitalist reforms for their economy to survive. No majority socialist economic system has brought anything but misery. It is parasitic and socialists should thank capitalism for making, at best, minor socialist policies possible.


Please list for us those advocating a "majority socialist economic system". Maduro? Kim? Capitalists should thank democratic socialism for making capitalism endurable anywhere where people throughout a society live abundant, comfortable lives. There are apologists for predatory capitalism--maybe some right here on TC--who want to roll back the changes of not only FDR but also Teddy Roosevelt and return to the Gilded Age of the Robber Barons, child labor, and You"re On Your Own healthcare and old age security.


----------



## starthrower

I'm not advocating for any other economic system. But decisions like Citizens United need to be repealed. Corporations must be subject to the authority of sovereign nations. Companies can sue governments on the grounds of free speech and rights ordained for individuals. This is not a healthy development. Nobody wants communism or pure socialism but let's meet in the middle somewhere so it's a win win situation.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> I'm not advocating for any other economic system. But decisions like Citizens United need to be repealed. Corporations must be subject to the authority of sovereign nations. Companies can sue governments on the grounds of free speech and rights ordained for individuals. This is not a healthy development. Nobody wants communism or pure socialism but let's meet in the middle somewhere so it's a win win situation.


Corporations are nothing but collections of individuals. Why should rights be restricted simply because a group of people with similar interests are coming together and speaking as one? And off speech rights of corporations should be limited, why shouldn't speech rights of other groups be limited? What about unions that lobby? Or political parties, for that matter? Why should those groups be granted speech rights just like individuals, and the ability to spend money to influence politics, but not corporations? And that is all based on this fallacious notion that money can buy elections. Hillary Clinton spent much more than Trump in 2016. By this logic, Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg should be leading the Democratic primary polls.

And what corporations in this country are you claiming aren't subject to the government? But let me pose this question - the river that was horribly polluted by the EPA a few years ago. If a private company had done that, is there any doubt in your mind they would have, at the bare minimum, been heavily fined, if not sued and lost numerous rights? And yet the EPA faced no consequences. Why would it be better for us to put even more power in the hands of unaccountable bureaucracies? Where one party will defend it if it is seem to be politically useful? Democrats used to think the FBI and CIA needed to have their powers greatly restricted, but now support every abuse, because those abuses were detrimental to Trump. And the GOP does the same. Bureaucracies face no consequences as long as they can pit one political party against the other. No roadblock to suing a company exists, which is how it should be.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Please list for us those advocating a "majority socialist economic system". Maduro? Kim? Capitalists should thank democratic socialism for making capitalism endurable anywhere where people throughout a society live abundant, comfortable lives. There are apologists for predatory capitalism--maybe some right here on TC--who want to roll back the changes of not only FDR but also Teddy Roosevelt and return to the Gilded Age of the Robber Barons, child labor, and You"re On Your Own healthcare and old age security.


Entitlement spending from your beloved socialist programs is the single biggest driver of debt in this country. Off you want to be taken seriously over your objections to the size off the debt, you need to come up with realistic reforms in that area beyond just raising taxes on the rich. We can't afford our current entitlement programs, and that problem will only get worse, even without all the new promises of socialist politicians, like free universal college, eliminating student debt, a public option (if not Medicare for all), and other pipe dreams. Baby boomers are retiring, and the birth rate is falling. Norway is able to support their programs through their massive oil revenues. Are you okay with Americans increasing fossil fuel production to pay for your socialist wish list?


----------



## Guest

Capitalism had lifted people out of poverty. No socialist policy, regardless of size, had ever lifted anyone out of poverty. At best they merely support those in poverty. Johnson's Great Society and his war on poverty have left the level of poverty at the same place for decades. No significant number of people who come to rely on welfare, food stamps, social security, ever rise back out again. You can't socialize a country to economic success.

Capitalism may very well be based in greed and self interest, but socialism is based in jealousy, jealousy that someone had something I don't and we should have the government take from them and give to me.

And speak ill all you want of corporate welfare. I agree on that point. There is far too much, and it should end. But off the two of us, I think you'll miss it more. The vast majority of the green energy movement would disappear if there wasn't large amounts of government money propping it up.


----------



## amfortas

DrMike said:


> Capitalism may very well be based in greed and self interest, but socialism is based in jealousy, jealousy that someone had something I don't and we should have the government take from them and give to me.


Or there's always compassion.


----------



## Guest

amfortas said:


> Or there's always compassion.


When I can be thrown in prison if I try to opt out, I don't think really think you can call it compassion. Compassion is me freely giving to another, not having the government rob Peter to pay Paul.


----------



## Strange Magic

(Sigh). Ever the ideologue, armored with certainty. The ideologue weighs everything against the received doctrine of what is good, permissable, expounded from above by a guru. In contrast, the pragmatists like FDR and the tinkerers of the New Deal, try things to see what works to help people live better lives. The good they try to keep and build on; what doesn't work they attempt to discard. Facts, evidence, history, experiment are their tools. The pragmatists crafted the successful mixed economies of much of the developed world, resulting in happy, healthy, educated populations. And the best of American social programs are the result of that same pragmatism--even Richard Nixon had a progressive plan for better healthcare coverage. But here instead we are treated to the same old screeds decrying socialism virtually in any form, under any names, in defiance of facts, evidence, history. The mind is closed by the powerful clamps of a relentless addiction to ideology.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> (Sigh). Ever the ideologue, armored with certainty. The ideologue weighs everything against the received doctrine of what is good, permissable, expounded from above by a guru. In contrast, the pragmatists like FDR and the tinkerers of the New Deal, try things to see what works to help people live better lives. The good they try to keep and build on; what doesn't work they attempt to discard. Facts, evidence, history, experiment are their tools. The pragmatists crafted the successful mixed economies of much of the developed world, resulting in happy, healthy, educated populations. And the best of American social programs are the result of that same pragmatism--even Richard Nixon had a progressive plan for better healthcare coverage. But here instead we are treated to the same old screeds decrying socialism virtually in any form, under any names, in defiance of facts, evidence, history. The mind is closed by the powerful clamps of a relentless addiction to ideology.


Right. You aren't an ideologue. Glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that.

This conceit that progressives/socialists are really just pragmatists is utter horsesh**. FDR was absolutely driven by an ideology of centralizing more power in the federal government, as was Woodrow Wilson and LBJ. They conveniently claimed they were just trying to help people, but it was about increasing the power of the government at the expense of the private sector.

Yes. I freely admit I'm an ideologue. My ideology is one of increasing personal liberty, and returning limits to government power to where they were originally set in the Constitution. In spite of the downsides, free market capitalism and increased personal liberty are always preferable to socialism and increased unaccountable government bureaucracies running those socialist policies.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> Right. You aren't an ideologue. Glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that.
> 
> This conceit that progressives/socialists are really just pragmatists is utter horsesh**. FDR was absolutely driven by an ideology of centralizing more power in the federal government, as was Woodrow Wilson and LBJ. They conveniently claimed they were just trying to help people, but it was about increasing the power of the government at the expense of the private sector.
> 
> Yes. I freely admit I'm an ideologue. My ideology is one of increasing personal liberty, and returning limits to government power to where they were originally set in the Constitution. In spite of the downsides, free market capitalism and increased personal liberty are always preferable to socialism and increased unaccountable government bureaucracies running those socialist policies.


Good you admit what everyone has understood for years. And try reading about FDR and the New Deal. You could start a new habit of becoming informed by reading William E. Leuchtenburg's classic _Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal_. Then you could tell us exactly what current protections and aids to people you would roll back. Start with Social Security? Medicare? The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation? Blow up all the bridges, buildings, infrastructure built by the PWA and the CCC? But in a duel between facts and history on one side and your ideology on the other, ideology will always win because it must not be allowed to lose.


----------



## starthrower

Corporations are not just a group of individuals. This has been studied and once a company grows beyond a certain number of employees it takes on a life of it's own. Corporations do terrible things. They pollute rivers and waterways, dump toxic waste, commit crimes, abuse human beings and animals. But I bet if you were to ask most people who work for these companies they wouldn't see themselves as bad people. Even the top executives who are making these decisions. No, a huge artificial entity with unlimited resources cannot be afforded the same rights as individuals. This is nonsense.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> Corporations are not just a group of individuals. This has been studied and once a company grows beyond a certain number of employees it takes on a life of it's own. Corporations do terrible things. They pollute rivers and waterways, dump toxic waste, commit crimes, abuse human beings and animals. But I bet if you were to ask most people who work for these companies they wouldn't see themselves as bad people. Even the top executives who are making these decisions. No, a huge artificial entity with unlimited resources cannot be afforded the same rights as individuals. This is nonsense.


