team politics talking points.

[AnalogPackrat]

Yawn. It must be pretty in your little rainbow bubble of conservatism.

As I've stated here before, I am a socially liberal and fiscally conservative anti-authoritarian. So keep projecting your ridiculous fantasy onto everyone who disagrees with your illogical point of view. I've voted D, R, and I at all levels of government. I voted for Obama twice. Sorely disappointed. I've watched the majority of Dems run so far away from anything reasonable that I can no longer support 90% of their platform.

Fascists want more control over people's lives (in this case, women's lives especially.) First the red states go fascist on their ladies, and then (as some in DC have already expressed eagerness to do) enact similarly fascist legislation on a national scale. Enabling local fascism (with an eye to the future) still=fascism.

Ask my brown-skinned immigrant wife if she agrees with that. Or most women in these oh-so-terrible red states. Ridiculous projection on your part. Who wants to force vaccines and boosters on everyone including those with natural immunity and almost zero risk of death from C-19 (children)? Look in the mirror, man. I lived in the increasingly dystopian Liberal Dream State of CA for over 29 years. I've experienced it firsthand.

Actually, you're wrong. Insomuch as fascism is a synergy between big corporations and govt., that fits right in.

The EPA being weaponized against any who oppose the authoritarian cult of carbon fits right in.

Of course, despite what the laws might say, the rules are different for black and brown people. That's been proven time and time again. So yay for wypipo, amiright?

Ask my brown wife. Which party keeps emphasizing immutable external characteristics over our common humanity or the content of our character?

And of course you ignored the horrible ruling on school prayer, and the ruling that tax $$$$ can now go to support schools run by (tax-exempt) religious institutions.
Separation of church & state my azz.

If you believe in rights like free speech and freedom of religion, then you would support the ability of citizens to express those reasonable things in public like the football coach did. Why should the government be allowed to discriminate against private schools wrt funding because of their philosophical principles (be they religious or otherwise)?

Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion. It isn't a church and state issue in the cases at hand. Your views mirror the recent extreme left swing of the Dem party that essentially drove me (and many, many others) away. So good job. Keep it up.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Sadly, it probably wasn't. You're probably just as oblivious to the propaganda you've swallowed (hook, line and sinker) as AP is. I feel bad for you guys.

Having many years of embedded experience on both sides of the political fence I feel bad for cult-followers who refuse to question anything their team says or does. My BS meter is well-regulated.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Sadly, it probably wasn't. You're probably just as oblivious to the propaganda you've swallowed (hook, line and sinker) as AP is. I feel bad for you guys.

4. You will find that the members of this community are courteous and respectful of each other, so please reciprocate those gestures. Leave the flame-war mentality at another forum. Personal attacks and generally hateful comments (regarding race, religion, gender, sex, etc...) will not be tolerated.

I count enough rule 4 violation strikes in this one thread to cancel you... Instead I will give you yet another warning because that is who I am... Do not confuse my generosity for weakness or lack of concern about rule breaking.

Do not test me. I have banned members before but it the final solution, after repeated rule breaking (like this).

JR

 

[shabtek]

turncoat
wokester
articulate
telepathic
snowflake

 

[JohnRoberts]

turncoat
wokester
articulate
telepathic
snowflake

cute...

JR

 

[rob_gould]

Respectfully.... If you're seriously threatening him with a ban, I'd urge you to give some consideration to the influence of your own bias on your moderation.

Yep, Hodad can be antagonistic and confrontational, just like other posters who seem to be just as antagonistic but don't have such a different world view to you.

If you don't like answering difficult questions, don't answer them. But calling it trolling is OTT.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Respectfully.... If you're seriously threatening him with a ban, I'd urge you to give some consideration to the influence of your own bias on your moderation.

the rules are about civil language, I am not the one always insulting people.

Yep, Hodad can be antagonistic and confrontational, just like other posters who seem to be just as antagonistic but don't have such a different world view to you.

this is not about his, or my world view.

If you don't like answering difficult questions, don't answer them. But calling it trolling is OTT.

Are you aware of the definition of trolling (trying to start arguments)?

is the deliberate act, (by a Troll - noun or adjective), of making random unsolicited and/or controversial comments on various internet forums with the intent to provoke an emotional knee jerk reaction from unsuspecting readers to engage in a fight or argument

He recently called me a troll... troll post

I share this to inform him, and others who think it's OK to insult people. It isn't

It appears many have lost sight of why I started this thread... Its not to pick political arguments but to inspect the game within the game (politics). I am old enough to have watched how the practice of politics has changed and been amplified by technology over several decades. It is difficult to win if you don't know the rules of the game. If you don't see the man behind the curtain manipulating popular sentiment, you are easily played.

