Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well, no, we pretty much refute all your points, and so you give up and fall back on just "I don't like left-wing progressives" as the basis for your opinions.

So, refuting our points is automatic for left-wing progressives like yourself and caused me to say that to you and the Democrats who indirectly support you and your views with their votes.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You would if you came to your senses and realized what is really beneficial to you, as opposed to your emotional fears and the deceptive ideas that have been foisted upon you. The word socialism, of course, is an exaggerated attribution to left-wing progressives, as has been pointed out to you. No doubt it would work against Bernie Sanders. It's a good catchword for right-wing attitudes toward progressives. But the latter merely want good policies that work for everyone, not policies that benefit only the powerful.

Bernie Sanders would be your choice for a candidate. Socialism is a lot more common on the left than on the right. I've seen it commonly referred to and supported here for years. I don't have to be told or informed by Republicans. I'm right here amongst you and I've been here for years.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well then, since we have a similar relationship to "work," it might be a basis for a bit of thoughtful reflection about your stereotype of progressives. We can work for a living too, and often do, and face the same pressures as you do.

I don't have a stereotype of left-wing progressives. I have strong personal opinions that have been formed about progressives from direct social interaction, communications and general observations obtained from them here over a decade in the flesh, so to speak.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, delusions about money are never practical, no matter what culture or ideology you hold. Delusions are not practical in any context. It's better to view things as they really are.

Delusions about anything important are never practical.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

In life, if you are not continually being judged on your writing skills, getting paid for your writing skills or in a position that requires professional writing skills and language, you're not going to impress a liberal and you're going to open yourself up to their criticism and be subject to their criticism.

No, but we all size up strangers. Even a racist would figure that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is not someone to argue with without being seen as a fool.

PB, would you want to compete with me in business, in sports, a poker game, a game of survival and tactical wit, a spontaneous live debate with no set topic or anything that doesn't require professional writing skills.

Professional writing skills? There is no such thing -- only conventions that one learns at first from K-12 education (or fails to learn if one is a dullard or a rebel) and after that mostly from what one reads. If you don't believe me there was a time last year when I started sounding like a Russian who spoke very good English. I had been reading The Brothers Karamazov straight through. Maybe I would be more on your level if I read more trashy action-adventure novels... typically low-grade imitations of the James Bond novels. If you are a woman, junk romance novels (he bought me this, he bought me that, we had great sex, we went to this luxurious place, we went to that luxurious place, and we had great sex...) best described as wish-fulfillment.

I am now convinced that with few assets other than a tablet, wi-fi access, and earphones one can get a copious supply of great literature and music without having to pay for any of it. With a little more money one can get books not in the public domain (Orwell, Kundera, Faulkner, Hemingway, etc.). With a nice TV and a blue-ray disc player you can rent video -- great movies that will satisfy you far more than blockbusters in a movie theater. The trick is to know the good stuff from the trash.

OK, so you might also want some more athletic activities, whether bowling or tennis... but all in all you will not need to collect mass-manufactured junk. You will find a glitzy casino singularly unattractive.

So it takes some education to sort the gems from the chaff. That is a good hint on K-12 education.

I have professional speaking skills which includes some fancier terms and a broad range of knowledge and experience to draw from without having to resort to books or the internet.

I know enough to avoid using more than one fancy word in any sentence unless I am discussing something technical.

Restorationism will sweep the country clean of all of these ideologues; both liberal and conservative. The apex of society would be a militarized meritocratic elites whose base would come from the most capable of the cadres churned out by what would be the social fulcrum of the nation; the civil-military education system. The new elite would be like the military aristocracies of rome, medieval Europe, ancient china, ancient medieval and early modern japan, and like the leadership classes of France and Britain before the mid-19th century, and Germany and Japan in the 19th and early 20th centuries, except that the aristocracy would be based on merit rather than birth.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Restorationism will sweep the country clean of all of these ideologues; both liberal and conservative.

Liberals and genuine conservatives (the latter, people who believe that the conservative ideal is a social order that gives the common man a stake is the best defense against extremism) are the strongest alliance against fascists. I admire WWII-era Britain and the WWII-era USA for winning the most sustainable victory ever against anti-human fascism. The point: they may have won the war with sheer force, but they won the peace with kindness. Britain and America treated defeated peoples without vindictiveness even if they treated perpetrators of evil as the murderers and thieves that they were. What of the Soviet Union? The revolutions of 1989 demonstrate that the Soviet bloc was held together with force, fraud, and fear.