And what do you say about the EPA polluting rivers and facing no consequences?

So a corporation is not a collection of individuals with common interests and shouldn't be accorded free speech rights, but massive unions, many of which have been infiltrated by the mafia, and who for so long forced people to join and pay dues regardless of whether they agreed with their lobbying objectives, should be accorded free speech rights? Explain that double standard.


----------



## Guest

^^ Dear DrMike, you seem to be terribly "exercised" these days. To help you calm down, may I offer you a glass or two of Sylvaner wine or maybe a Riesling from the Turkheim wine-producing *cooperative* here in Alsace? I know that any word relating to cooperatives (people working together to their mutual benefit), socialism and so on is likely to cause you unwarranted heartache but really the wines I propose are really quite fine.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> And what do you say about the EPA polluting rivers and facing no consequences?


A wonderful example of Whataboutism! Well done indeed! That crazy, polluting EPA ought to be shut down.


----------



## Guest

I find the best antidote to most of the resentments and grievances on offer here is a happy and successful life with the accumulation of as much wealth as possible!!:lol:


----------



## starthrower

The EPA, and every other government agency has been infiltrated by corporate tools. Of course this is a result of political favors and paybacks for campaign support which is why the US needs publicly funded campaigns. But the Roberts court decided we needed more special interest money and corruption injected into the political process. So here we are.


----------



## Strange Magic

The Roberts court has also given us an insane interpretation of the Holy Second Amendment that says, in essence, everybody can have their own machine gun, and maybe even a flamethrower as well.


----------



## starthrower

I don't know how to copy and paste with my phone, but there's a very good article in the May 2012 issue of the New Yorker entitled Money Unlimited by Jeffery Toobin. It covers the history of the Citizens United case, and the more than century old battle over corporate citizenship. Thom Hartmann wrote an excellent book on the subject. It's called Unequal Protection.


----------



## amfortas

DrMike said:


> When I can be thrown in prison if I try to opt out, I don't think really think you can call it compassion. Compassion is me freely giving to another, not having the government rob Peter to pay Paul.


We were talking about the motivations behind a given political/economic system as a whole, not the inclinations of every individual within it. Not everyone who lives under capitalism is greedy and self-centered, yet they are forced to operate in a system that promotes and rewards such traits.

On the whole, if society is going to make demands on me, I'd rather they were addressed to my better angel, not my worse.


----------



## Guest

TalkingHead said:


> ^^ Dear DrMike, you seem to be terribly "exercised" these days. To help you calm down, may I offer you a glass or two of Sylvaner wine or maybe a Riesling from the Turkheim wine-producing *cooperative* here in Alsace? I know that any word relating to cooperatives (people working together to their mutual benefit), socialism and so on is likely to cause you unwarranted heartache but really the wines I propose are really quite fine.


I don't drink. Private coops are absolutely fine. If individuals wish to work together in that manner, more power to them. Just don't force it at the national level. That is not the same. Nobody will be punished by the government for not joining a wine cooperative.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> A wonderful example of Whataboutism! Well done indeed! That crazy, polluting EPA ought to be shut down.


It is not whataboutism. Get a new talking point. It is a salient example of why it is NOT better to put more power into the hands of the government rather than private enterprises. If a corporation had been responsible for polluting that river, rather than the EPA, you know more people would have been held accountable than were. Government bureaucracies face no consequences for their actions so long as punishments are seen as partisan. Hence the Democrats will excuse any abuses and incompetences, if not crimes, by things like Obamacare, the EPA, and now (apparently) the FBI because Republicans "don't like" those organizations. At the same time, Republicans will do idiotic things like support any stupid military expenditure because Democrats "don't like" the military.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> The EPA, and every other government agency has been infiltrated by corporate tools. Of course this is a result of political favors and paybacks for campaign support which is why the US needs publicly funded campaigns. But the Roberts court decided we needed more special interest money and corruption injected into the political process. So here we are.


I notice you won't address my question. Why should mafia-infiltrated unions that for so long forced membership have free speech rights, but not corporations? If you don't have a good rationale, just say so.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> The Roberts court has also given us an insane interpretation of the Holy Second Amendment that says, in essence, everybody can have their own machine gun, and maybe even a flamethrower as well.


You are an idiot. It has done no such thing. The 2nd Amendment is a hell of a lot clearer than the made up right to an abortion that I have yet to find in the Constitution. And yet Democrats have no problem viewing abortion rights as unlimited, while finding all kinds of reasons to completely ignore the plain language in the second amendment.


----------



## Guest

amfortas said:


> We were talking about the motivations behind a given political/economic system as a whole, not the inclinations of every individual within it. Not everyone who lives under capitalism is greedy and self-centered, yet they are forced to operate in a system that promotes and rewards such traits.
> 
> On the whole, if society is going to make demands on me, I'd rather they were addressed to my better angel, not my worse.


Nothing in politics addresses our better angels. That isn't how it works. Perfection of mankind can't be achieved through government, no matter how much the progressives try to "plan" and "experiment" us to utopia. We must deal with people how they are, and use their self-interest to come to good ends. That is why capitalism works. Yes, it is powered by self-interest, but you also have to create something that somebody wants. It doesn't matter how greedy and self-centered I am if I can't offer somebody something they are willing to pay me for. The problem when government gets involved is that now you prop up things that people might not want, forcing other people to pay for it.

At any rate, I don't believe that any policy that requires the government forcing anybody to do something can really be called compassionate. Like I said before - me helping a poor person is compassionate; the government forcing me, through the IRS, to give money to a poor person is not compassionate, either from me (I'm being coerced to pay) or the IRS (they are giving away other peoples' money).

Compassion works best at the individual level. Government should focus more on protecting liberties and rights.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> I don't know how to copy and paste with my phone, but there's a very good article in the May 2012 issue of the New Yorker entitled Money Unlimited by Jeffery Toobin. It covers the history of the Citizens United case, and the more than century old battle over corporate citizenship. Thom Hartmann wrote an excellent book on the subject. It's called Unequal Protection.


Thom Hartmann! Hah! Is he still being paid by RT? Am I to take that seriously?


----------



## mmsbls

This thread has moved from a discussion of Roger Scruton to a purely political debate. Worse, as is seemingly always the case, that debate has led to rather uncivil behavior. Please either talk about Roger Scruton or refrain from posting in the thread.


----------



## Strange Magic

A mild but accurate observation that the OP began the derailing of the OP's own thread with Post #6. And thus we proceeded downhill at an accelerating rate. So we watch the movie again: the seemingly innocent first landing of the cast fly on the water, then watch the expected fish rise. If they do not, or are slow, the fisher (troller?) mixes a little blood into the water, hoping for turmoil. We get turmoil, and the inevitable red type warning after a credentialed Doctor of Ideology labels another poster an idiot. I fear, like Dylan, we are all idiots for not devising a mechanism to either get these discussions down into the Groups where we are told they belong, or getting the mods to intervene far more quickly.


----------



## starthrower

The Groups aren't conducive to stimulating dialog or arguments due to the fact that only two to five members participate in any one topic of discussion. And if it's a political subject it's always three or four moderate to liberal types against one conservative. And it's the same members every time. So mostly I just surf the forum's various topics and watch Seth Meyers for laughs.


----------



## Strange Magic

starthrower said:


> The Groups aren't conducive to stimulating dialog or arguments due to the fact that only two to five members participate in any one topic of discussion. And if it's a political subject it's always three or four moderate to liberal types against one conservative. And it's the same members every time. So mostly I just surf the forum's various topics and watch Seth Meyers for laughs.


A chicken-and-egg situation with Groups. If notice of the Groups were more prominently displayed and the trail to them more clear and well-lit, and the Management more proactive and specific about redirecting political and religious traffic to the relevant Groups, then there just might be more participants within the Groups to both raise their profile and ease the pressure on threads in the other parts of the Forum.


----------



## starthrower

Understood, but I'm assuming most members are here to discuss musical topics. Even some of the musical topics are filled with religious and philosophical discussion, and some politics. It's been a trend ever since Mahlerian made his exodus. And I'm guilty for participation in some of these threads. But mainly I'd like to discover a new composer or two I can get excited about.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> The Groups aren't conducive to stimulating dialog or arguments due to the fact that only two to five members participate in any one topic of discussion. And if it's a political subject it's always *three or four moderate to liberal types* against one conservative. And it's the same members every time. So mostly I just surf the forum's various topics and watch Seth Meyers for laughs.


Right. Moderate to liberal. There are no moderates down there. They are all pretty much extreme left.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> Right. Moderate to liberal. There are no moderates down there. They are all pretty much extreme left.