JR

PS: It would be a lot easier to just ban him and others, but I consider that the last resort.

 

[hodad]

Fascists want centralized power and enjoy cooperation from powerful corporations (say, Apple, Google, Facebook, Pfizer, etc).

One assumes you're pointing a finger at Democrats here (neglecting, of course, that the Pfizer connection started under Trump)? Neglecting, as well, all the other undue corporate influence inherent in Republican policies--we could talk about the privatization of public schools, the sweetheart contracts W. Bush doled out at FEMA when he was Prez, or Dick Cheney walking straight from Halliburton to the vice presidency, or Trump propping up his own business operations at taxpayer expense. The list goes on (and on and on), and neither side is innocent.

But where are the politicians trying to do something to mitigate the role of undue wealth in our govt.? Hmmm, maybe Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, AOC. A few others. All Dems.
And of course, Citizens United was decided by Republican justices, Republicans have opened up channels for dark money to play a bigger role in elections, and Trump handed corporations a giant tax cut so they could spend even more money on politics and lobbying.
So I think it's fair to say, if you actually care about this issue, your only chance to see any positive change on this issue lies with Democrats.

 

[hodad]

I count enough rule 4 violation strikes in this one thread to cancel you..

I truly do not think you understand why I was pissed off at your original comment. I don't think AP understands either (he made that pretty clear.)

I'm not sure why--just as AP is so determined to vilify the 1619 Project. Regardless of whether all the details are perfectly accurate, this part is crucial--to acknowledge that there are large segments of people who were a part of the history of this country but were largely excluded from the telling of this history and largely marginalized in the history itself. The telling and retelling of events is always subjective, but it is well past time in this country that Black, Latino, Native American and other minority communities get a stronger voice in the recounting of the history of this nation.

Wokester is a pejorative, yes? "Cancel culture" has become a near meaningless cliche, little more than a threatening screamed that is pulled out whenever a Republican wants to portray Dems as horrible and scary and unamerican. The fearmongering and propaganda on the right are at least as corrosive and deceptive as anything that comes from the left. Heck, you guys have all of talk radio and 3 cable news networks; all the left has is 3 shows on MSNBC. I'd say in quantity if not in quality, the right is winning the propaganda war.

We've had lengthy discussions about BLM, CRT, 1619 Project, etc. Many people--occasionally including me--have put forth some very sound arguments, supported by real, hard evidence, from the left-leaning side of things. One would think that some tiny bit of that might have sunk in enough that you'd at least understand it's not a good idea to say what you said. But as I said, I do not think you do. I do not expect that anything I have said or could say would get through to you.

 

[hodad]

He recently called me a troll.

And how many times have you accused me of trolling? And what do you suppose a troll is? One who trolls? So how many times have you suggested that I am a troll?

At the time, I thought you were being intentionally inflammatory. At this point, as noted, I tend not to think that (though how could I know? IANAMR.)

 

[AnalogPackrat]

One assumes you're pointing a finger at Democrats here (neglecting, of course, that the Pfizer connection started under Trump)? Neglecting, as well, all the other undue corporate influence inherent in Republican policies--we could talk about the privatization of public schools, the sweetheart contracts W. Bush doled out at FEMA when he was Prez, or Dick Cheney walking straight from Halliburton to the vice presidency, or Trump propping up his own business operations at taxpayer expense. The list goes on (and on and on), and neither side is innocent.

As far as Trump and the vaccines go, what would you say if he hadn't tapped big pharma for producing vaccines? You're a big proponent of them, are you not? Presumably you wanted Hillary in 2016--should she have asked big pharma to help? In my opinion, Trump made a mistake in trusting Fauci. He figured it out eventually, but it was too late and his fragile ego was all tied up in the effort.

When public schools become so broken, I think school choice is a viable alternative. I was fortunate that my mother was a teacher and my parents moved into a better school district when I was a kid. Not perfect by any stretch, but mostly above average with a few bad apples and a couple of stars mixed in.

I've said before that I was never a supporter of W/Cheney and the neo-conmen. They were dirty. Trump did nothing by comparison. I guess you're fine with the Clinton Foundation, Obama's riches, Pelosi and Feinstein making bank off of insider trading, John Kerry jetting between his collection of mansions and important meetings to control peons' carbon footprint, and the rest. Same with Al Gore. I told you I see GOP legislators doing similar things. None of it is good.