If we Americans should end up in a war with an Arab or Muslim state, then we had better stop taking revenge against the common man once the armistice is signed. As for war criminals, they can literally go to Hell!

The apex of society would be a militarized meritocratic elites whose base would come from the most capable of the cadres churned out by what would be the social fulcrum of the nation; the civil-military education system.

Why do we need a militarized elite? It would be appropriate enough that America's professional elite act in accordance with the honor codes of the Service Academies -- basically (because the formulations differ I cannot give an exact quote):

DO NOT LIE
DO NOT CHEAT
DO NOT STEAL
DO NOT TOLERATE DECEIT, CHICANERY, OR THEFT

I've gone by that code as a teacher; it is also appropriate for physicians, scientists, engineers, accountants, law enforcement officers. Although there may be higher professional standards, failure to follow that code creates the potential for disaster.

Considering that war is dangerous enough, anyone who gives falsified reports, shades obedience to orders, or takes supplies for personal gain makes warfare unduly dangerous for fellow soldiers. Nobody needs an enemy within.

The new elite would be like the military aristocracies of rome, medieval Europe, ancient china, ancient medieval and early modern japan, and like the leadership classes of France and Britain before the mid-19th century, and Germany and Japan in the 19th and early 20th centuries, except that the aristocracy would be based on merit rather than birth.

The SS operated as a 'meritocratic elite'.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Professional writing skills? There is no such thing -- only conventions that one learns at first from K-12 education (or fails to learn if one is a dullard or a rebel) and after that mostly from what one reads. If you don't believe me there was a time last year when I started sounding like a Russian who spoke very good English. I had been reading The Brothers Karamazov straight through. Maybe I would be more on your level if I read more trashy action-adventure novels... typically low-grade imitations of the James Bond novels. If you are a woman, junk romance novels (he bought me this, he bought me that, we had great sex, we went to this luxurious place, we went to that luxurious place, and we had great sex...) best described as wish-fulfillment.

I am now convinced that with few assets other than a tablet, wi-fi access, and earphones one can get a copious supply of great literature and music without having to pay for any of it. With a little more money one can get books not in the public domain (Orwell, Kundera, Faulkner, Hemingway, etc.). With a nice TV and a blue-ray disc player you can rent video -- great movies that will satisfy you far more than blockbusters in a movie theater. The trick is to know the good stuff from the trash.

OK, so you might also want some more athletic activities, whether bowling or tennis... but all in all you will not need to collect mass-manufactured junk. You will find a glitzy casino singularly unattractive.

So it takes some education to sort the gems from the chaff. That is a good hint on K-12 education.

In high school, I was stuck with courses in advanced English. I had no choice but to take high level reading and writing courses. In high school, I had a pretty good idea about what my interest was as it related to future careers and preferred lifestyles. I was the type who preferred to learn something by actually doing it or experiencing it vs reading a book, thinking about it and learning in that way. I dunno, reading just wasn't my thing during high school and I rarely enjoy reading today. To come down to my level, you'd have to give up reading which you obviously enjoy and aren't interested in doing at this point in your life.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Proper use of grammar is the only thing that liberals tend to have over me, can hang over me, use as a point against me and use as a symbol of dominance over me, so to speak.

I correct people when they mispronounce or misspell my name (the funniest is when people who have known both me and my daughter a long time call me by my daughter's name -- that's what I get for saddling her with a classic Boomer name). Why shouldn't I do it if they misspell or mispronounce my Party? I'm not trying to lord over anyone; I just want my darn party to be referred to correctly.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

In high school, I was stuck with courses in advanced English. I had no choice but to take high level reading and writing courses. In high school, I had a pretty good idea about what my interest was as it related to future careers and preferred lifestyles. I was the type who preferred to learn something by actually doing it or experiencing it vs reading a book, thinking about it and learning in that way. I dunno, reading just wasn't my thing during high school and I rarely enjoy reading today. To come down to my level, you'd have to give up reading which you obviously enjoy and aren't interested in doing at this point in your life.

One needs good reading skills to be good at many technical activities.

Learning by doing is a legitimate means of learning. Nobody is going to ever learn to do carpentry or to paint by reading a book.

Showing someone how to do a task requires some good skills at communication. When I hear butchery of the English language it is almost never by a skilled worker. Unskilled or semi-skilled? Sure.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

One needs good reading skills to be good at many technical activities.