If you favor Social Security and the other reforms of the Square Deal, New Deal and the various Civil Rights acts of the past 120 years, Doctors of Ideology pronounce you "Extreme Left". Maybe Mitt Romney, Godfather of Obamacare, is now "Extreme Left" for having a conscience.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> If you favor Social Security and the other reforms of the Square Deal, New Deal and the various Civil Rights acts of the past 120 years, Doctors of Ideology pronounce you "Extreme Left". Maybe Mitt Romney is now "Extreme Left" for having a conscience.


Nope. If you engage in every form of conspiracy mongering about conservatives and see Russians plotting around every corner, you are an extreme leftist. Nobody down there even talks about those things you mention. They are all far left and immediately fling insults at anybody who dares disagree. There is no desire for any opposing views. You have exactly what you want down there - a left-wing echo chamber where you can all confirm your own biases.


----------



## starthrower

So we're biased stating facts about Trump's destructive and pathologic behavior? This idea of painting opinions or facts you don't like as radical left is nonsense. Radical left is communism. You say you don't like the political groups but you are lurking and reading every post. Maybe you should get a life Mr PhD.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> Nope. If you engage in every form of conspiracy mongering about conservatives and see Russians plotting around every corner, you are an extreme leftist. Nobody down there even talks about those things you mention. They are all far left and immediately fling insults at anybody who dares disagree. There is no desire for any opposing views. You have exactly what you want down there - a left-wing echo chamber where you can all confirm your own biases.


I do see Russians infiltrating the Holy National Rifle Association (among our other institutions). Mariina Butina was recently deported for being a clumsy Russian operative and got caught attempting to further Putin's so far wonderful effort to destabilize American society, using the Useful Idiots so prevalent here. One would learn more about that from the Extreme Leftists down in the Political Groups unless one were blinded by one's IdD (Doctorate of Right-Wing Ideology).


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> So we're biased stating facts about Trump's destructive and pathologic behavior? This idea of painting opinions or facts you don't like as radical left is nonsense. Radical left is communism. You say you don't like the political groups but you are lurking and reading every post. Maybe you should get a life Mr PhD.


Nope. I don't support Trump. Didn't vote for him. Think what he did was arguably impeachable. I was fine with all of that. But it goes beyond that. Your side up until recently believed there existed a tape of Trump watching prostitutes pee on each other. You were okay with an investigation launched by the Obama administration led by the FBI of a presidential campaign based on the opposition research of his opponent, who just coincidentally had been Obama's Secretary of State. You people proper to your new found respect for Mitt Romney spent the 2012 election telling people Romney was as bad as what you now claim Trump is. Your policy preferences are far left. That is why I call you far left. You may think you are moderate, but compared to what? Not the median voter in this country. You think because your views are mainstream in the political groups of a classical music forum makes you moderate?


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> Nope. If you engage in every form of conspiracy mongering about conservatives and see Russians plotting around every corner, you are an extreme leftist. Nobody down there even talks about those things you mention. They are all far left and immediately fling insults at anybody who dares disagree. There is no desire for any opposing views. You have exactly what you want down there - a left-wing echo chamber where you can all confirm your own biases.


I'd have to agree with this. The extreme Left once used to the 'the Left' and now their whackadoodle obsessions with Diversity, Inclusion and every other bit of social engineering is nothing short of terrifying. The Left has lost its way; the polity needs both Left and Right in harmony. Instead the Left has now gone so far that any kind of co-operation is out of the question. It's terribly sad because, as I've said before, it's debilitating for people who are educated to feel victimhood and grievance and it just drags them down - where they can be controlled by others. There is only black and white for the extreme Left. I blame the institutions for all of it, starting with universities - particularly in the USA. Many people are worried about it, not just conservatives.

Sir Roger Scruton had nailed, elegantly and with finesse, all these arguments and he's just so very much missed right at a critical time when he's needed. The Left is so good at reputational destruction, de-platforming, censuring, thought and speech control. What's happened to you people? You used to be at the forefront in the fight for freedom of speech!! Denial of any of this is futile; it's out there in the public square for all to see. And the more Trump succeeds the further Left the 'progressives' go. It's a chicken and egg situation. No, guys: *that's not how to win the trust of the people*! Get back to core business which was once the staple diet of the Democrats.

Don't even get me started on the hideous culture wars. I partly blame conservatives for this for being MIA and not protecting their patch and policing the behaviours in their institutions like the church, corporations etc.


----------



## Strange Magic

Interesting that the two most honorable and decent recent "republican" nominees as presidential candidates--John McCain and Mitt Romney--have been savaged by the Military Hero and Christian Knight Trump and his pack of sniveling, snarling hyenas. Democrats never sank to remotely near the level of Trump in opposing McCain and Romney. In retrospect, compared to Trump by any measure, McCain and Romney are the true martyrs for the cause of decency in "republican" politics. And people keep conveniently forgetting that principled conservatives and principled evangelicals and other religious have disowned Trump and left the party that once was the Party of Lincoln. Those who cannot see the evil in Trump and Trumpism, or who enable, explain, excuse it,. are doomed to be destroyed by their blindness.

The reason why Romney will be defamed by the Trump hyenas is because by his example, he showed up the others' lack of morals and decency openly, publicly. Nobody likes to be shown to be both evil and to look and smell evil, while some small voice within has told them they are wrong--the reaction is to punish the truth-teller. The preceding does not apply to Mitch McConnell--he is beyond evil and there is no inner voice. Trump accuses Romney of "hiding behind his religion"--does this not induce the urge to vomit?


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Strange Magic said:


> A wonderful example of Whataboutism! Well done indeed! That crazy, polluting EPA ought to be shut down.


If the epa workers who polluted the river in Colorado had not been government workers they would have gone to jail. Why should the not be treated the same as non government workers or government workers above the law?


----------



## Strange Magic

Johnnie Burgess said:


> If the epa workers who polluted the river in Colorado had not been government workers they would have gone to jail. Why should the not be treated the same as non government workers or government workers above the law?


Wonderful question, Johnnie. I was wondering when you would ask it. What is your answer?


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Strange Magic said:


> Interesting that the two most honorable and decent recent "republican" nominees as presidential candidates--John McCain and Mitt Romney--have been savaged by the Military Hero and Christian Knight Trump and his pack of sniveling, snarling hyenas. Democrats never sank to remotely near the level of Trump in opposing McCain and Romney. In retrospect, compared to Trump by any measure, McCain and Romney are the true martyrs for the cause of decency in "republican" politics. And people keep conveniently forgetting that principled conservatives and principled evangelicals and other religious have disowned Trump and left the party that once was the Party of Lincoln. Those who cannot see the evil in Trump and Trumpism, or who enable, explain, excuse it,. are doomed to be destroyed by their blindness.
> 
> The reason why Romney will be defamed by the Trump hyenas is because by his example, he showed up the others' lack of morals and decency openly, publicly. Nobody likes to be shown to be both evil and to look and smell evil, while some small voice within has told them they are wrong--the reaction is to punish the truth-teller. The preceding does not apply to Mitch McConnell--he is beyond evil and there is no inner voice. Trump accuses Romney of "hiding behind his religion"--does this not induce the urge to vomit?


Harry Reid went on tv before the 2012 election saying Romney did not pay taxes. Romney sdid not defend himself against that charge. After the election a reporter showed to Reid that Romney paid his taxes, Reid admitted he lied and said what he got the result he wanted and the truth did not matter.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Interesting that the two most honorable and decent recent "republican" nominees as presidential candidates--John McCain and Mitt Romney--have been savaged by the Military Hero and Christian Knight Trump and his pack of sniveling, snarling hyenas. Democrats never sank to remotely near the level of Trump in opposing McCain and Romney. In retrospect, compared to Trump by any measure, McCain and Romney are the true martyrs for the cause of decency in "republican" politics. And people keep conveniently forgetting that principled conservatives and principled evangelicals and other religious have disowned Trump and left the party that once was the Party of Lincoln. Those who cannot see the evil in Trump and Trumpism, or who enable, explain, excuse it,. are doomed to be destroyed by their blindness.
> 
> The reason why Romney will be defamed by the Trump hyenas is because by his example, he showed up the others' lack of morals and decency openly, publicly. Nobody likes to be shown to be both evil and to look and smell evil, while some small voice within has told them they are wrong--the reaction is to punish the truth-teller. The preceding does not apply to Mitch McConnell--he is beyond evil and there is no inner voice. Trump accuses Romney of "hiding behind his religion"--does this not induce the urge to vomit?