But where are the politicians trying to do something to mitigate the role of undue wealth in our govt.? Hmmm, maybe Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, AOC. A few others. All Dems.

Elizabeth Warren, who lied about her 1/1024th ethnicity to get ahead at Harvard? I'm not a fan of her or her policies other than antitrust (monopolies) which I'm not sure she's even serious about given that Google, Amazon, FB, Twitter still remain. Bernie never held a job in his life. He's a worthless socialist. Sorry, "Democratic" socialist. I did agree with his positions on the USA PATRIOT act and his opposition to the Iraq war. Nothing else. AOC is a clueless leftist child. She has no idea how little she knows and it shows regularly. If these are the people you hold in high regard in the Dem Party, then you have clearly shown why I'm out of it. These people all want to eviscerate actual Constitutionally enumerated rights. I'm not down with that.

And of course, Citizens United was decided by Republican justices, Republicans have opened up channels for dark money to play a bigger role in elections, and Trump handed corporations a giant tax cut so they could spend even more money on politics and lobbying.
So I think it's fair to say, if you actually care about this issue, your only chance to see any positive change on this issue lies with Democrats.

I said before I didn't agree with that decision. But if you support a party that backs online censorship, increasing limits on speech (a fundamental right if there ever was one), and more government in every possible sector of American life, then I will not be with you or them. You can't fight against the powerful without freedom of speech and expression EVERYWHERE.

Less government and more liberty is what I support. At the moment, the tradeoffs have clearly swung to the GOP. I won't waste another vote on non-viable independent or 3rd party candidates in the foreseeable future. There's too much at stake.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

I truly do not think you understand why I was pissed off at your original comment. I don't think AP understands either (he made that pretty clear.)

I do understand. I mostly disagree with what you believe.

I'm not sure why--just as AP is so determined to vilify the 1619 Project. Regardless of whether all the details are perfectly accurate, this part is crucial--to acknowledge that there are large segments of people who were a part of the history of this country but were largely excluded from the telling of this history and largely marginalized in the history itself.

It absolutely matters that most of what is portrayed is simply false. It is a fantasy story designed to divide, not to educate or unite. I will continue to oppose it for those reasons.

The telling and retelling of events is always subjective, but it is well past time in this country that Black, Latino, Native American and other minority communities get a stronger voice in the recounting of the history of this nation.

I think we have achieved that. In fact it seems we are trying too hard sometimes and clouding reality with disproportionate portrayals. But I'm sure you disagree. Being a son of the South whose parents both had a keen interest in history (my Dad mostly military and government, my Mom more how common people lived in their day) I spent many hours of my childhood at historical sites and museums. We learned about slavery, the plight of the Native Americans, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, child labor, and all the rest of the bad parts of our shared history along with the good and the hopeful.

Wokester is a pejorative, yes?

One that is usually well-earned.

"Cancel culture" has become a near meaningless cliche, little more than a threatening screamed that is pulled out whenever a Republican wants to portray Dems as horrible and scary and unamerican.

No, it is a wholly un-American phenomenon used to inflame emotions and ruin a person for simply disagreeing with some position that is usually patently absurd. It is evil. The fact that you can't see that is part of the problem. If you really disagree with someone so vehemently, then engage them in a public debate and maybe something useful will come of it. Getting them fired, banned from social media, plastered all over lefty news only turns the moderate majority against you.

The fearmongering and propaganda on the right are at least as corrosive and deceptive as anything that comes from the left. Heck, you guys have all of talk radio and 3 cable news networks; all the left has is 3 shows on MSNBC. I'd say in quantity if not in quality, the right is winning the propaganda war.

MSNBC, CNN (two channels, running 24-7 in airports nationwide), the three majors lean left (NBC, ABC, CBS), then you've got the state-funded lefty PBS on countless stations. The fact that FNC is popular isn't an indictment against it any more than CNN's previous popularity was against that organization. People are tired of the constant lies, bias, and sins of omission. They're tuning out. And I used to listen to Air America during the W years when I was stuck in CA commute traffic. It failed once the Savior was elected and the economy crashed. If it were popular enough it would have survived. I'm not into talk radio now that I'm not wasting hours sitting in traffic.

We've had lengthy discussions about BLM, CRT, 1619 Project, etc. Many people--occasionally including me--have put forth some very sound arguments, supported by real, hard evidence, from the left-leaning side of things. One would think that some tiny bit of that might have sunk in enough that you'd at least understand it's not a good idea to say what you said. But as I said, I do not think you do. I do not expect that anything I have said or could say would get through to you.