Learning by doing is a legitimate means of learning. Nobody is going to ever learn to do carpentry or to paint by reading a book.

Showing someone how to do a task requires some good skills at communication. When I hear butchery of the English language it is almost never by a skilled worker. Unskilled or semi-skilled? Sure.

So why not leave poor ole Classic Xer to wallow in the misery of his own ignorance?
It's obvious that you guys find him threatening, which means that (contrary to your theory) he manages to communicate his ideas just fine even with bad grammar.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Quite so. Republican use of the word "Democrat" in those contexts is a deliberate slur.

That's exactly right. It's got nothing to do with grammar at all.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

So why not leave poor ole Classic Xer to wallow in the misery of his own ignorance?
It's obvious that you guys find him threatening, which means that (contrary to your theory) he manages to communicate his ideas just fine even with bad grammar.

Well let's see....

Debate with folks like him here is entertaining. But on another level, yes, folks like him are threatening. That doesn't mean we need to be fearful of them, but it is true that they need to be defeated politically if we are to survive and advance in America and on Earth. They threaten this survival and progress with their support for destructive policies, and they are still winning.

As far as grammar goes, again it's just fun to pick on him, and we pick on each other; but excessive grammar mistakes do make a post harder to read. Classic X says he doesn't like to read, which is not of advantage to someone who wishes to be informed about the issues. From my point of view, I consider that those of his point of view are in fact misinformed and deceived. So it figures that he doesn't read much. It's easier just to react on emotion or prejudice rather than truth and knowledge if you are not well informed.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well let's see....

Debate with folks like him here is entertaining. But on another level, yes, folks like him are threatening. That doesn't mean we need to be fearful of them, but it is true that they need to be defeated politically if we are to survive and advance in America and on Earth. They threaten this survival and progress with their support for destructive policies, and they are still winning. ...

Honestly, I think that we are ALL in this together. All on the same ship. All of us can be shown to be hypocrites at some level. Human nature is part of nature. As a cynic, I think that our nature will eventually result in massive catastrophe, the elimination of many, many more species, and possibly even a return to only the simplest organisms on the planet.

Do I think we still have time to turn it around? Yes. Do I think we have it in our nature to do so? No.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well let's see....

Debate with folks like him here is entertaining. But on another level, yes, folks like him are threatening. That doesn't mean we need to be fearful of them, but it is true that they need to be defeated politically if we are to survive and advance in America and on Earth. They threaten this survival and progress with their support for destructive policies, and they are still winning.

As far as grammar goes, again it's just fun to pick on him, and we pick on each other; but excessive grammar mistakes do make a post harder to read. Classic X says he doesn't like to read, which is not of advantage to someone who wishes to be informed about the issues. From my point of view, I consider that those of his point of view are in fact misinformed and deceived. So it figures that he doesn't read much. It's easier just to react on emotion or prejudice rather than truth and knowledge if you are not well informed.

No, I don't read very much and reading a book is not considered to be one of my favorite pass times. However, I do know how to read and have no issues with reading in general. Why is it fun to pick on me, I generally ignore trivial nit picking and continue to point out major flaws in your views and sting you with a dose of reality, a known truth and pin point questions and solid remarks. Excessive and thoughtless views, fearful rants and pointless arguments or debates are hard to read and follow too. Yet, liberals continue to do them on a regular basis without a problem and receive praise for all its gibberish.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Excessive and thoughtless views, fearful rants and pointless arguments or debates are hard to read and follow too.

Amen to that!

Originally Posted by TnT

Honestly, I think that we are ALL in this together. All on the same ship. All of us can be shown to be hypocrites at some level. Human nature is part of nature. As a cynic, I think that our nature will eventually result in massive catastrophe, the elimination of many, many more species, and possibly even a return to only the simplest organisms on the planet.

Do I think we still have time to turn it around? Yes. Do I think we have it in our nature to do so? No.

Since I know that generally speaking you understand on the material level what we need, that you are a cynic anyway shows the need for a more spiritual perspective too; one which allows for the presence of higher consciousness that can guide us and is evolving within us.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

No, I don't read very much and reading a book is not considered to be one of my favorite pass times. However, I do know how to read and have no issues with reading in general. Why is it fun to pick on me, I generally ignore trivial nit picking and continue to point out major flaws in your views and sting you with a dose of reality, a known truth and pin point questions and solid remarks.

But when confronted with refutation of these supposed realities, you are unable to reply with any point, other than that you hate liberals.