You lie as easily as most people breath. Democrats savaged Romney. His attempt to ensure that women were hired in his governorship was turned into misogyny. He was accused of killing people. Biden claimed if Romney were to be elected, he would put black people back in chains. Remember the ad Democrats ran showing Paul Ryan shoving an old person over a cliff? Romney claimed that Russia was out most significant geopolitical adversary, and Obama and Democrats mocked him. The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, on the floor of the Senate, lied about having knowledge that Romney had not paid his taxes. Democrats resorted to despicable tactics to smear Romney.

You are either ignorant of these facts or are purposely deceitful. Either way, you are blinded by your partisanship and ignore the sons in your side.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Strange Magic said:


> Wonderful question, Johnnie. I was wondering when you would ask it. What is your answer?


They belong in jail.
What is your answer or will you again not answer?


----------



## Guest

By the way, venerated Democrat Ted Kennedy smeared Romney's religion when Romney challenged him for the Senate seat way back when. Democrats have been smearing Romney since long before Trump ever did.


----------



## Strange Magic

Clearly my critics have been in a profound coma for the past three years, while I have been very much awake. To be unable to discriminate between the scattershot fusillades that normal politicians fire at one another--Obama et al against McCain and Romney (the Godfather of Obamacare) and the torrent, the Niagara, the Victoria Falls, the Amazon of filth and lies that daily, hourly emerge from the several orifices of the Trump Mafia, is to betray a willful blindness and self-deception (with the hope and expectation of deceiving others) that has no parallel in American political history. Every responsible news outlet now must fact-check every emission from the Trumpworld of Alternative Facts. The truly scary thing is that the mad boy Trump believes most of the gibberish he utters: "somebody told me; I read somewhere", etc. etc. Meanwhile Putin smiles.....


----------



## Strange Magic

Johnnie Burgess said:


> They belong in jail.
> What is your answer or will you again not answer?


People who have committed crimes and been properly arrested and tried and found guilty should be punished. Happy now?


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Strange Magic said:


> People who have committed crimes and been properly arrested and tried and found guilty should be punished. Happy now?


You do know as government workers they were not charged. Should they have been charged?


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> By the way, venerated Democrat Ted Kennedy smeared Romney's religion when Romney challenged him for the Senate seat way back when. Democrats have been smearing Romney since long before Trump ever did.


I expect from you a full-throated defense of Romney's moral courage in refusing to accede to Trump's violation of his office, the Constitution, and the public trust. I am looking at my watch, and hope to read it shortly.


----------



## Luchesi

breathe, breathe


----------



## Jacck

DrMike said:


> Nope. If you engage in every form of conspiracy mongering about conservatives and see Russians plotting around every corner, you are an extreme leftist. Nobody down there even talks about those things you mention. They are all far left and immediately fling insults at anybody who dares disagree. There is no desire for any opposing views. You have exactly what you want down there - a left-wing echo chamber where you can all confirm your own biases.


I do not much care about US domestic politics, ie the racism, evangelicals, identity politics, abortions, death penalties, guns etc - all those things from a European perspective seem bizarre. But I have the option the see the US policy from the outside. It is pretty much obvious that Trump is not making America great, and that despite all his madness and chaos, there is one thing that is constant - somehow he never criticizes Putin and Putin somehow mostly profits from his policies. Trump is destroying the transatlantic alliance (Putin profits), Trump is destroying the EU (Putin profits), Trump withdraws from Middle East (Putin profits), Trump goes to war against China (Putin profits), Trump destroys US democracy and creates deep divisions (Putin profits). The Russians, in fact, see Trump as your Yeltsin
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/trump-your-yeltsin-29092
that is as someone who is destroying the US empire. It is an objective fact, and history will not doubt judge it that way.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Strange Magic said:


> Clearly my critics have been in a profound coma for the past three years, while I have been very much awake. To be unable to discriminate between the scattershot fusillades that normal politicians fire at one another--Obama et al against McCain and Romney (the Godfather of Obamacare) and the torrent, the Niagara, the Victoria Falls, the Amazon of filth and lies that daily, hourly emerge from the several orifices of the Trump Mafia, is to betray a willful blindness and self-deception (with the hope and expectation of deceiving others) that has no parallel in American political history. Every responsible news outlet now must fact-check every emission from the Trumpworld of Alternative Facts. The truly scary thing is that the mad boy Trump believes most of the gibberish he utters: "somebody told me; I read somewhere", etc. etc. Meanwhile Putin smiles.....


Again you insult people who disagree with you. Do you believe anyone can not have a different opinion than you and not be a wake?


----------



## Strange Magic

Johnnie Burgess said:


> You do know as government workers they were not charged. Should they have been charged?


If upon investigation they were found to have committed a crime, they should have been charged and arrested. Are we having fun yet?


----------



## Strange Magic

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Again you insult people who disagree with you. Do you believe anyone can not have a different opinion than you and not be a wake?


What about ("Whataboutism!") the mean, mean people who insult me? Am I not loved?


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Clearly my critics have been in a profound coma for the past three years, while I have been very much awake. To be unable to discriminate between the scattershot fusillades that normal politicians fire at one another--Obama et al against McCain and Romney (the Godfather of Obamacare) and the torrent, the Niagara, the Victoria Falls, the Amazon of filth and lies that daily, hourly emerge from the several orifices of the Trump Mafia, is to betray a willful blindness and self-deception (with the hope and expectation of deceiving others) that has no parallel in American political history. Every responsible news outlet now must fact-check every emission from the Trumpworld of Alternative Facts. The truly scary thing is that the mad boy Trump believes most of the gibberish he utters: "somebody told me; I read somewhere", etc. etc. Meanwhile Putin smiles.....


Wow. And you don't consider yourself an ideologue. Way to rationalize. Accusing Romney of misogyny, of directly causing the death of people, of desiring to re-enslave black people, attacking his religion, tax evasion - those are all just "the scattershot fusillades that normal politicians fire at one another." No. They were lies. They were as despicable as anything Trump is now saying about Romney. They sought to do the exact same thing - destroy a person with lies. It really doesn't matter whether they came from Obama, Biden, or Trump. They were lies to destroy a person's political career. And the fact that you can't see it just proves that you should not even be considered a serious person in this arena.

Romney showed more courage than any Democrat. How many Democrats voted to convict Clinton in his impeachment trial? One of the charges - perjury in front of a grand jury - was blatantly true. Hell, he even lied about it on national TV. Did even one Democrat vote in favor of that charge, even knowing he wouldn't be removed? No.

You talk about Trump's gibberish statements, "somebody told me; I read somewhere." Might I remind you of this tidbit:





On the floor of the Senate. Wouldn't even apologize or walk back his lie - after all, "Romney didn't win, did he?" That was all the justification Democrats needed for that lie - it got their man re-elected. By any means necessary.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> I do not much care about US domestic politics, ie the racism, evangelicals, identity politics, abortions, death penalties, guns etc - all those things from a European perspective seem bizarre. But I have the option the see the US policy from the outside. It is pretty much obvious that Trump is not making America great, and that despite all his madness and chaos, there is one thing that is constant - somehow he never criticizes Putin and Putin somehow mostly profits from his policies. Trump is destroying the transatlantic alliance (Putin profits), Trump is destroying the EU (Putin profits), Trump withdraws from Middle East (Putin profits), Trump goes to war against China (Putin profits), Trump destroys US democracy and creates deep divisions (Putin profits). The Russians, in fact, see Trump as your Yeltsin
> https://nationalinterest.org/feature/trump-your-yeltsin-29092
> that is as someone who is destroying the US empire. It is an objective fact, and history will not doubt judge it that way.


Funny how differently we see things. I don't have to agree with everything Trump does. In fact, I really only strongly support his judicial nominees. His domestic policies are actually quite in line with what Democrats used to believe before Trump - lots of "infrastructure" spending and social programs. I don't like a lot of his trade policies. But your view of these things as only helping Putin is looking at all of this with quite the jaundiced eye. It just might be that these things are beneficial to Americans, regardless of what it does for Putin. You are like the proverbial hammer, that sees every problem as a nail.

Destroying the transatlantic alliance? You mean our European "allies" who have been insulting us for decades? We know Europeans view us with disdain, regardless of who sits in the White House. Destroying the EU? How? The EU is destroying itself. The destruction of the EU is solely of the EU's making, and preceded Trump (and will outlive Trump). Withdrawing from the Middle East? Nobody wants us there anyways, and now you complain that somebody is actually getting us out? Obama also wanted to withdraw from the Middle East. Was he also a Putin stooge? Going to war against China? Hardly. I don't like Trump's trade policies with China, and feel they are bad in the long run, because he ends up bailing out various sectors here to compensate for the deleterious impacts of his new trade deals. But going to war? And how exactly does Putin profit? You have a one-track mind. Destroys US democracy? In what way? He was properly elected in 2016 according to the rules set out in the Constitution. In spite of years of investigations, they never could find any proof that he colluded with anybody to steal the election. Hillary just managed to be an even worse candidate than him. The Ukraine thing was stupid. But the democracy is not in peril as a result. And the deep divisions predate Trump.