I was absent for that. Don't care to get into it. I've had many similar discussions over the past several years. Maybe JR has, too. I'm tired of the raw vitriol and being called names by strangers who've never met me. I don't consider it trolling, just basic bad manners.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I truly do not think you understand why I was pissed off at your original comment. I don't think AP understands either (he made that pretty clear.)

I do not care that you are pissed off, that is not an excuse to break rules, apparently you think it is. I am not pissed off but surely irritated.

I'm not sure why--just as AP is so determined to vilify the 1619 Project. Regardless of whether all the details are perfectly accurate, this part is crucial--to acknowledge that there are large segments of people who were a part of the history of this country but were largely excluded from the telling of this history and largely marginalized in the history itself. The telling and retelling of events is always subjective, but it is well past time in this country that Black, Latino, Native American and other minority communities get a stronger voice in the recounting of the history of this nation.

The 1619 project appears to be intended to vilify the US founding (I know save your mind reading charge). If that was their intent it is working as polls show more and more young people, products of public education, do not respect the US. People with a longer view of history see this as a strategy.

Wokester is a pejorative, yes? "Cancel culture" has become a near meaningless cliche, little more than a threatening screamed that is pulled out whenever a Republican wants to portray Dems as horrible and scary and unamerican.

For the record I did not literally call you a wokester, unless you were trying to cancel the 4th of july. I let that drop but did find reports of such with a search. Since the 4th hasn't happened yet. I don't know if this works as an example but the federal government has denied fireworks at Mt Rushmore for the 4th celebration there.

The fearmongering and propaganda on the right are at least as corrosive and deceptive as anything that comes from the left. Heck, you guys have all of talk radio and 3 cable news networks; all the left has is 3 shows on MSNBC. I'd say in quantity if not in quality, the right is winning the propaganda war.

This reveals a world view (filter) based on winning a propaganda "war" (your words not mine). You see me as an opponent rather than a fellow American, forum member, fellow southerner, and any number of shared common attributes.

We've had lengthy discussions about BLM, CRT, 1619 Project, etc. Many people--occasionally including me--have put forth some very sound arguments, supported by real, hard evidence, from the left-leaning side of things. One would think that some tiny bit of that might have sunk in enough that you'd at least understand it's not a good idea to say what you said. But as I said, I do not think you do. I do not expect that anything I have said or could say would get through to you.

and many good arguments have been made dismissing these. BLM does not seem to care about black on black violence, only white on black violence which is much more rare, but understandably divisive.

CRT came from "critical theory".

critical theory, Marxist-inspired movement in social and political philosophy originally associated with the work of the Frankfurt School. Drawing particularly on the thought of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, critical theorists maintain that a primary goal of philosophy is to understand and to help overcome the social structures through which people are dominated and oppressed.

With roots in sociology and literary criticism, it argues that social problems stem more from social structures and cultural assumptions than from individuals. This supports the racist system screed. I am reminded of the lyric from west side story.

Officer Krupke, you're really a slob
This boy don't need a doctor, just a good honest job
Society's played him a terrible trick
And sociologically he's sick!

1619 project is yet another attempt to discredit America and its founding. Reading my newspaper this morning I saw yet another article about Thomas Jefferson's slave ownership. While all true, how fair is it to judge a great man from another century by modern cultural standards. He probably didn't worry about pronoun use either.
=======
Yes I grow wearly of these never ending arguments, and long ago gave up on trying to change your mind. You however often try to drag me into arguments (trolling me) mentioning me by name asking me to respond. You seem to enjoy calling me out personally for unflattering news about MS, etc.

I will repeat, the forum rules of decorum still apply to you even I make you angry.
=========
Again I apologize to the rest of the forum for this veer.... I have tried to keep it in the spirit of thread (Talking "about" politics, not talking politics). While it can be all but impossible to talk about politics without mentioning examples. There is a lot more going right now but this adversarial climate does not foster open thoughtful discussion.

JR

PS: for a group hug, how about this Bill Clinton quote

“There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.”​

― Bill Clinton

 

[crazydoc]

 

[boji]

"Cancel culture" has become a near meaningless cliche

I consider 'cancelled' to mean anyone who had a public voice, but was forced to retreat to private conversation to continue truth seeking/redemption. Look to how we treat Christians today to see what happens to intuitions that make moral demands without first gathering up hearts.

 

[hodad]

I do not care that you are pissed off, that is not an excuse to break rules, apparently you think it is. I am not pissed off but surely irritated.

You still don't get it. And you probably never will.

CRT came from "critical theory".