Excessive and thoughtless views, fearful rants and pointless arguments or debates are hard to read and follow too.

Yes, which is what conservatives here post. NTTAWWT I don't discourage you from posting, but I would encourage you to make thoughtful answers to the points liberals make, instead of thoughtless statements that liberals just make thoughtless statements. Prove your points, if you think they are worthwhile, and that ours are not.

Yet, liberals continue to do them on a regular basis without a problem and receive praise for all its gibberish.

I think it is quite gibberishinal to claim this, and yet to offer no points or examples in support of it (I see none here, for example).

Guys, quit responding to CynicHero, the guy is a complete nutcase whose Dark Enlightenment crackpottery does not deserve a response.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

No, I don't read very much and reading a book is not considered to be one of my favorite pass times. However, I do know how to read and have no issues with reading in general. Why is it fun to pick on me, I generally ignore trivial nit picking and continue to point out major flaws in your views and sting you with a dose of reality, a known truth and pin point questions and solid remarks. Excessive and thoughtless views, fearful rants and pointless arguments or debates are hard to read and follow too. Yet, liberals continue to do them on a regular basis without a problem and receive praise for all its gibberish.

Your lack of self-awareness in this post is pretty funny. The pot calling the kettle black.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But when confronted with refutation of these supposed realities, you are unable to reply with any point, other than that you hate liberals.


Yes, which is what conservatives here post. NTTAWWT I don't discourage you from posting, but I would encourage you to make thoughtful answers to the points liberals make, instead of thoughtless statements that liberals just make thoughtless statements. Prove your points, if you think they are worthwhile, and that ours are not.



I think it is quite gibberishinal to claim this, and yet to offer no points or examples in support of it (I see none here, for example).

What point are you making now?

There's been some hope on the Right of late that Scott Walker could be the exception to an increasingly crowded 2016 GOP clown car. A recent poll in Wisconsin appears to suggest otherwise -

https://law.marquette.edu/poll/2015/...approval-down/

Walker's popularity has gone upside down in his state - his approval has dropped to 41% and disapproval has gone to 56%. Moreover, in head to head, with Clinton, his state gives Clinton a 52 to 40% advantage.

On it's surface, it shows that even "favorite son" status is not likely to take a chip out of the "Blue Wall" the GOP faces in 2016.

More fundamental, it may be an additional data point (needing a state to national adjustment) on where to draw the line -



- the thesis being that as a GOP candidate becomes more well-know, his favorably tops out below 40% - Walker just barely beats that in his own home state.

But perhaps the most significant possibility posed by the poll is this -

In a possible 2016 U.S. Senate race, former Sen. Russ Feingold has the support of 54 percent of registered voter, leading incumbent Sen. Ron Johnson, who has 38 percent, with 9 percent not expressing a preference.

Johnson is one of the group that got elected in the 2010 mid-term election that's up again but this time in a Presidential election. It is very possible that 2016 will show what the low-turnout, T-bagger fad mid-term 2010 election actually was - a fluke.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

So, refuting our points is automatic for left-wing progressives like yourself and caused me to say that to you and the Democrats who indirectly support you and your views with their votes.

Some powerful people believe exactly what they have conditioned you to believe -- and if they get their chance they will make any other beliefs at best irrelevant and at worst perilous. The Koch front ALEC has begun pushing legislation to outlaw any discussion of the risks of global warming in K-12 public education. I can only imagine what follows. A "free market" as the Koch family wants -- that is, a market that allows the economic elite the freedom to do whatever it wants yet shackles the minds of everyone else isn't my idea of freedom. Such is just as bad as fascism, Communism, or Ba'athism.

Bernie Sanders would be your choice for a candidate. Socialism is a lot more common on the left than on the right. I've seen it commonly referred to and supported here for years. I don't have to be told or informed by Republicans. I'm right here amongst you and I've been here for years.

If it takes a little socialism to protect competitive politics, human rights, and due process then so be it. I don't accept the proposition that George Gilder offers in his reactionary manifesto Wealth & Poverty -- that the common man can have freedom so long as he leaves economic questions to the 'legitimate authorities', namely the super-rich with entrenched power. Narrow the realm of potential discussion and you narrow freedom. The Right would prefer that we liberals debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin than economic issues that decide whether life is satisfying or miserable outside the elite.

I don't have a stereotype of left-wing progressives. I have strong personal opinions that have been formed about progressives from direct social interaction, communications and general observations obtained from them here over a decade in the flesh, so to speak.