The U.S. is not an empire. Check your talking points. And for someone who doesn't care much about US domestic politics, you spout off quite a bit about them.

You want to know who is propping up Putin? Europe. They like to rant about him, but at the end of the day prove they are his lackeys because they are dependent on the oil he sells them. Putin profits because he knows none of you European neighbors will do a thing to him. Go ahead and push the blame onto Trump. It won't cover up your spinelessness against him. For crying out loud, how many Russian despots do we have to save you from? Learn to stand up for yourselves. You couldn't beat the Kaiser without us. You couldn't beat Hitler without us. You couldn't stand up to and defeat the Soviet Union without us. You couldn't handle the Balkans without us. Now you can't stand up to Russia without us. Grow a backbone and learn to fend for yourselves.


----------



## Strange Magic

Unhappily for the Doctor of Ideology's thesis, everything in the quote box that he referenced is totally true: Trump and his hyenas are fact-checked daily now by the responsible media, because, as the Good Doctor knows, the stream of lies issuing forth is unprecedented in American history. And where is DrMike's own heartfelt defense of Romney in the face of the attacks against him by the morally dead Party of Trump? The silence is deafening--he attacks those who attacked Romney in the heat of a standard political campaign yet is mute when Romney is rubbished by the moral leper Trump. I affirm that there are still a shrinking handful of uncompromised Republicans; the Doctor and his ilk cannot bring themselves to ever admit that any Democrat is ever in the right--instead we get Whataboutism on steroids. Sad. Meanwhile, Putin smiles....


----------



## starthrower

"You people"? Sounds like Archie Bunker talking.


----------



## Strange Magic

For someone who claims to be objective about Trump's utter failure as both POTUS. and as a human being, the Doctor's obvious ability to explain Trump, defend him, excuse him everything is truly wonderful to behold. I am in awe. Remember, Obama was worse......


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Unhappily for the Doctor of Ideology's thesis, everything in the quote box that he referenced is totally true: Trump and his hyenas are fact-checked daily now by the responsible media, because, as the Good Doctor knows, the stream of lies issuing forth is unprecedented in American history. And where is DrMike's own heartfelt defense of Romney in the face of the attacks against him by the morally dead Party of Trump? The silence is deafening--he attacks those who attacked Romney in the heat of a standard political campaign yet is mute when Romney is rubbished by the moral leper Trump. I affirm that there are still a shrinking handful of uncompromised Republicans; the Doctor and his ilk cannot bring themselves to ever admit that any Democrat is ever in the right--instead we get Whataboutism on steroids. Sad. Meanwhile, Putin smiles....


Typical of you. You can't defend the indefensible, so you just try to deflect onto me. Trump is not "my side." I think Romney showed courage, as I already said. And that Trump was wrong - I am already on record in this forum saying I'm fine with impeaching Trump. Do I think it merited removal from office, given the kinds of actions we have completely ignored from presidents in the last couple of decades? No. But I wouldn't have been upset had he been removed.

You apparently can't come to terms with the way your party attempted character assassination on Romney, and flat out lied, including on the floor of the Senate (for all your blustering about McConnell, you fail to realize that where the Senate now stands should be laid at the feet of Harry Reid). Democrats lied about Romney. Now Trump and his sycophants lie about Romney. I view you all as despicable. You aren't even silent about Democrat attacks on Romney - you justify and rationalize them. It is one thing to say that "his policies are bad for America." That isn't what Democrats said. They said he wanted to re-enslave black people. They said he didn't pay taxes for years. That isn't political spin. That is outright lying. Be a man and admit it. You have no honor. I left my party when they engaged in disgusting behavior like this. You rationalize yours.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> "You people"? Sounds like Archie Bunker talking.


What are you talking about? And nice. I suppose it was only a matter of time before a Democrat would drop back to your go-to defense of "racist!"


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> What about ("Whataboutism!") the mean, mean people who insult me? Am I not loved?


No. I don't think you are. You have fellow travelers on here. That is about it.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> If upon investigation they were found to have committed a crime, they should have been charged and arrested. Are we having fun yet?


And tell me - who would lead an investigation of pollution of a river? The EPA?


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> And tell me - who would lead an investigation of pollution of a river? The EPA?


These days, the Trump EPA is seriously compromised (as you know, and accept).


----------



## Strange Magic

> DrMike: "I view you all as despicable."


The Doctor's default position.

Here's a useful bit of Whataboutism: Back when George Herbert Walker Bush was vying with Bob Dole for the Republican nomination, an angry, bitter Dole demanded that Bush "stop lying about my position" on something or other. The Doctor is so choked by ideology that he cannot distinguish between ordinary and then discarded campaign rhetoric, and the steady stream of deliberate lies, smears, threats, insults that daily emanate from the soiled Oval Office and its creatures.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Strange Magic said:


> Unhappily for the Doctor of Ideology's thesis, everything in the quote box that he referenced is totally true: Trump and his hyenas are fact-checked daily now by the responsible media, because, as the Good Doctor knows, the stream of lies issuing forth is unprecedented in American history. And where is DrMike's own heartfelt defense of Romney in the face of the attacks against him by the morally dead Party of Trump? The silence is deafening--he attacks those who attacked Romney in the heat of a standard political campaign yet is mute when Romney is rubbished by the moral leper Trump. I affirm that there are still a shrinking handful of uncompromised Republicans; the Doctor and his ilk cannot bring themselves to ever admit that any Democrat is ever in the right--instead we get Whataboutism on steroids. Sad. Meanwhile, Putin smiles....


And can you ever say a democrat does anything wrong?


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> If upon investigation they were found to have committed a crime, they should have been charged and arrested. Are we having fun yet?


A study in contrasts:
This is from the Wikipedia page about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico


> In November 2012, BP and the United States Department of Justice settled federal criminal charges, with BP pleading guilty to 11 counts of manslaughter, two misdemeanors, and a felony count of lying to Congress. BP also agreed to four years of government monitoring of its safety practices and ethics, and the Environmental Protection Agency announced that BP would be temporarily banned from new contracts with the US government. BP and the Department of Justice agreed to a record-setting $4.525 billion in fines and other payments.[24][25][26] As of 2018, cleanup costs, charges and penalties had cost the company more than $65 billion.[27][28]
> 
> In September 2014, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that BP was primarily responsible for the oil spill because of its gross negligence and reckless conduct.[29] In July 2015, BP agreed to pay $18.7 billion in fines, the largest corporate settlement in United States history.[30]


In contrast, this is from the Wikipedia page about the 2015 Gold King Mine spill:


> The EPA has taken responsibility for the incident, but refused to pay for any damages claims filed after the accident on grounds of sovereign immunity, pending special authorization from Congress or re-filing of lawsuits in federal court.[8]





> There have been a number of recent lawsuits have been filed against the EPA since the Gold King Mine spill transpired. New Mexico is seeking compensation in the amount of $130 million, Utah is seeking compensation in the amount of $1.9 billion, and the Navajo Nation is seeking compensation in the amount of $130 million.[54] At first the EPA recommended people affected by the spill to file claims, however they retracted this statement in January 2017.[54] The EPA is now motioning to dismiss all lawsuits, stating that they have paid enough through the $29 million they have spent to clean up the Animas River and other contaminated areas.[54] *EPA officials say they have immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act and therefore do not owe more compensation.*[54]


Yes. It is SOOOOOO much better to have the government in charge of more things, because they are so much more accountable when they screw up.


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> What are you talking about? And nice. I suppose it was only a matter of time before a Democrat would drop back to your go-to defense of "racist!"


Nope! My point was blanket generalizations on your part. If certain Democrats or attention seekers in the media hate Romney that doesn't prove its representative of all Democrats. I don't like Biden and I've got no problem with sensible people who have a conscience of which I include Mit Romney.


----------



## Strange Magic

Johnnie Burgess said:


> And can you ever say a democrat does anything wrong?


Absolutely!!! Being human, the list of Democratic errors and sins is a long one. Any more questions?


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> The Doctor's default position.
> 
> Here's a useful bit of Whataboutism: Back when George Herbert Walker Bush was vying with Bob Dole for the Republican nomination, an angry, bitter Dole demanded that Bush "stop lying about my position" on something or other. The Doctor is so choked by ideology that he cannot distinguish between ordinary and then discarded campaign rhetoric, and the steady stream of deliberate lies, smears, threats, insults that daily emanate from the soiled Oval Office and its creatures.