And of course the most important point about CRT is that nobody's teaching it in public schools. So why does anyone even care, much less have to make laws about it.

And that one point (that it's not actually being taught to public schoolchildren) should have been enough to end the entire discussion. Enough certainly to keep potentially dangerous laws from being passed. I'm sorry, John, that so many Republicans continue this self-delusion. I am even sorrier that this self-delusion has such a negative impact on so many other people.

When Republicans can say, "No one was teaching CRT in public schools," then they might have something to say on the matter that is actually meaningful. As long as they continue to lie to themselves and others about this demonstrable fact, then everything they say is simply proceeding from delusion. Any eloquence or elegance in their arguments is rendered worthless by the fact that their argument starts with a lie.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

You still don't get it. And you probably never will.

Maybe you are wrong about that repeated assertion. But, in case you aren't, explain clearly what you think we don't get rather than just being so obtuse.

And of course the most important point about CRT is that nobody's teaching it in public schools. So why does anyone even care, much less have to make laws about it.

The principles of CRT absolutely are being taught in many schools. The reason we care is that it is toxic, divisive, and pollutes young minds with dangerous ideas.

And that one point (that it's not actually being taught to public schoolchildren) should have been enough to end the entire discussion. Enough certainly to keep potentially dangerous laws from being passed. I'm sorry, John, that so many Republicans continue this self-delusion. I am even sorrier that this self-delusion has such a negative impact on so many other people.

It doesn't have to show up in obvious ways on materials that parents see to still be pushed. Not surprisingly, many parents found out when we sent millions of kids home for online classes.

When Republicans can say, "No one was teaching CRT in public schools," then they might have something to say on the matter that is actually meaningful. As long as they continue to lie to themselves and others about this demonstrable fact, then everything they say is simply proceeding from delusion. Any eloquence or elegance in their arguments is rendered worthless by the fact that their argument starts with a lie.

You don't understand and I doubt you ever will. Hey, that works great!

 

[JohnRoberts]

You still don't get it. And you probably never will.

Yet you keep trying to help me "get it". If you really believed I would never get it you would leave me alone.

OTOH in a propaganda war repetition is a common technique..

And of course the most important point about CRT is that nobody's teaching it in public schools. So why does anyone even care, much less have to make laws about it.

If it isn't happening then a law against it would affect nothing, so why complain about passing a law against it?

The coursework slipped out during COVID when many parents were watching their kids get homeschooled over zoom classes and heard what the teachers were actually saying to the students. Glen Youngkin won the VA Governor seat from Terry McAuliffe in Nov 21 over parent's right's to have a say in schooling the children. This issue is far from "nothing to see here". Parents get angry when you mess with their children.

Just one of many issues that will be on the ballot in Nov.

JR

 

[hodad]

If it isn't happening then a law against it would affect nothing, so why complain about passing a law against it?

The question that comes to my mind is this: Since it isn't happening, what is the actual goal of the laws being passed? You might know, or you might not, that many of these laws are worded in a manner that allows for a lot of discretion in their interpretation. It's at the very least a potential nuisance to have laws like these on the books, and at worst they could be used to make sure that all history taught in schools is of the White conservative Christian type. I suspect you'd approve of that though.

et you keep trying to help me "get it". If you really believed I would never get it you would leave me alone.

Of course, you haven't exactly avoided scholarly dissertations here yourself. At least I tend to be a little briefer.

But since you asked so nicely , I'll leave you with one more pass at explaining the point I don't think you'll ever get.

******** I've noted before that I am very much a Southerner, and for a part of my 20s I worked in my smallish hometown. There was a thing that would happen. I'd be chatting with a (white) customer. He'd pause, take a look around to see who was within earshot, and say, "I'm not a racist, but..." and what would inevitably follow was something bigoted, prejudiced, and/or racist.

This was so common that my brother and I would joke about "I'm not a racist but" racists. Of course, it never seemed to occur to any of these people that my brother or I might be offended by what they said--we were white, after all, and weren't all white people cool with talking sh!t about black people? And of course, we were offended, but unable to say anything--these were our customers, and you put up with a lot of rude and asinine stuff when you deal with the public.

And the point of this story is not to accuse anyone here of being racist--what started all this actually did not in any direct fashion have a thing to do with race. But there was, perhaps, an assumption that talking sh!t about a group of people (really, a caricature of a group of people) was okay, because nobody here was directly called out, and thus no one should be offended. It's certainly not an exact analogy, but it's that "How did I say anything offensive?" attitude that really connects the two for me.

 

[shabtek]