I heard much of what you believe on FoX Propaganda Channel.

Delusions about anything important are never practical.

Much that isn't practical is necessary, is it not? Training of blacks in Apartheid-era South Africa to be laborers and servants was strictly practical. So it can be in America under a plutocratic oligarchy. Why read Macbeth and discover what is wrong with thuggish government when thuggish government is the norm? Why read Candide and challenge the facile assumptions of the time when those facile assumptions are to be accepted without question? Why read Faust and question whether a commitment to a bad deal merits resistance when the foundation of the economy is people committing to raw deals because such is all that the elites offer?

Why should anyone learn about Mozart when there is more lucrative country music to listen to? The Divertimento K.563 for violin, viola, and cello has gotten me out of the mood to slash my wrists at least a few times. If I listened to some depressing country music and took down some whiskey instead, maybe I would have slashed my wrists. Some people on the Web would rather that I did just that.

OK -- it is always impractical to challenge a status quo that rapacious, selfish elites offer as the only possible reality. Martin Luther King could have been more 'practical' and used his talents for something other than supporting civil rights for unglamorous Southern blacks -- maybe becoming a stage or screen actor. He would have been good at it and would have made lots of money at it. He'd probably rival Sidney Poitier, Morgan Freeman, and James Earl Jones.

Just imagine him delivering a rendition of the Gettysburg Address... or the words of the Copland/Sandburg Lincoln Portrait. Maybe he could even be the narrator of Gurrelieder.

"Practical" isn't always noble, and at times it is wrong.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

What point are you making now?

My points were made a few posts back. You have still not responded to them in a constructive way.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

So, refuting our points is automatic for left-wing progressives like yourself and caused me to say that to you and the Democrats who indirectly support you and your views with their votes.

Unable to refute our statements, you resort to how much you hate us, having nothing coherent to say.

Bernie Sanders would be your choice for a candidate. Socialism is a lot more common on the left than on the right. I've seen it commonly referred to and supported here for years. I don't have to be told or informed by Republicans. I'm right here amongst you and I've been here for years.

Socialism is government ownership and control of the economy. Most liberals here don't go that far; I'm not sure about Bernie Sanders, since he does not disclaim the label, although he prefers to go by the label "independent."

I don't have a stereotype of left-wing progressives. I have strong personal opinions that have been formed about progressives from direct social interaction, communications and general observations obtained from them here over a decade in the flesh, so to speak.

You disagree with us. But it's the issues that are important, not the personalities. The latter is a waste of time to dwell upon.

Delusions about anything important are never practical.

Correct. Equating money with the wealth it indicates can be a delusion. It is only a means to an end. You say money is important. That's true, but the issue is who controls the money. It is not most of the people; it is an elite that is blocking all progress toward any degree of justice or common sense solutions to problems, just so that they can keep their wealth and power over us. They deceive so-called conservatives such as yourself by blaming and stirring up dislike of welfare recipients and people of color, and spouting stupid slogans that free enterprise is freedom and taxes are theft. They stir up culture wars that encourage folks like you to "support their own kind" or "the right values." But if you are wise, you will not be deceived by these tactics, and will wake up to what our country needs.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Unable to refute our statements, you resort to how much you hate us, having nothing coherent to say.

Prepare for it getting much worse as the 2016 election will clearly indicate the Right becoming more and more a regional/rural power rather than a national one.

As they get backed into a corner, I'm pretty sure its going to be unpleasant for everyone; unpleasant but necessary and inevitable.

New CNN poll -

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/20/politi...an-field-poll/

- has 70% of Dems supporting HC as first choice and 83% as either 1st or 2nd choice. Those enthused about her candidacy has risen to 58%.

This would indicate the race will come down to turnout in either FL or OH alone to put HC over the top, or any 2-state combination of VA, NC, IA, CO, AZ, GA, MO, WV.

The GOP candidate would need to win all of the above states, and to do that, they would need low voter turnout in all of them as well. That why Dem's HC enthusiasm is key - if that remains high, the race is over before it really gets going.

Originally Posted by playwrite

As they get backed into a corner, I'm pretty sure its going to be unpleasant for everyone; unpleasant but necessary and inevitable.

I'm pretty sure its going to be unpleasant for everyone too. I think it will be more unpleasant on the left than the right and I wouldn't want to be stuck in an urban area at the time that it begins to happen.