So you are saying that lying about someone's position on a political matter is the same as accusing a person of a felony on the floor of the U.S. Senate? May I remind you that tax evasion is a felony? You are saying those are the same? I just want to make sure we are all clear on what you are saying here. So if I said that you want to see children die because of your stance on abortion, that would be materially no different than me saying something like you beat your wife? Political spin of a person's policy positions, in your mind, is that same as false accusations of felonious behavior?

I repeat - you are despicable.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Absolutely!!! Being human, the list of Democratic errors and sins is a long one. Any more questions?


So full of crap. You've spent several posts rationalizing the character assassination of Romney by Democrats as nothing more than normal politics.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> A study in contrasts:
> This is from the Wikipedia page about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico
> 
> In contrast, this is from the Wikipedia page about the 2015 Gold King Mine spill:
> 
> Yes. It is SOOOOOO much better to have the government in charge of more things, because they are so much more accountable when they screw up.


All very fascinating: governments make errors. I will make a note of it. Question: do corporations make mistakes? Somehow there must be a vital truth here somewhere that is relevant to something.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> Nope! My point was blanket generalizations on your part. If certain Democrats or attention seekers in the media hate Romney that doesn't prove its representative of all Democrats. I don't like Biden and I've got no problem with sensible people who have a conscience of which I include Mit Romney.


"Certain Democrats or attention seekers in the media." And you wonder why I don't take you all seriously. The claim about Romney wanting to re-enslave blacks was made by the then Democratic Vice President, Joe Biden. I don't care that you don't like Biden. Most of your party voted to make him Vice President. The lie about Romney not paying taxes for several years was made by the Democratic Majority Leader of the Senate at the time, on the floor of the Senate. These aren't fringe members of the party with no power. These were the leaders of the party. This isn't like some stupid statement by some state legislature in rural Maryland. And when Romney correctly judged Putin and Russia as our biggest geopolitical adversary, the popularly elected head of the nation and the Democratic party, Barack Obama, mocked him as being clueless and stuck in the 80's. And you all laughed along. No. Your entire party is culpable.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> So full of crap. You've spent several posts rationalizing the character assassination of Romney by Democrats as nothing more than normal politics.


Still looking for that full-throated defense of Romney from the Right (and the Doctor), and the denunciation of Trump as a conscienceless hypocrite. Crickets.......


----------



## Guest

Did you not read the first part? BP made a huge mistake, and they were made to pay billions and also made a deal that included accepting criminal charges.

And the EPA hides behind sovereign immunity to not have to pay for their mistake. 

Difference between EPA and BP? BP can't ever claim sovereign immunity.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Still looking for that full-throated defense of Romney from the Right (and the Doctor), and the denunciation of Trump as a conscienceless hypocrite. Crickets.......


Not only an anti-semite, but a full-throated liar.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Still looking for that full-throated defense of Romney from the Right (and the Doctor), and the denunciation of Trump as a conscienceless hypocrite. Crickets.......


Denounce Harry Reid's lying about Romney and the other lies the Democrats said about him. Since that is the older sin, I think that one needs clearing up first.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> So you are saying that lying about someone's position on a political matter is the same as accusing a person of a felony on the floor of the U.S. Senate? May I remind you that tax evasion is a felony? You are saying those are the same? I just want to make sure we are all clear on what you are saying here. So if I said that you want to see children die because of your stance on abortion, that would be materially no different than me saying something like you beat your wife? Political spin of a person's policy positions, in your mind, is that same as false accusations of felonious behavior?
> 
> I repeat - you are despicable.


We'll let that stand. It is increasingly clear that you are not well. Again I say: Physician, Heal Thyself!


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> Denounce Harry Reid's lying about Romney and the other lies the Democrats said about him. Since that is the older sin, I think that one needs clearing up first.


I am happy to denounce lies and calumnies that politicians in the heat of a campaign launch at one another. Are you happy yet?

------Strange Magic: Despicable, a Liar, and a Confirmed (by the Good Doctor) Antisemite. Question: How unhinged will the Doctor become here in public?


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Absolutely!!! Being human, the list of Democratic errors and sins is a long one. Any more questions?


Let's hear specifics. Come on. If the list is a long one, surely you can list your top 5? I doubt you will. And if you did, it will be something to the effect of "not liberal enough." And maybe include something within at least the last 2 decades.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> I am happy to denounce lies and calumnies that politicians in the heat of a campaign launch at one another. Are you happy yet?


Nope. Say it. Reid lying about Romney being a felon is at least as bad as the nasty things Trump says about Romney. Quit your stupid generalized non-denouncements.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> We'll let that stand. It is increasingly clear that you are not well. Again I say: Physician, Heal Thyself!


On the contrary. I'm doing great. I just got a new job and am making a whole lot more than I previously was. Things are great! In spite of Paul Krugman's predictions, my financial situation has never been better.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> We'll let that stand. It is increasingly clear that you are not well. Again I say: Physician, Heal Thyself!


And I hope they do let it stand, because I do think you are quite despicable. You are a toxic addition to any discussion that has anything to do with politics. I don't have this problem with most of the other liberals on here - sure, I disagree vehemently with them, but you I do despise. I'm not revealing any secrets by saying that. And you can lie all you want, but I know you despise me as well.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> Did you not read the first part? BP made a huge mistake, and they were made to pay billions and also made a deal that included accepting criminal charges.
> 
> And the EPA hides behind sovereign immunity to not have to pay for their mistake.
> 
> Difference between EPA and BP? BP can't ever claim sovereign immunity.


Trump and his hyenas now control what is left of the EPA.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> And I hope they do let it stand, because I do think you are quite despicable. You are a toxic addition to any discussion that has anything to do with politics. I don't have this problem with most of the other liberals on here - sure, I disagree vehemently with them, but you I do despise. I'm not revealing any secrets by saying that. And you can lie all you want, but I know you despise me as well.


No, you are not well.


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> "Certain Democrats or attention seekers in the media." And you wonder why I don't take you all seriously. The claim about Romney wanting to re-enslave blacks was made by the then Democratic Vice President, Joe Biden. I don't care that you don't like Biden. Most of your party voted to make him Vice President. The lie about Romney not paying taxes for several years was made by the Democratic Majority Leader of the Senate at the time, on the floor of the Senate. These aren't fringe members of the party with no power. These were the leaders of the party. This isn't like some stupid statement by some state legislature in rural Maryland. And when Romney correctly judged Putin and Russia as our biggest geopolitical adversary, the popularly elected head of the nation and the Democratic party, Barack Obama, mocked him as being clueless and stuck in the 80's. And you all laughed along. No. Your entire party is culpable.


It's not my party. I'm for voting everybody out that is taking corporate money, enabling Trump, and not cooperating for the benefit of the nation. Today's congress is completely disfunctional except when they decide to give more money to the Pentagon.


----------



## Jacck

DrMike said:


> The U.S. is not an empire. Check your talking points. And for someone who doesn't care much about US domestic politics, you spout off quite a bit about them.


How to even discuss with someone who does not realize that US is an empire? There is no common factual ground for any discussion, because we are living on different planets. Both, Russia and the US are empires and both are currently in decline. Russia more than the US. Putin is a like a reactionary, trying to reverse the world to 19th century empires. He cannot save Russia. Russia is in inevitable decline - demographically, economically, technologically, culturally. He could have reformed the country when he came to power thanks to high oil prices, he chose not to and instead created an anachronistic kleptocracy and thus sealed Russia's fate. Yes, Russia will continue to cause trouble, it will meddle in elections, spread lies and curruption and support dictators all over the world, but it is rotten inside. And the US empire is in decline too. The decline of every nation starts morally first. Trump is not the cause of your decline, but a symptom. When half of your population cannot see Trump for what he is, then you are in some serious trouble.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> It's not my party. I'm for voting everybody out that is taking corporate money, enabling Trump, and not cooperating for the benefit of the nation. Today's congress is completely disfunctional except when they decide to give more money to the Pentagon.


Not your party - but I'm guessing you'll still vote for them.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> How to even discuss with someone who does not realize that US is an empire? There is no common factual ground for any discussion, because we are living on different planets. Both, Russia and the US are empires and both are currently in decline. Russia more than the US. Putin is a like a reactionary, trying to reverse the world to 19th century empires. He cannot save Russia. Russia is in inevitable decline - demographically, economically, technologically, culturally. He could have reformed the country when he came to power thanks to high oil prices, he chose not to and instead created an anachronistic kleptocracy and thus sealed Russia's fate. Yes, Russia will continue to cause trouble, it will meddle in elections, spread lies and curruption and support dictators all over the world, but it is rotten inside. And the US empire is in decline too. The decline of every nation starts morally first. Trump is not the cause of your decline, but a symptom. When half of your population cannot see Trump for what he is, then you are in some serious trouble.


By your judgment, are there any nations not in decline? Morally in decline as compared to what? 160 years ago when slavery was legal and people went to war to keep it that way? 60 years ago when people were prevented from voting based on the color of their skin? 2 decades ago when the abortion rate was higher and the murder rate was higher and violent crime was higher? By what measure do you judge us in decline? For all the bellyaching on the left, Russia didn't alter our elections one bit. They just can't admit that they nominated the single person as their candidate who could actually lose to Trump.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Trump and his hyenas now control what is left of the EPA.


The pollution of the river was in 2015. Try again.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> No, you are not well.


I'll take that as a tacit admission that you can't actually denounce specific instances of horrible behavior by your party and that you have conceded defeat.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> I am happy to denounce lies and calumnies that politicians in the heat of a campaign launch at one another. Are you happy yet?
> 
> ------Strange Magic: Despicable, a Liar, and a Confirmed (by the Good Doctor) Antisemite. Question: How unhinged will the Doctor become here in public?


I suppose I'll start worrying about myself when I spend so much time hanging out in the political groups spouting the same thing over and over about some conspiracy theory or other (hey, you haven't posted in a while about the NRA colluding with Putin to murder all American school children, or how Israelis are just like Nazis - you're off your game!).


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> I suppose I'll start worrying about myself when I spend so much time hanging out in the political groups spouting the same thing over and over about some conspiracy theory or other (hey, you haven't posted in a while about the NRA colluding with Putin to murder all American school children, or how Israelis are just like Nazis - you're off your game!).


You are clearly on yours. Take your meds; you really are unhinged. You: "*I view you all as despicable".* Good luck with the new job; you clearly have more free time to post here on TC. Unless the mods erase these posts, you're on record here now.

Trolling, looking for trouble. looking for a fight. On the 4th of February, mmsbls issued his most recent red-type caution that the discussion was following its usual downward spiral. After a few remarks by others, the thread was abandoned and allowed to sink slowly down the list and, we or at least I expected, would drift into oblivion as people moved on to other topics. But it was not to be. Four and a half days later, the thread was seized up again by a zealot unwilling to let something go, and we now have the mess on our hands that we do of seeing a poster in the grip of personal demons unleashing a torrent of vituperation and venom upon other posters through (one imagines) foam-flecked lips. A wonder to behold and to read! Whatever will he say next?


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> The pollution of the river was in 2015. Try again.


I'll try again: Trump and his hyenas now control what is left of the EPA.


----------



## Strange Magic

> Strange Magic: "No, you are not well."





DrMike said:


> I'll take that as a tacit admission that you can't actually denounce specific instances of horrible behavior by your party and that you have conceded defeat.


See Post #170, above.


----------



## Jacck

DrMike said:


> By your judgment, are there any nations not in decline? Morally in decline as compared to what? 160 years ago when slavery was legal and people went to war to keep it that way? 60 years ago when people were prevented from voting based on the color of their skin? 2 decades ago when the abortion rate was higher and the murder rate was higher and violent crime was higher? By what measure do you judge us in decline? For all the bellyaching on the left, Russia didn't alter our elections one bit. They just can't admit that they nominated the single person as their candidate who could actually lose to Trump.


Frankly, I see the whole world in decline, a global civilizational collapse, some countries more, some countries less. And morally in decline means unable to recognize truth from lie, right from wrong. And I do not think these things are relative, or postmodern, I think they are absolute and universal. As Jesus said "You will know them by their fruits". What are the fruits of Trump? More divisions, more polarization, more hate, more lies, more corruption. How is he making America great? By preaching hate at his rallies?


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> Frankly, I see the whole world in decline, a global civilizational collapse, some countries more, some countries less. And morally in decline means unable to recognize truth from lie, right from wrong. And I do not think these things are relative, or postmodern, I think they are absolute and universal. As Jesus said "You will know them by their fruits". What are the fruits of Trump? More divisions, more polarization, more hate, more lies, more corruption. How is he making America great? By preaching hate at his rallies?


The answer is simple - he isn't making America great. Quite frankly, no politician, regardless of the level of their office, either alone or aligned with others, can make America one way or another. Many try. They all have this conceit that they can. That's why we have such policies labeled "New Deal" and "Great Society." Politicians are more a reflection of the people that elect them, not a driving factor.

All politicians preach hate - almost without exception. Hate the other party. Hate the other candidate. Hate the other person's political ideas. You can argue that Trump represents some new level. Fine. Whatever. All that results in is overlooking the flaws in the other side. As you can read in my argument with Strange Magic, you can see he is unwilling to admit it was wrong for Harry Reid to accuse Mitt Romney of being guilty of an actual felony, because it undermines SM's arguments about Trump. Quite honestly, Trump's actions are despicable, but the actual governing of the country, if you were to look at all the metrics without knowing who the president was, are pretty standard.

You think this is more division, more polarization, more hate, more lies, more corruption? A senator was once caned by his colleague on the Senate floor. Go read what Federalists and Democratic-Republicans were saying about each other back during the administrations of George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. More division when half the country seceded and took up arms against the other half? See, I think you say these things because that is what others are saying. If you actually look at the political history of this country, you will see that there was never really some ideal time when there was no polarization, division, hate, etc. There were times when one party dominated - like after the fall of the Federalists and the Whigs. But that isn't the same.

It is idiotic to vote for a politician because they promise you some magical transformation where your every hope and desire is met. Look at what their policy proposals are and whether you agree with them or not. And then don't be surprised when they can't achieve them all because *gasp* you can't simply dictate policies - you need to get a legislature to pass them, and that may not always be controlled by those with similar political interests.

And pick the most moral person in your selection of a candidate to lead that effort. Obama was moral enough, but I didn't like his policy proposals. Bush was moral enough, and I agreed with more than I disagreed. Clinton (Bill) was a moral cretin who was at least as horrible to women as Trump (probably worse, if some of the rape accusations are believed), but his difference with Trump is that he didn't brag openly about it. And I criticized the Democrats over it. And that is why when my party nominated Trump, I left my party.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Interesting that the two most honorable and decent recent "republican" nominees as presidential candidates--John McCain and Mitt Romney--have been savaged by the Military Hero and Christian Knight Trump and his pack of sniveling, snarling hyenas. Democrats never sank to remotely near the level of Trump in opposing McCain and Romney. In retrospect, compared to Trump by any measure, McCain and Romney are the true martyrs for the cause of decency in "republican" politics. And people keep conveniently forgetting that principled conservatives and principled evangelicals and other religious have disowned Trump and left the party that once was the Party of Lincoln. Those who cannot see the evil in Trump and Trumpism, or who enable, explain, excuse it,. are doomed to be destroyed by their blindness.
> 
> The reason why Romney will be defamed by the Trump hyenas is because by his example, he showed up the others' lack of morals and decency openly, publicly. Nobody likes to be shown to be both evil and to look and smell evil, while some small voice within has told them they are wrong--the reaction is to punish the truth-teller. The preceding does not apply to Mitch McConnell--he is beyond evil and there is no inner voice. Trump accuses Romney of "hiding behind his religion"--does this not induce the urge to vomit?


You try and make a comment from the sensible centre and this is the kind of bile and hatred you get in return. Look at the hatred in your own language, "snivelling, snarling hyenas....smell of evil....vomit". And the so-called discussion devolves into a Trump hate-fest. It just proves the point I was trying to make. Many Americans cannot see beyond their own partisan politics and they need to be able to do because the extreme Left is a world-wide problem. They have poor impulse control and, as Sir Roger Scruton would say, if you have somebody railing about how bad the world is and what a victim they are the crowds will soon gather; and if you want to tell the world how good it is to be alive and how fortunate we really are in terms of human history few people will want to hear it.

I cannot understand why people would use 'politics' and 'moral' in the same sentence - no matter which party you favour. From my reading of it (as a non-American), the people just don't care who is winning the moral arguments; they want jobs, an education for their kids, to get off the economic scrapheap and feel they are part of the American project. What they don't want is to hear about is the issues which affect the already-privileged and their feminist and glass-ceiling causes. This is why I (and many centrists and conservatives) have a problem with "The Guardian". (As far as I can tell, Dr. Mike here is onto many things with his comments - not all of them, but many.)

This is but one legacy issue from the extreme Left (which is, by the way, losing all the elections):

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/02/07/the-making-of-trans-children/


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^More Dollar-Store psychobabble above--it seems that these Deep Analyses of motive and emotion are your specialty, and we are growing familiar with it. The situation is simple: Donald Trump has turned the meaning of decency, honor, respect, being well-informed, being truthful, being a uniter and a healer Upside Down. His gift is take an glaring weakness of his own and make it a virtue: Super Duper Christian, Very Stable Genius, "I know more than the Generals!". And to take the strength of his many enemies among normal, sane people and make them into weaknesses on their part: McCain as non-hero, Romney as (get this!) hiding behind his religion. So many examples over a lifetime career of deception, mendacity, dishonesty, corruption, evil. And you defend him and/or attack those who seek to shout out that this is a budding Mussolini. Again I note that Real and Principled Conservatives loathe and detest Trump--does that not tell you something? Some cheap psychobabble from me: You Are Blind and Trump will destroy everything you hold dear, especially if you are a "centrist".

Again, I don't read The Guardian regularly, but perhaps I should.


----------



## Guest

Stop listening to Chomsky and his passive-aggressive hate-fuelled rat-baggery. It won't help you *in any way.*

It's impossible trying to reason with bigots and haters. Have a good day!!


----------



## Strange Magic

Christabel said:


> Stop listening to Chomsky and his passive-aggressive hate-fuelled rat-baggery. It won't help you *in any way.*
> 
> It's impossible trying to reason with bigots and haters. Have a good day!!


You clearly pay far more attention to Chomsky than do I. I do try to reason with bigots and haters, but then I am a creature of Hope.


----------



## Duncan

Strange Magic said:


> We'll let that stand. It is increasingly clear that you are not well. Again I say:* Physician, Heal Thyself!*


I understand the literary device you're utilizing SM but just for the sake of clarity, in this instance the use of "Dr" - "Doctor" by this particular forum member is the result of receiving a Ph.D rather than an MD and thus he is not actually a "physician" but rather an academic, right?


----------



## Strange Magic

Duncan said:


> I understand the literary device you're utilizing but just for the sake of clarity, in this instance the use of "Dr" - "Doctor" is the result of receiving a Ph.D rather than an MD and thus he is not actually a "physician", right?


That is correct. Any suggestion that DrMike is a physician is erroneous. But it provides a useful handle.


----------



## Guest

Duncan said:


> I understand the literary device you're utilizing SM but just for the sake of clarity, in this instance the use of "Dr" - "Doctor" by this particular forum member is the result of receiving a Ph.D rather than an MD and thus he is not actually a "physician" but rather an academic, right?


You are correct, and he knows it. One of his many attempts to try to belittle me. Part of why I hate him so.
As you will notice - while I also make no effort to hide my disdain for SM - he is pretty evenhanded in his belittling and denigrating pretty much anybody who happens to think the sun doesn't shine out of his behind. Anybody posting any position slightly to the right of him gets immediately tarred with slander by him, and he'll no doubt label them a Trump apologist and then launch into his usual tirade against Trump (because for SM, there really is no other issue, unless you count his conspiracy theories about the NRA). It doesn't matter how many times I restate that I did not vote for Trump and left the Republican party because of their nomination of him (hell, I even voted for Doug Jones here in Alabama rather than risk the chance of putting accused pedophile Roy Moore in the Senate) - he still accuses me of being a Trump supporter. Facts are irrelevant to him.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> You try and make a comment from the sensible centre and this is the kind of bile and hatred you get in return. Look at the hatred in your own language, "snivelling, snarling hyenas....smell of evil....vomit".


Really? Pot. Kettle. Black. Compared to what you have posted elsewhere (other forums, Twitter)? Give me a break.



Christabel said:


> This is why I (and many centrists and conservatives) have a problem with "The Guardian".


You have a problem with a centrist-left newspaper? One known for fair reporting? A newspaper that scores high on an independent rating agency for its factual reporting unlike your preferred rag, Spiked? No, _your_ problem with The Guardian is that it stands up firmly against _your_ preferred agenda. And it is a newspaper that has - for you - a quite disturbing business model: it asks for subscriptions and donations, and if not it remains free (no paywall). And what magnaminous, tolerant response did you have for this? Oh yes, something mocking and snide along the lines of (I paraphrase) "Oh here we go, the Guardian getting out the begging bowl". 
Absolutely, utterly, priceless.


----------



## Jacck

DrMike said:


> The answer is simple - he isn't making America great. Quite frankly, no politician, regardless of the level of their office, either alone or aligned with others, can make America one way or another. Many try. They all have this conceit that they can. That's why we have such policies labeled "New Deal" and "Great Society." Politicians are more a reflection of the people that elect them, not a driving factor.
> 
> All politicians preach hate - almost without exception. Hate the other party. Hate the other candidate. Hate the other person's political ideas. You can argue that Trump represents some new level. Fine. Whatever. All that results in is overlooking the flaws in the other side. As you can read in my argument with Strange Magic, you can see he is unwilling to admit it was wrong for Harry Reid to accuse Mitt Romney of being guilty of an actual felony, because it undermines SM's arguments about Trump. Quite honestly, Trump's actions are despicable, but the actual governing of the country, if you were to look at all the metrics without knowing who the president was, are pretty standard.
> 
> You think this is more division, more polarization, more hate, more lies, more corruption? A senator was once caned by his colleague on the Senate floor. Go read what Federalists and Democratic-Republicans were saying about each other back during the administrations of George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. More division when half the country seceded and took up arms against the other half? See, I think you say these things because that is what others are saying. If you actually look at the political history of this country, you will see that there was never really some ideal time when there was no polarization, division, hate, etc. There were times when one party dominated - like after the fall of the Federalists and the Whigs. But that isn't the same.
> 
> It is idiotic to vote for a politician because they promise you some magical transformation where your every hope and desire is met. Look at what their policy proposals are and whether you agree with them or not. And then don't be surprised when they can't achieve them all because *gasp* you can't simply dictate policies - you need to get a legislature to pass them, and that may not always be controlled by those with similar political interests.
> 
> And pick the most moral person in your selection of a candidate to lead that effort. Obama was moral enough, but I didn't like his policy proposals. Bush was moral enough, and I agreed with more than I disagreed. Clinton (Bill) was a moral cretin who was at least as horrible to women as Trump (probably worse, if some of the rape accusations are believed), but his difference with Trump is that he didn't brag openly about it. And I criticized the Democrats over it. And that is why when my party nominated Trump, I left my party.


a great politician should have a vision how to make his country great, how to serve its people. The US has great many serious problems and they are not getting fixed at all. Instead, you get tax cuts for the rich, deregulations for corporations and destruction of social safety nets (that is all that Trump actually achieved since he came to office). You need to fix your elections (they are really corrupt), your taxes, your budget and debts, your wars, your healthcare and infrastructure. Is Trump working on any of these problems? No he is not. He is stealing money for the rich and shamelessly lying to the poor about it. 
Both parties are obviously somewhat corrupt. Hunter Biden is corrupt
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/11/hunter-biden-democrats-joe-biden-ukraine-trump
but it is really the pinnacle of shameless hypocrisy when the spoiled Trump nepotistic kids complain about it
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...potism-corruption-handmaiden-trump-presidency
slumlord Kushner turned Middle-East expert is especially a study of arrogance and corruption.
I absolutely believe that morality belongs to politics, and immoral politicians are destroying their nations, they are crooks and liars and self-enrichment and power are their only goals.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^More Dollar-Store psychobabble above--it seems that these Deep Analyses of motive and emotion are your specialty, and we are growing familiar with it.


Nah, amateur psychology. She probably gets it from reading one of those glossy magazines lying on the coffee table during a dental appointment. Cosmopolitan? Men's Health?



Strange Magic said:


> Again, I don't read The Guardian regularly, but perhaps I should.


Dear Magic, you should, it's free! Good grief, that reeks of extreme leftism!


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> Stop listening to Chomsky and his passive-aggressive hate-fuelled rat-baggery. It won't help you *in any way.*
> 
> It's impossible trying to reason with bigots and haters. Have a good day!!


Please, stop! I'm going to wet myself.


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^Today, in the USA and much of the rest of the world, there really is no issue as important as defeating Trump. He is the most dangerous man to have occupied (in a minority vote) the White House since--who?

And The Doctor's gift for uttering slander far exceeds my own poor efforts as the record clearly shows. He now revels and luxuriates in it, and that's fine, as it helps ease the pressure inside....


----------



## mmsbls

Political posts have led to an excess of insults and chiding. The thread is closed. If you wish to discuss politics, please do so in the Groups. Further, even in the Groups, the ToS hold so many of these posts would be inappropriate.


----------

